Monthly Archives: April 2018

Restaurateur Wins Defamation Suit (Again)

In a resounding win, celebrated Nashville restaurateur Randy Rayburn has again beaten back a multi-million dollar defamation and false light lawsuit filed against him by Thomas Nathan Loftis, Sr., the former director of Nashville State’s culinary program.  In a unanimous ruling, the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the outright dismissal of Mr. Loftis’s claims on the basis that Loftis had advanced a “far-fetched and not a reasonable interpretation” of the statements that he had sued over, and that “the statements in the newspaper article are not defamatory as a matter of law.”  The Court of Appeals also ordered Mr. Loftis to pay for the costs of the lawsuit, and it further ordered the Trial Court to determine whether Loftis must pay Mr. Rayburn’s legal fees.

Given the serious threat that the case posed to the viability of newsgathering in Tennessee, the lawsuit attracted national attention from First Amendment organizations like The First Amendment Center’s Newseum Institute and TechDirt.  Following a disturbing trend in local media of inflating the legitimacy of almost uniformly baseless defamation lawsuits when they are filed but failing to cover them after they fail, however, the Court of Appeals’ decision has gone unreported in Nashville.

Mr. Loftis’s lawsuit was novel in that it was filed over statements that had been authored by a Tennessean newspaper journalist in an article in which Mr. Rayburn—the supposed source of the statements at issue—was not even quoted.  As a result, the lawsuit attempted to run an end-around Tennessee’s source-protection statutes, and it also served as a warning that anyone who is even referenced in a news article containing critical coverage can be threatened with multi-year, multi-million dollar litigation.  Had the lawsuit been permitted to go forward, it stands to reason that news sources would have been far less likely to speak to journalists on the record or to interact with the media at all.

Significantly, the case also involved a stunning, outright acknowledgement from Mr. Loftis’s counsel that Mr. Rayburn had been sued in part because the newspaper that had actually published the statements at issue was more likely to be able to defend itself.  Specifically, during oral argument before the Court of Appeals, Mr. Loftis’s counsel had the following exchange with the Court:

Judge Neal McBrayer: “Why isn’t the Tennessean the proper party here?”

Gary Blackburn (Attorney for Tom Loftis):  “Your Honor, there were practical reasons for that . . . .  It is easier to bring a lawsuit against the person who uttered the words than against a publication that buys ink by the barrel, as they say, and has lots of resources.

Unfortunately, this strategy—which is rarely acknowledged so openly—is all-too-common in the defamation world.  Given the enormous costs of civil litigation, powerful people seeking to stifle criticism often file flagrantly baseless claims against those perceived to have limited resources in the hopes of being able to censor them.  As a result, as the author has explained previously, being able to sue for defamation “provide[s] enormous space for the powerful and well-resourced to threaten, censor, abuse, and intimidate those who lack the means, knowledge, or fortitude to defend themselves.”

All considered, the Court of Appeals’ decision constitutes a total victory and complete vindication for Mr. Rayburn, who has maintained that the lawsuit was frivolous from the beginning.  “We’re thrilled about this resounding win, which fully vindicates Mr. Rayburn and the First Amendment yet again,” said Daniel Horwitz, Mr. Rayburn’s attorney.  “Filing a lawsuit this frivolous was a very poor decision, and unfortunately for Mr. Loftis, it is about to become an expensive one as well.”

The Court of Appeals’ unanimous decision, authored by Judge Andy Bennett, is available here.  Selected case documents and media coverage are available below.

Like ScotBlog?  Join our email list or contact us here, or follow along on Twitter @Scot_Blog and facebook at https://www.facebook.com/scotblog.org

Selected Case Documents:

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint

Plaintiff’s Response to Motion to Dismiss (1)/Plaintiff’s Response to Motion to Dismiss (2)

Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Response

Transcript of Hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

*Order Dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint With Prejudice

Brief of Plaintiff-Appellant Thomas Nathan Loftis, Sr.

