Bd. of Educ. of Shelby Cnty. v. Memphis City Bd. of Educ.
| Decision Date | 07 August 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 11-2101,11-2101 |
| Parties | BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MEMPHIS CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee |
Before the Court is the March 28, 2013 Motion for Approval by Defendant/Counterclaimant Board of County Commissioners of Shelby County, Tennessee (the "Shelby County Commission"). (Motion, ECF No. 503.) On March 29, 2013, Intervening Third-Party Defendants the City of Germantown, the Town of Collierville, the City of Bartlett, the City of Lakeland, the City of Millington, and the Town of Arlington (collectively, the "Municipalities") responded. (Municipalities' Resp., ECF No. 504.) On April 1, 2013, Plaintiff The Board of Education of Shelby County, Tennessee (the "School Board") responded. (School Board's Resp., ECF No. 505.) On April 12, 2013, the Shelby County Commission replied. (Shelby County Commission'sRep., ECF No. 507-1.) On May 6, 2013, the Shelby County Commission provided additional information. (Precinct Maps, ECF No. 516-1.)
The Shelby County Commission asks the Court to approve a resolution ("Resolution 37") that would expand the School Board from seven to thirteen members. The Shelby County Commission would appoint six members to fill the newly-created positions. The Shelby County Commission also asks the Court to approve a redistricting plan for the thirteen-member School Board. For the following reasons, the Shelby County Commission's Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
On September 28, 2011, the Court approved a consent decree (the "Consent Decree") negotiated and executed by the then parties. (Consent Decree 11, ECF No. 262.) Multiple provisions of the Consent Decree address the transfer of the administration of the Memphis City Schools to the School Board. Paragraph Two provides that, effective October 1, 2011, the Memphis City and Shelby County school systems:
[W]ill be governed by the Shelby County Board of Education, which shall consist of twenty-three (23) members. Nine (9) of the members will be present members of the Memphis City Board of Education. Seven (7) of the members will be present members of the Shelby County Board of Education. The sixteen (16) members from the Memphis and Shelby County Boards shall serve until September 1, 2013. The remaining seven (7) members will be appointed by the Shelby County Commission. The seven (7) appointed members will be subject to election at the regularly scheduledcounty-wide election in August 2012 and shall serve staggered terms as determined by the County Commission.
(Consent Decree 11.) Paragraph Three of the Consent Decree provides that the Shelby County Commission "shall have the option of enlarging the Shelby County Board of Education and redistricting it so that the Board shall consist of not more than 13 members." (Id. 12.) Paragraph Three provides that "[n]o such enlargement or redistricting shall take effect before September 1, 2013." (Id.)
Invoking the Consent Decree, Resolution 37 seeks to expand the School Board from seven to thirteen members effective September 1, 2013. The Shelby County Commission proposes filling "the vacancies on the thirteen member Shelby County Board of Education [in newly created districts] by appointing six members thereto, for a term of not more than one year, which shall begin on September 1, 2013, and which shall expire on August 31, 2014." (Resolution 37 3, ECF No. 503-2.) Voters would elect six new members at the General Election in August 2014. (Id.) Alternatively, the Shelby County Commission proposes expanding the School Board to thirteen members who would serve at-large. (Shelby County Commission's Resp. to Election Commission 3, ECF No. 3.)
The Shelby County Commission proposes a redistricting map that divides Shelby County into thirteen substantially equalSchool Board districts. The districts are based on the thirteen districts used to elect the Shelby County Commission. Any alterations were made to preserve the terms of office of the seven School Board members elected in 2012.
On April 16 and April 30, 2013, the Court held hearings and heard argument from the parties. The hearings addressed the scope of the Consent Decree, the appropriate method of expanding the School Board, if any, and the composition of the thirteen districts. The parties discussed expanding the School Board by appointment or special election, and also discussed delaying expansion until after the county-wide General Election in 2014.
