As state Leagues across the US are pushing for reform in the redistricting process, we are all facing different challenges. Some states are fine-tuning their existing independent redistricting commissions; some - by changing their constitutions or placing referendums on ballots - are implementing quasi-independent and transparent commissions; and others, like Tennessee are working towards educating the public, transparency in the redistricting process, and allowing public input into redrawing maps.
Tennessee currently stands near the bottom in the country in public knowledge and public participation in the redistricting process. This lop-sidedness also contributes to the low ratings in voter registration and voter turn-out.
As an attack on fair redistricting, the General Assembly attempted to pass a law requiring a new three judge statewide chancery court (bypassing the current court in Davidson County).
This court would have exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether state laws, executive actions, or administrative rules or regulations violate the constitution.
In an unusually blunt statement, the purpose was to circumvent any lawsuits brought against Tennessee’s redistricting process and potential gerrymandering.
An additional stated purpose, equally blunt, was to deliberately circumvent any lawsuits accusing the state of passing an unconstitutional law or executive order.
These three judges, initially appointed by the governor, and only these judges, would be empowered to determine whether the governor, the executive, or the legislative branches have overstepped their political authority. This politicizes the justice system to the detriment of all Tennesseans.
This bill brought outrage from jurists, lawyers, professional organizations, etc. A number of op-eds appeared and petitions signed by the top legal minds in our state.
In a late night flurry of activity minutes before the closing gavel, a compromise on HB1130/SB868 was reached - which was not much better.
A conference committee created a three-judge panel of trial court judges - two of whom are to be appointed by the Supreme Court and must come from the other two grand divisions.
This panel would handle constitutional challenges and declaratory/ injunctive claims against the state, a department or agency of the state, or one of its officers. The bill passed the House 67-22-1 and the Senate 27-2.
Modifications to the Tennessee trial court system had not been made in over 100 years. It was made by elected politicians and the the unknown disruptions to the current legal system had not been discussed or debated.
It will probably disrupt the separation of powers between the branches of government, undermine the independence and integrity of the courts, and prevent citizens the right to challenge governmental actions and laws.
#############
Submitted by: Mary Ann Reeves
Reference material courtesy of the Ms Penny White, former Tennessee Supreme Court Justice and The Tennessee Bar Association