Brief of Defendant-Appellee and Cross-Appellant Randy Rayburn

*Appellate Court Order Denying Plaintiff’s Appeal and Remanding for Consideration of Attorney’s Fees Award

Selected Media Coverage:

-The Tennessean: Defamation lawsuit against restaurateur Randy Rayburn dismissed — again

-TechDirt: Judge Dumps Stupid Libel Suit Featuring A Man Suing A Third Party For Things A Journalist Said

-Nashville Business Journal: Nashville restaurateur Randy Rayburn faces $1.5 million lawsuit

-TechDirt: Former University Official Files Libel Lawsuit Against His Replacement For Things A Journalist Said

-Nashville Business Journal: Judge dismisses $1.5M suit against well-known restaurateur

-First Amendment Center’s Newseum Institute: Unusual Defamation Suit Targets Source of Story

 

Tennessee Passes Bill to Allow In-Home Beauty Services

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Nashville, Tenn., April  25, 2018—Late yesterday afternoon, the Tennessee General Assembly completed the final step in passing a bill to allow in-home beauty services across Tennessee.  State Senator Steve Dickerson, R-Nashville, State Representative Sam Whitson, R-Franklin, and State Representative Jason Powell, D-Nashville, were the primary sponsors of the bill.  Once signed by Governor Haslam, the reform will allow Tennesseans to purchase beauty services in the privacy of their own homes and businesses.

The bill follows The Tennessee Board of Cosmetology and Barber Examiners’s 2016 decision to issue a cease-and-desist letter and file a formal complaint against Belle—a popular Nashville-based technology company that provides on-demand health and beauty services—for bringing “highly disturbing” competition into Tennessee’s beauty industry.  The Board initially alleged that Belle was violating the state’s cosmetology laws, but withdrew its complaint after Belle formally contested the Board’s allegations.  The Board’s decision to withdraw its complaint was covered widely in local, state, and national media, including ForbesYahooReason, the Nashville Business Journal, the Memphis Commercial Appeal, and the Daily Signal, among others.

“With the passing of this bill, Tennesseans will now have the right to enjoy concierge cosmetology services just like many other Americans,” said Armand Lauzon, CEO of Belle.  “Beyond that, it grants tens of thousands of cosmetologists access to the American dream by legalizing entrepreneurship in the industry. The General Assembly should be very proud of this needed reform.”

“Passage of this bill represents another step in our state to remove barriers that interfere with Tennesseans achieving the American Dream,” added Senator Dickerson.

The reform passed unanimously in the Tennessee State Senate, and it succeeded by a margin of 81-6 in the Tennessee House.  Along with the bill’s sponsors, Tennessee House Speaker Beth Harwell, R-Nashville, was instrumental in its passage.  “I was proud to support this legislation repealing a burdensome regulation.  Entrepreneurs across the state will now be able to provide convenient services to Tennesseans, and create prosperity for themselves and their families,” said Speaker Harwell.

“In 2016, the Tennessee Board of Cosmetology unlawfully attempted to shut down one of Nashville’s most exciting new tech companies for the sole purpose of protecting an outdated industry competitor from competition,” said Daniel Horwitz, Belle’s attorney and lobbyist.  “This important reform ensures that the Board of Cosmetology will be prevented from engaging in such lawless behavior ever again.”

For press inquiries, please contact Julia Bonner at ​julia@pierce-pr.com​ or Armand Lauzon at armand@projectbelle.com​.

###​

Like ScotBlog?  Join our email list or contact us here, or follow along on Twitter @Scot_Blog and facebook at https://www.facebook.com/scotblog.org

Selected Case Documents:

Board Complaint and Demand to Cease and Desist

Respondent’s Response Letter Denying Liability and Refusing Consent Order

*Order Dismissing Complaint

Selected Media Coverage:

-Reason Tennessee Decides It’s Not Actually Dangerous for a Cosmetologist to Do House Calls

-Forbes: Tennessee Regulators Drop Complaint, Won’t Block Beauty App From Operating

-Forbes: Tennessee Wants To Shut Down This Beauty And Health App For Offering ‘Highly Disturbing’ Competition

-Nashville Business Journal: Regulators withdraw complaint against Nashville-based startups

-Reason: Tennessee Cosmetology Board Admits it Doesn’t Have Authority To Regulate Tech Companies

-Daily Signal: How This Nashville Tech Company Challenged a State Regulatory Board and Won

-The Federalist Society: Regulatory Hurdles for Entrepreneurs: The Story of Project Belle

Tennessee Supreme Court Denies Proposed Rule Change Attempting to Police Discrimination and Harassment

By Daniel A. Horwitz

Earlier today, the Tennessee Supreme Court rejected a proposed rule change that would have subjected attorneys to professional discipline for expressing views that could be considered discriminatory or harassing.  The proposed changes were roundly criticized as an overbroad infringement upon attorneys’ constitutionally protected rights to freedom of speech and association.  The controversial rule received nearly 400 pages of commentary from members of the bar, members of the public, and interested organizations.

Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(g) was initially drafted by the American Bar Association in August of 2016 as an effort to curb discrimination and harassment in the legal profession.  Thereafter, several prominent national commentators promptly criticized it, and to date, nearly every jurisdiction that has considered the proposed change has rejected it.

On November 15, 2017, the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility and the Tennessee Bar Association filed a joint petition asking the Tennessee Supreme Court to adopt an amended version of Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(g).  The proposed amendments would have made certain forms of discrimination and harassment subject to professional sanction, with several exceptions.

Despite its laudable goals, the proposed amendments suffered from serious shortcomings.  As this author noted in a recent Nashville Post article on the proposal:

“Although motivated by good intentions, proposed Rule 8.4(g) is a constitutionally infirm speech code that suffers from several critical flaws. First, it is wildly overbroad; it would, for example, prohibit attorneys from restricting their pro bono practice to female victims of domestic violence or to members of their church, because doing so would constitute sex discrimination and discrimination on the basis of religion, respectively. Second, it grants the Board of Professional Responsibility immense new regulatory authority to punish attorney speech, and based on the BPR’s long history of selective enforcement and a curious exemption in 8.4(g) that makes clear that exercising ‘peremptory challenges . . . on a discriminatory basis does not alone establish a violation,’ it is fair to say that the BPR should not be trusted with such vast censorial authority. Third, more generally, it gives the Government the power to determine what kind of speech is permissible and what kind of speech is illegal—a deeply troubling and downright dangerous proposition that cannot be squared with basic principles of the First Amendment.”

In a formal opinion released in March, the Attorney General of Tennessee similarly concluded that the proposal was unconstitutional.

Upon review, the Tennessee Supreme Court issued a per curiam order denying the BPR’s and TBA’s joint petition.  “The Court has carefully considered the BPR and TBA’s proposed amendment, the comments received, including the points and issues raised therein, and this entire matter. Upon due consideration, the BPR and TBA’s petition to adopt a new Rule 8, RPC 8.4(g) is respectfully DENIED. It is so ORDERED,” today’s Order reads.  The Court’s formal denial is accessible here.

Like ScotBlog?  Join our email list or contact us here, or follow along on Twitter @Scot_Blog and facebook at https://www.facebook.com/scotblog.org

 

 

 

 

Tennessee Court of Appeals Forces Carriage Operator Off Its High Horse In Breach of Contract Dispute

By Daniel A. Horwitz:

The Court of Appeals horsed around a bit today in a case involving a local carriage operator’s non-compete agreement.  The Court’s opinion in Sugar Creek Carriages v. Hat Creek Carriages, et al.—authored by Judge Frank Clement—is available here.

In 2017, Sugar Creek Carriages—a horse-drawn carriage company based in Nashville—filed a lawsuit seeking to force a former employee to “pony up” $2,500 in liquidated damages for breaching a non-compete contract.  Sugar Creek also sought several thousand bucks from Hat Creek Carriages—its former employee’s new employer—for procurement of breach of contract as well.  The employee was ultimately dismissed from the case, so the lawsuit proceeded on the procurement of breach of contract claim alone.

Unfortunately for Sugar Creek Carriages, its claim proved to be a bit much.  Under Tennessee law, “[t]o establish a claim for procurement of breach of contract, a plaintiff must prove seven elements:

(1) There must be a legal contract;

(2) The wrongdoer must have knowledge of the existence of the contract;

(3) There must be an intention to induce its breach;

(4) The wrongdoer must have acted with malice;

(5) There must be a breach of the contract;

(6) The act complained of must be the proximate cause of the breach of contract; and

(7) There must have been damages resulting from the breach of the contract.”[1]

Thus, even if all other elements are met, a defendant cannot be saddled with liability for procuring a breach of contract if the contract itself is legally void.