On April 19, 2013, the Shelby County Election Commission (the "Election Commission") filed a statement addressing the cost and convenience of conducting a special election to fill the six positions that would be created if the School Board were expanded to thirteen members. (Election Commission Submission, ECF No. 511.) On April 26, 2013, the Shelby County Commission, the Municipalities, and the School Board responded. (Shelby County Commission's Resp. to Election Commission, ECF No. 512); (Municipalities' Resp. to Election Commission, ECF No. 513); (School Board's Resp., ECF No. 514.) On May 6, 2013, the Shelby County Commission identified the precincts that would compose the proposed School Board districts. (Shelby CountyCommission's Submission to Election Commission); (Precinct Maps, ECF No. 516-1.)
The parties do not dispute the Shelby County Commission's authority to expand the School Board to thirteen members. They dispute the method and timing of the expansion. The parties also dispute the extent to which the Court should exercise its equitable authority.
The Shelby County Commission argues that the Consent Decree "unequivocally allows [it] to redistrict and enlarge the Shelby County School Board to no more than 13 districts." (Shelby County Commission's Resp. to Election Commission 2.) Appointing six members, the Shelby County Commission argues, would be the most cost-effective and efficient means of expansion. (Id. 2-3) (appointment is the "most appropriate, timely, and effective method to fill the vacancies that will be created by the redistricting of the Shelby County School Board as contemplated in the Consent Decree.") The Shelby County Commission opposes delaying expansion until 2014 as inconsistent with the plain language of the Consent Decree and incompatible with the parties' understanding when they executed the Consent Decree. The Shelby County Commission submits that it "is merely attempting to implement a right for which it bargained and was granted under the terms of this Court's Consent Decree in the most timely manner available." (Id.)
The Municipalities argue that the Shelby County Commission's redistricting and appointment plan would "result in some Shelby County citizens having democratically elected representatives on the Board of Education while others would not, thus violating the Equal Protection Clause." (Municipalities' Resp. to Election Commission 2.) The Municipalities rely on a theory of vote dilution, arguing that the appointment of six new School Board members diminishes the legitimacy and effectiveness of the seven School Board members who were elected in 2012. (Id. 5.) The Municipalities urge the Court to delay the expansion of the "Board of Education until August 2014, at which time the citizens of Shelby County can elect the six new school board members." (Id. 2.)
The School Board seeks to delay the expansion of the School Board until August 2014. To the extent the Shelby County Commission seeks to appoint six members, the School Board argues that the appointments would not fill "vacancies" as provided by Tennessee law. The School Board relies on Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-2-202, which provides that "[v]acancies shall be declared to exist, on account of death, resignation, or removal from the county." Because the Shelby County Commission would create the positions to be filled and would not fill vacancies created by death, resignation, or removal, the School Board argues that appointing six members would be contrary to Tennessee law. TheSchool Board also argues that appointing six members would have "the effect of disenfranchising some voters who elected their school board members by requiring, for a period of approximately one (1) year, that they be represented by appointed members of the County Commission's choosing." (School Board's Resp. to Election Commission 4-5.)
In adopting the Consent Decree, the Court relied on its "inherent equitable authority to remedy a violation of the United States Constitution." Assoc. Gen. Contractors of Am. v. Columbus, 172 F.3d 411, 417 (6th Cir. 1999); (see also Consent Decree 10) ("The proposed consent decree remedies the malapportionment within a reasonable time and is well within the Court's equitable power."). As the Sixth Circuit has stated:
A consent decree is a strange hybrid in the law. It is both a voluntary settlement agreement which could be fully effective without judicial intervention and a final judicial order . . . plac[ing] the power and prestige of the court behind the compromise struck by the parties. Hence, a consent decree is a settlement agreement subject to continued judicial policing. Accordingly, the scope of a consent decree must be discerned within its four corners, and not by reference to what might satisfy the purposes of one of the parties to it or by what might have been written had the plaintiff established his factual claims and legal theories in litigation. However, a consent decree should be construed to preserve the position for which the parties bargained.
Vanguards of Cleveland v. City of Cleveland, 23 F.3d 1013, 1017 (6th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Firefighters Local Union No. 1784 v. Stotts,467 U.S. 561, 574 (1984) (); East Brooks Brooks, Inc. v. City of...
To continue reading
Request your trial