AKILAH MOORE, ET AL. v. WILLIAM LEE, ET AL.
No. M2022-00434-SC-RDO-CV
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE
APR 13 2022
Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County No. 22-0287-IV Chancellor Russell T. Perkins, Judge J. Michael Sharp, and Chancellor Steven W. Maroney
ROGER A. PAGE, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which JEFFREY S. BIVINS, HOLLY KIRBY, and SARAH K. CAMPBELL, JJ., joined. SHARON G. LEE, J., filed a separate dissenting opinion.
David W. Garrison, Scott P. Tift, and Josh Spragens, Nashville, Tennessee, for the plaintiffs Akilah Moore, Telise Turner, and Gary Wright.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Andree S. Blumstein, Solicitor General; Janet M. Kleinfelter, Deputy Attorney General; Alexander S. Rieger, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Pablo A. Varela, Assistant Attorney General for the defendants, William Lee, as Governor of Tennessee, in his official capacity, Tre Hargett, as Tennessee Secretary of State, in his official capacity, and Mark Goins, as Tennessee Coordinator of Elections, in his official capacity.
OPINION
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Following the 2020 census, the General Assembly reapportioned the districts for the Tennessee State Senate as required by article II, section 4 of the Tennessee Constitution. This was done through Senate Bill 0780, which was passed by both Houses of the General Assembly, and signed into law by the Governor as Public Chapter 596 on February 6, 2022 (“the Senate plan“).
On February 23, 2022, the Plaintiffs, who are three registered voters in Tennessee, filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, challenging the constitutionality of the Senate plan.1 On March 1, 2022, this Court affirmed a decision by the trial court that the statutory criteria for a three-judge panel under
[g]iven all the attendant circumstances, including Defendants’ preliminary estimate that they needed to develop expert proof to defend Plaintiffs’ constitutional challenges and the possibility that discovery might be necessary, the Panel concludes that expediting these proceedings as requested would not allow the important constitutional questions to be fully and meaningfully considered and adjudicated on the merits.3
On March 11, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their first amended verified complaint as well as a motion for temporary injunction. In their amended complaint, the Plaintiffs asked the panel to declare that the Senate plan violates article II, section 3 of the Tennessee Constitution by failing to consecutively number the Senatorial districts in Davidson County. In their amended complaint and motion for temporary injunction, the Plaintiffs further asked the panel to (1) prohibit the Defendants from enforcing or giving any effect to the Senate plan, including barring the Defendants from conducting any elections under the plan; (2) provide the General Assembly with fifteen days to remedy the identified constitutional defects, consistent with
On April 7, 2022, the Defendants sought review of the panel‘s decision enjoining the Senate plan by filing in the Court of Appeals an Application for Extraordinary Appeal pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Defendants also filed an Emergency Motion to Stay Pending Extraordinary Appeal pursuant to Rule 7 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, requesting that the injunction be stayed pending appeal and seeking expedited review. On April 8, 2022, this Court, on its own motion, entered an order pursuant to
“The trial court‘s decision to grant the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary injunction is discretionary and is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” Fisher v. Hargett, 604 S.W.3d 381, 395 (Tenn. 2020). “A court abuses its discretion when it causes an injustice to the party challenging the decision by (1) applying an incorrect legal standard, (2) reaching an illogical or unreasonable decision, or (3) basing its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Id. (quoting Harmon v. Hickman Cmty. Healthcare Servs., Inc., 594 S.W.3d 297, 305-06 (Tenn. 2020)). This Court has further stated that “[a]n abuse of discretion occurs when a court . . . fails to properly consider the factors customarily used to guide the particular discretionary decision.” Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515, 524 (Tenn. 2010) (citing State v. Lewis, 235 S.W.3d 136, 141 (Tenn. 2007)). “Whether the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard is a question of law and is reviewed de novo with no presumption of correctness.” Fisher, 604 S.W.3d at 395. While questions of fact are normally reviewed de novo with a presumption of correctness unless the evidence preponderates otherwise, in appeals such as this where all evidence is documentary, we afford no deference or presumption of correctness to the trial court‘s findings of fact. Id.