Here, Sugar Creek Carriages’ former employee had indeed signed a non-compete clause before switching companies.  As a general matter, though, covenants not to compete are disfavored under Tennessee law both because they are in restraint of trade and because there is a strong public interest in having financially stable citizens who are not deprived of their right to earn a living.[2]  However, if there is a legitimate business interest to be protected, and if the non-compete agreement is reined in by reasonable time and territorial limits, then non-compete clauses are generally enforceable under Tennessee law.[3]  Additional factors that determine whether a non-compete clause can be enforced include:

(1) the consideration supporting the covenant;

(2) the threatened danger to the employer in the absence of the covenant;

(3) the economic hardship imposed on the employee by the covenant;

(4) whether the covenant is inimical to the public interest; and

(5) whether the time and territorial limits must be no greater than necessary to protect the business interest of the employer.[4]

In the case at hand, Sugar Creek contended that its non-compete clause was enforceable because it had “a protectable business interest in the specialized and unique training” that it had provided its former employee.  As far as protecting that interest, however, Sugar Creek put the cart before the horse by simultaneously advertising to the public at large that “anybody is welcome to pay to attend [its horse-drawn carriage] driving school”—not just its employees—and by stating further that anyone who did so would immediately be “prepared to start [their] own horse-drawn carriage business.”

Consequently, Sugar Creek’s central argument that it had provided “specialized and unique training” to its former employee turned out to be lame, and the Court of Appeals quickly put it out to pasture.  Specifically, the Court explained:

“[Sugar Creek’s] advertisement for the same training program explicitly invites members of the public to compete with it.

Assuming the specialized training [Sugar Creek] provided . . . is protectable as a matter of law, the Noncompete Agreement fails to protect that interest because it attempts to shut the barn door well after the horses have bolted. As a consequence, the Noncompete Agreement is unenforceable . . ., which is also fatal to [Sugar Creek’s] claim for procurement of breach of contract.”

Thus, after roughly a year of legal jockeying, the case has finally come to a close.  The Court of Appeals’ unanimous decision has officially forced Sugar Creek off of its high horse, and now unbridled by any fear of liability, Hat Creek Carriages can hit the hay.

Like ScotBlog?  Join our email list or contact us here, or follow along on Twitter @Scot_Blog and facebook at https://www.facebook.com/scotblog.org

[1] Buddy Lee Attractions, Inc. v. William Morris Agency, Inc., 13 S.W.3d 343, 354-55 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) (citing Dynamic Motel Mgmt., Inc. v. Erwin, 528 S.W.2d 819, 822 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1975)).  See also Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-50-109.

[2] Hasty v. Rent-A-Driver, Inc., 671 S.W.2d 471, 472 (Tenn. 1984).

[3] Murfreesboro Medical Clinic, P.A. v. Udom, 166 S.W.3d 674, 678 (Tenn. 2005).

[4] Id. See also Allright Auto Parks, Inc. v. Berry, 219 Tenn. 280, 409 S .W.2d 361, 363 (1966).

Tennessee Needs to Provide More Protection to People Sued for Defamation

By Daniel A. Horwitz:

Yesterday morning, the Nashville Post reported on yet another baseless, multimillion dollar defamation lawsuit filed here in Nashville.  The lawsuit follows a series of other recent defamation actions—including since-dismissed attempts to silence dog lovers, supposed media sources, and others—that have been aimed at stifling legitimate public criticism.

It should be emphasized that the overwhelming majority of such lawsuits have no realistic chance of success in a court of law.  Disturbingly, however, regardless of their legally meritless nature, such lawsuits often achieve their intended result—censorship of critical commentary and criticism of the powerful in particular—anyway.  Because, all things being equal, people would prefer not to be sued, voluntary self-censorship can be all-too-appealing.  Thus, to prevent such societal harm, it is long past time that Tennessee adopted a meaningful Anti-SLAPP law to deter would-be censors from threatening those who lawfully exercise their fundamental right to speak freely.

Though its protections are commonly taken for granted, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution codifies the most important protection in America’s governing charter.  Chief among the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment is the proscription against government action that “abridg[es] the freedom of speech.”  Uncontroversially, the right to speak freely plays an indispensable role in enabling the free exchange of thoughts, information, and ideas.  Indeed, without such a right, democratic government would not be possible at all.  If unaccompanied by the right to speak freely and critically, for example, “free and fair” elections would quickly become unrecognizable.

When it comes to defamation lawsuits, the First Amendment affords citizens enormous protection.  In practice, however, exercising one’s constitutional right to criticize the powerful can result in ruinous financial consequences.

The ability to sue people for defamation (libel in published form, slander by spoken word) or any number of other speech-related torts—like false light invasion of privacy—operate as theoretically narrow exceptions to the broad rule that speech is not illegal.  As a practical matter, however, most people cannot afford the tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dollars in legal fees that are necessary to defend oneself against even the most frivolous defamation claims.  Nor are most people willing to endure the years of terror and stress that commonly accompany litigation.  As a consequence, in practice, these theoretically narrow exceptions provide enormous space for the powerful and well-resourced to threaten, censor, abuse, and intimidate those who lack the means, knowledge, or fortitude to defend themselves.  Further, when media outlets puff up defamation lawsuits and hype the liability that defendants are facing at the outset of a case regardless of legitimacy—but then fail to follow up after a lawsuit predictably collapses—all that viewers learn is that criticizing powerful people is dangerous.

None of this, of course, is meant to suggest that all defamation lawsuits are meritless.  In the 1966 case Rosenblatt v. Baer, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart persuasively observed that: “The right of a man to the protection of his own reputation from unjustified invasion and wrongful hurt reflects no more than our basic concept of the essential dignity and worth of every human being—a concept at the root of any decent system of ordered liberty.”  This worldview still carries widespread acceptance.  Accordingly, even the most ardent defenders of the First Amendment support defamation claims where, for example, someone falsely accuses an innocent child of being a murderer.  Indeed, even this author has filed a defamation suit to protect the reputation of an individual who was subjected to fabricated claims (on national television) of being a rapist and a thief by a woman who had had him kidnapped, tortured and very nearly killed—a lawsuit that ultimately resulted in an admission that the allegations were baseless.

Despite their frequency, however, legitimate defamation suits are few and far between.  Accordingly, the overwhelming majority of people who are sued for defamation are subjected to potential liability for lawfully exercising a constitutional right.  Further, because the First Amendment values not only the right to speak, but also the right to hear and the right to receive information, when individuals are censored, society as a whole suffers.

To deter such harm, many states have adopted “Anti-SLAPP” laws, which afford people who are sued for defamation special protections in response to “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.”  Although the substance of such laws varies across jurisdictions, they frequently contain provisions requiring mandatory payment of attorney’s fees in the event of a successful defense; an expedited process for reviewing the legitimacy of a plaintiff’s lawsuit; and/or an automatic right to appeal early on in the proceedings.

Tennessee, for its part, has a limited Anti-SLAPP law that provides for the payment of attorney’s fees when a person is improperly sued for exercising “such person’s right of free speech or petition under the Tennessee or United States Constitution in connection with a public or governmental issue,” and when the person sued has “communicate[d] information regarding another person or entity to any agency of the federal, state or local government regarding a matter of concern to that agency.”  Because few statements resulting in defamation lawsuits arise out of reports to government agencies, however, few defendants are able to take advantage of the law’s protection.  Given that speech in the public square is every bit as important as statements made to government agencies, however, it is long past time for these protections to be expanded.

Like ScotBlog?  Join our email list or contact us here, or follow along on Twitter @Scot_Blog and facebook at https://www.facebook.com/scotblog.org

February 2018 Tennessee Bar Results: Maximiliano Gluzman Passes, Nashville School of Law Posts Anemic 13% Passage Rate

By Daniel A. Horwitz:

Earlier this morning, the Tennessee Board of Law Examiners released the results of the February 2018 Tennessee Bar Exam.  Taken by 281 prospective lawyers, the exam resulted in an unusually low total passage rate of 35%.  Although Vanderbilt Law School and the University of Memphis School of Law posted respectable passage rates of 100% and 58%, respectively, the total rate of successful takers was dragged down substantially by another dismal performance by Nashville School of Law, which posted an overall passage rate of just 13%.

One notable bright spot in the exam was the success of Maximiliano Gabriel Gluzman, the “obviously very, very qualified” Vanderbilt Law School graduate who was denied the opportunity even to take the Tennessee Bar Exam until that denial was unanimously reversed by the Tennessee Supreme Court last summer.  Thereafter, Mr. Gluzman’s case resulted in substantial amendments to Tennessee’s bar eligibility rules for foreign applicants, which will enable the Volunteer State to play an increasingly large role in conducting international business and prevent continued discrimination against foreign applicants going forward.

Mr. Gluzman’s success, while unsurprising, is also particularly sweet for his lawyer (the author), who has spent much of the past year bristling at the Board of Law Examiners’ assertion—supplied by former Tennessee Supreme Court Justice William Barker—that most people like Mr. Gluzman who take the bar exam “don’t pass.”  Like his colleagues on the Board of Law Examiners, former Justice Barker specifically voted against permitting Mr. Gluzman the opportunity even to sit for the bar exam on the basis that: “I just hate for people to come spend all the time and money and years of their lives with no possibility of passing.”  Mr. Gluzman has since passed two bar exams, each on his first attempt.