ANALYSIS
A temporary injunction may be granted during the pendency of an action if it is clearly shown by verified complaint, affidavit or other evidence that the movant‘s rights are being or will be violated by an adverse party and the movant will suffer immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage pending a final judgment in the action, or that the acts or omissions of the adverse party will tend to render such final judgment ineffectual.
Like the federal courts, Tennessee trial courts consider four factors in determining whether to issue a temporary injunction: “(1) the threat of irreparable harm to the plaintiff if the injunction is not granted; (2) the balance between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction would inflict on defendant; (3) the probability that plaintiff will succeed on the merits; and (4) the public interest.
Fisher, 604 S.W.3d at 394 (quoting Moody v. Hutchison, 247 S.W.3d 187, 199-200 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007)).
We also have explained that mandatory injunctions—which, as here, alter the status quo and order the defendant to take action—are extraordinary in nature and should be granted only in exceptional circumstances. Fisher, 604 S.W.3d. at 394-95 (citing Cole v. Dych, 535 S.W.2d 315, 322 (Tenn. 1976); King v. Elrod, 268 S.W.2d 103, 106 (Tenn. 1954)). Indeed, this Court observed more than 150 years ago that “there is no power the exercise of which is more delicate, which requires greater caution, deliberation and sound discretion or is more dangerous in a doubtful case” than the discretion of granting an injunction. Mabry v. Ross, 48 Tenn. 769, 774 (1870).
The Defendants argue that the trial court erred in finding that the Plaintiffs have standing to challenge the Senate plan, and that the trial court erred in failing to consider the harm to the Defendants and the public interest in issuing the temporary injunction. We need not address standing for purposes of this time-sensitive interlocutory appeal because we agree with the Defendants that, in issuing the temporary injunction, the trial court failed to properly consider the harm to the Defendants and the public interest.6
The Defendants argue that the trial court did not adequately consider the harm to the State and the public interest in enjoining the Senate plan and extending the candidate filing deadline—which
In response to the Plaintiffs’ motion for temporary injunction, the Defendants submitted, among other things, the affidavits of Beth Henry Robertson, the Assistant Coordinator of Elections for the State of Tennessee; Linda Phillips, the Administrator of Elections for Shelby County, Tennessee; Tammy Smith, the Administrator of Elections for Wilson County, Tennessee; and Chris Davis, the Administrator of Elections for Knox County, Tennessee. These affidavits set forth in robust detail the myriad responsibilities our state and county election officials have in ensuring an orderly election process, and the timelines under which they must satisfy those obligations. For example, Ms. Robertson explained in her affidavit how statutory deadlines for candidate withdrawal and disqualification are tied to the April 7 qualifying deadline, and how those deadlines in turn impact the ability of election officials to satisfy the requirements for military and overseas citizen ballots under the Military and Overseas Voters Empowerment (“MOVE“) Act,
The Plaintiffs argue that the trial court sufficiently took these factors into consideration in setting a candidate filing deadline of May 5, 2022, rather than the date of May 20, 2022, as originally proposed in the Plaintiffs’ motion for temporary injunction. The Plaintiffs further argue that the May 5, 2022 filing deadline will still allow the State to comply with federal law regarding the mailing of military ballots, and as a result “there is now nothing in the record to support the State‘s claims of harm.” We disagree. The affidavits submitted by the Defendants detail harm to the election process well beyond the obligations to comply with federal law, as detailed above. While the affidavits understandably address the May 20, 2022 deadline originally proposed by the Plaintiffs, the affidavits make clear that any delay beyond the statutory deadline places a burden on election officials. Ms. Robertson specifically states in her affidavit that moving the candidate qualifying deadline to “any other date later in the election cycle,” will risk compliance with the MOVE Act and compromise the ability to “timely and accurately” prepare for the upcoming elections. As we have explained, the April 7, 2022 filing deadline is set by statute.
In Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) (per curiam), the United States Supreme Court vacated an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit enjoining the operation of Arizona voter identification procedures. In doing so, the Supreme Court recognized that a state “indisputably has a compelling interest in preserving the integrity of its election process.” Id. at 4 (quoting Eu v. San Francisco Cnty. Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214, 231 (1989)). The Supreme Court further recognized that “[c]onfidence in the integrity of our electoral processes is essential to the
Federal courts have applied the Purcell principle in declining to preliminarily enjoin redistricting plans. In Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc. v. Raffensperger, --- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 633312, at *74, *76 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 28, 2022), the plaintiffs challenged Georgia‘s newly adopted redistricting plan under the Voting Rights Act and moved for a preliminary injunction. In an opinion issued six days before candidate qualifying for the State of Georgia was set to begin, the district court found that the plaintiffs had shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and that they were likely to suffer irreparable harm, but nevertheless the district court declined to issue a preliminary injunction after finding that the balancing of harms and the public interest weighed against the injunction. The district court explained that “elections are complex and election calendars are finely calibrated processes, and significant upheaval and voter confusion can result if changes are made late in the process.” Id. at *74. The court found that “moving the date for qualifying without moving the date of the primary election risks the accuracy of the primary because of the required timelines for building ballot combinations, proofing draft ballots, and preparing ballots for printing by the deadline for overseas and military voters.” Id. at *75. The district court also recognized that requiring the Georgia General Assembly to draw new plans at such a late stage presented its own risks because “a quick plan [ ] is not necessarily a good plan,” and voters and candidates are not well served “by a chaotic, last-minute reordering of districts.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). Similarly, in Diaz v. Silver, 932 F. Supp. 462 (E.D.N.Y. 1996), voters brought suit challenging the constitutionality of a congressional redistricting plan and sought a preliminary injunction. A three-judge panel of the district court assumed, for purposes of the motion for preliminary injunction, that the plaintiffs had a likelihood of success on the merits and would suffer irreparable harm. Id. at 466. Nevertheless, the court found that the public interest weighed heavily against an injunction given the impact it would have on the “election machinery” that was already “in gear.” Id. at 466, 469.
This Court similarly has shown restraint when asked to enjoin the effectiveness of constitutionally suspect reapportionment plans. Following the 1980 census, a suit was filed challenging the constitutionality of the reapportionment of the Tennessee Senate. State ex rel. Lockert v. Crowell, 631 S.W.2d 702, 703 (Tenn. 1982). The Chancery Court for Davidson County granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and enjoined the
Here, the panel majority summarily concluded that the Plaintiffs had “made a sufficient showing on the question of the public interest and the balancing of harms as to the Senate plan.” However, the panel did not address the robust defense evidence of the harm that will result from delaying the Senatorial candidate filing deadline. Even where, as here, a court determines that a plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits and there is a risk of irreparable harm,8 the court must carefully weigh the balance between that harm and the harm that granting the injunction will inflict on the defendant, as well as the public interest. Here, we observe that Plaintiff Moore‘s alleged irreparable injury is not to her ability to vote, but rather to her alleged right to vote in a county that has consecutively numbered Senate districts. We find that alleged harm is outweighed by the significant harm the injunction will inflict on the Defendants and the public interest, as detailed in the affidavits of four election officials. Under these circumstances, we hold that the trial court erred by granting the extraordinary remedy of a mandatory temporary injunction impacting the electoral process in this State.
The order of the trial court granting the Plaintiffs a temporary injunction is vacated, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The Defendants’ motion to stay the injunction pending appeal is denied as moot. Recognizing that the trial court‘s April 6, 2022 order created uncertainty regarding the Senatorial districts and extended the April 7, 2022 noon filing deadline for prospective state Senatorial candidates until May 5, 2022 at noon, an extension of time equal to the time remaining on the statutory deadline when the injunction was entered is afforded, and it is hereby ordered that the filing deadline for prospective state Senatorial candidates shall be Thursday, April 14, 2022, at 4 p.m. prevailing time.
This Opinion is not subject to rehearing under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 39, and the Clerk is directed to certify this Opinion as final and to immediately issue the mandate. Costs on appeal are taxed to the Plaintiffs, for which execution may issue if necessary.
ROGER A. PAGE, CHIEF JUSTICE