Speaking of people who spend a huge amount of “time and money and years of their lives with no possibility of passing,” however, it is long past time for the Tennessee Board of Law Examiners to take a serious look at what has been going on at Nashville School of Law.  For context, in 2014, Nashville School of Law secured new leadership and pledged to improve its state-worst passage rate of what was then 65-70%.  Since that time, the school has posted overall passage rates of 50% (February 2015), 28% (July 2015), 30% (February 2016), 28% (July 2016), 35% (February 2017), 38% (July 2017), and 13% (February 2018).  In other words: the school is on a downward trajectory, and it hasn’t had a majority of its students pass the bar exam in years.  Thus, if the Board of Law Examiners’ concern—expressed passionately with regard to foreign applicants like Mr. Gluzman—that prospective students will spend time and money training for an exam that they have no hope of passing was genuine, then presumably, Nashville School of Law’s consistently anemic passage rate will at some point come under the Board’s microscope.

It should be emphasized that Nashville School of Law has produced many wonderful, capable graduates—including the author’s co-counsel in another major Supreme Court victory earlier this week.  Thus, the issue likely has less to do with poor instruction than it does an administration that has liberalized admissions standards and accepted applicants who statistically have no reasonable chance of passing the bar exam after graduating.  As the author has previously explained:

Driven by a rapid decrease in law school applicants over the past several years (the total number of law school applicants has declined precipitously since 2010, falling from a high of 87,900 to a low of 54,130 in 2015), the academic credentials of incoming law students have measurably decreased.  Controversially, many law schools have responded to this problem (and the corresponding loss of revenue) by decreasing their admissions standards, which has predictably resulted in lower bar passage rates post-graduation.

In other words: to make up for lost revenue, many law schools have simply let in anybody who is willing to pay tuition.  The result is a major disservice to countless students who ultimately waste years of their lives and tens of thousands of dollars (or more)—not including opportunity costs—in pursuit of a profession that they likely will never be able to practice.

If Nashville School of Law were accredited by the American Bar Association, it would have been subject to discipline for both its lax admissions standards and its atrocious bar passage rate a long time ago, as Duncan School of Law was earlier this week.  However, Nashville School of Law is not an ABA-accredited law school, and it is instead regulated directly by the Tennessee Supreme Court.  Hopefully, at some point soon, the Court will step in and force the school to improve its admissions standards in the name of protecting hundreds of future applicants from wasting their time and money on a degree that they will never be able to use.

Like ScotBlog?  Join our email list or contact us here, or follow along on Twitter @Scot_Blog and facebook at https://www.facebook.com/scotblog.org

Mr. Wallace Goes to Court (Update: He Won)

UPDATE: By Order issued 4/10/2018, Nashville’s Mayoral Election must be held in May.  The Court’s unanimous opinion is available here.  

“We are grateful that the Tennessee Supreme Court has issued a powerful, persuasive, and unanimous opinion vindicating Mr. Wallace’s claim that the Charter is clear and that Metro Government cannot unilaterally nullify a referendum supported by 83% of voters.” —Jamie Hollin and Daniel Horwitz, Counsel for Ludye Wallace

_______________________

Yesterday afternoon, the Tennessee Supreme Court’s full gallery of onlookers was treated to an unprecedented event: an emergency appeal demanding that Metro Nashville hold a near-immediate special election to fill the vacancy in its Mayor’s office.  The office became vacant on March 6, 2018, when ex-Mayor Megan Barry resigned after pleading guilty to felony theft.  Following an extraordinary oral argument in which lawyers for the city argued that they had provided an “inaccurate” ballot summary to voters, the Court announced that it would issue a ruling sometime this week.

The emergency appeal—filed on behalf of Mayoral candidate and former Metro Councilman Ludye Wallace—centers on Section 15.03 of Nashville’s Metro Charter.  In pertinent part, that section reads: “There shall be held a special metropolitan election to fill a vacancy for the unexpired term in the office of mayor . . . whenever such vacancy shall exist more than twelve (12) months prior to the date of the next general metropolitan election.”  Consequently, the case turns on when “the next general metropolitan election” is scheduled to take place.  If, as Mr. Wallace argues, “the next general metropolitan election” is not until August 2019, then a special election must be held in May.  If, as Metro argues, there will be a “general metropolitan election” in August 2018, however, then the election can be held then.

Helpfully, the Metro Charter expressly defines “general metropolitan elections.”  One provision of the Charter—Section 15.01—is specifically titled “When general metropolitan elections held,” and it makes clear that such elections are only held every fourth August in odd-numbered years.  Another Charter provision referring exclusively to those four-year August elections—Section 15.02—uses the term “the general metropolitan election” seven separate times.  And another Charter provision—Section 18.06—reflects that Metro has uniformly considered those specific four-year August elections to be the only type of “general metropolitan elections” for decades.

Most clearly, however, because Section 15.03 was enacted by voter referendum in 2007, Metro was also required to provide a summary of the provision at the time that it was being considered for adoption by voters.  By law, that summary had to be “worded so as to convey [the amendment’s] meaning.”  Helpfully, in clear (and admittedly unambiguous) terms, the ballot summary stated: “This amendment would require that a special election be held to fill a vacancy in the office of mayor . . . whenever more than twelve (12) months remain in the unexpired term.”

Because more than eighteen months remained in ex-Mayor Barry’s term when she resigned, it would seem clear that Section 15.03 requires “that a special election be held to fill a vacancy in the office of mayor,” since all agree that “more than twelve (12) months remain in the unexpired term.”  Attempting to avoid this result, however, Metro lawyers argued to the court yesterday that the ballot summary they provided to voters was inaccurate.

Responding to that claim, Mr. Wallace’s counsel argued that such a position—if tolerated—would call “the integrity of the referendum process and the democratic process itself into question.”  Although that contention did not appear to be well-received by one Justice, it was certainly well supported.  Under similar circumstances, court after court has held that “[t]he citizen initiative constitutional amendment process relies on an accurate, objective ballot summary for its legitimacy.”  See In re Advisory Opinion to the Atty. Gen. re Additional Homestead Tax Exemption, 880 So. 2d 646, 653 (Fla. 2004).  See also Zukerberg v. Bd. of Elections & Ethics, 97 A.3d 1064, 1079 n. 77 (D.C. 2014) (“the summary is very important, because it will likely form the basis of a voter’s decision.”).  In a recent decision concerning Amendment 1 to the Tennessee Constitution, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit similarly explained that misleading voters without notice creates a Due Process problem.

Here, in undisputed reliance upon Metro’s “inaccurate” ballot summary, 83 percent of Nashville’s voters voted in favor of the amendment, and it carried every single precinct in the county.  As Mr. Wallace has argued, the measure also ensures that Nashville’s residents will promptly be able to ensure “that their Mayor is someone who was actually elected to represent them.”  Consequently, the notion that Metro can bait voters into supporting a referendum under a specifically defined set of terms and then attempt to change the provision’s meaning after the fact is, frankly, preposterous.

In a statement released to the media after the Tennessee Supreme Court exercised its jurisdiction to hear the case, Mr. Wallace’s lawyers stated that “[w]e are optimistic that the unambiguous terms of the Metro Charter and the clearly expressed will of 83 percent of Nashville’s voters will soon be vindicated.”  For the sake of the rule of law—and to protect the legitimacy of the referendum process—every Metro voter should hope they’re right.

Selected Case Documents

*Tennessee Supreme Court’s Opinion and Order

Wallace Principal Brief

Metro’s Principal Brief

Wallace Reply Brief

Wallace Application for Extraordinary Jurisdiction

Selected Media Coverage

-The Tennessean: Tennessee Supreme Court moves up Nashville mayoral special election to May

-The Nashville Scene: Supreme Court: Mayoral Election Must Be Held in May

-The Nashville Post: Supreme Court moves mayoral election to May

-The Nashville Business Journal: Supreme Court strikes down August mayoral election date

-Nashville Business Journal: Tennessee Supreme Court to decide fate of Nashville mayoral election

-WPLN: Nashville Must Hold Next Mayor’s Election In May, Court Rules

-Nashville Post: Supreme Court will decide mayoral election date

-Nashville Scene:  Metro Legal Could Cost the City Money for Another Election

Like ScotBlog?  Join our email list or contact us here, or follow along on Twitter @Scot_Blog and facebook at https://www.facebook.com/scotblog.org