McFarland v. Pemberton

• Decision Date: 20 September 2017
• Docket Number: No. E2014-02176-SC-R11-CV,E2014-02176-SC-R11-CV
• Citation: 530 S.W.3d 76
• Parties: William Thomas MCFARLAND v. Michael S. PEMBERTON et al.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

530 S.W.3d 76

William Thomas MCFARLAND
v.
Michael S. PEMBERTON et al.

No. E2014-02176-SC-R11-CV

Supreme Court of Tennessee, AT KNOXVILLE.

September 8, 2016 Session
Filed September 20, 2017

William Thomas McFarland, Kingston, Tennessee, appellant, Pro Se¹ .

530 S.W.3d 79

Jennifer E. Raby, Patrick C. Cooley, and J. Polk Cooley, Kingston, Tennessee, for the appellee, Michael S. Pemberton.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Andrée Blumstein, Solicitor General; and Ryan A. Lee, Assistant Attorney General, for the appellees, Roane County Election Commission; Lowell P. Malmquist, Vickie Watts, Ralph DePorter, Celia Simon, and James Ryan, Roane County Election Commissioners; and Mark Goins, Tennessee Coordinator of Elections.

Holly Kirby, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Jeffrey S. Bivins, C.J., and Roger A. Page, JJ., joined. Cornelia A. Clark, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Sharon G. Lee, J., joined in Justice Clark's dissenting opinion and also filed a separate dissenting opinion.

OPINION

Holly Kirby, J.

This appeal addresses the authority of a county election commission to make a factual determination on the qualifications of a candidate seeking to be placed on a ballot. In this case, the defendant filed a petition to run for circuit court judge. A registered voter filed a complaint with the county election commission arguing that the defendant did not reside in the judicial district and, consequently, should not be placed on the ballot. The election commission held a hearing on the complaint and voted unanimously to place the defendant on the ballot. The defendant won the election. The plaintiff, the defendant's defeated opponent in the election, filed this election contest based solely on the defendant's alleged failure to meet the residency requirement. The trial court and the Court of Appeals dismissed the complaint. Both held that the substance of the plaintiff's complaint was a challenge of the election commission's administrative decision on the defendant's residency, governed by the 60-day statute of limitations in Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-9-102 for a petition for a writ of certiorari. Because the complaint was not filed within sixty days of the county election commission's final decision, it was dismissed as untimely. On appeal to this Court, we hold that, by necessary implication, the county election commission had the authority under Tennessee's election statutes to hold a quasi-judicial hearing to make a factual determination to resolve the voter's complaint challenging the defendant's residency. We also hold that the county election commission's decision to certify the defendant as a qualified candidate on the ballot was a final administrative decision subject to judicial review by common-law writ of certiorari. The plaintiff, who had actual notice of the county election commission's actions, was "aggrieved" by the election commission's final administrative decision within the meaning of Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-9-101 and, thus, had standing to file a petition for a writ of certiorari. Though the plaintiff's complaint was styled as an election contest, the gravamen of the complaint is a request for judicial review of the county election commission's decision, reviewable through a petition for a writ of certiorari and subject to the 60-day statute of limitations for such a petition. Because the plaintiff's complaint was filed well after expiration of the 60-day period, we affirm the lower courts' dismissal of the complaint as untimely.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This appeal concerns a judicial election for the Ninth Judicial District in East

530 S.W.3d 80

Tennessee.² The Ninth Judicial District includes four counties: Loudon, Meigs, Morgan, and Roane.

On February 3, 2014, Defendant/Appellee filed a nominating petition with the Roane County Election Commission ("Election Commission") to run for Circuit Court Judge for the Ninth Judicial District. The election was to take place on August 7, 2014. In his petition, Mr. Pemberton listed as his residence an address in Roane County ("Roane County home"). It is undisputed that Mr. Pemberton purchased the Roane County home in January 2013. At all times pertinent to this appeal, Mr. Pemberton owned a home in Knox County in addition to the Roane County home.

Plaintiff/Appellant William Thomas McFarland also filed a petition as a candidate for election as Circuit Court Judge for the Ninth Judicial District in the same election.

On March 31, 2014, a resident of the Ninth Judicial District, Willis Hall, went to the Election Commission for the purpose of challenging Mr. Pemberton's candidacy based on his residency. Article VI, section 4 of the Tennessee Constitution provides that every candidate for circuit court judge "shall [,] before his election, have been a resident... of the circuit or district one yea r." Tenn. Const. art. VI, § 4 (emphasis added). The Roane County Administrator of Elections, Charles Holiway ("the Administrator"), told Mr. Hall he could either obtain an Elections Complaint Form online or the office could print one for him. He also told Mr. Hall at that time that someone else had already contacted the Tennessee Election Commission in Nashville, Tennessee, raising the issue of Mr. Pemberton's residency. According to the Administrator, Mr. Hall left his office without filing anything, but he returned later that day with a completed Elections Complaint Form and filed it against Mr. Pemberton.³ Mr. Hall averred in his complaint that Mr. Pemberton did not meet the constitutional residency requirement because he was "not a resident of the [Ninth Judicial] district." Mr. Hall asserted that, for this reason, Mr. Pemberton "should not be on the ballot" for circuit court judge.

In response to Mr. Hall's complaint, the Administrator contacted the Tennessee Election Commission about Mr. Hall's allegations. The record reflects that Mark Goins, the Tennessee Election Coordinator ("Coordinator"), responded by letter indicating that the Roane County Election Commission needed to resolve the issue of Mr. Pemberton's residency.⁴

Accordingly, the Election Commission conducted an independent investigation to

530 S.W.3d 81

determine whether Mr. Pemberton was a resident of Roane County. To that end, the Election Commission elicited documentary evidence from both Mr. Hall and Mr. Pemberton and set the matter for a public hearing at its regular meeting on April 28, 2014. Notice of the hearing was published in a local paper, the Roane County News.

Mr. McFarland was aware of the upcoming Election Commission hearing on Mr. Pemberton's residency; in fact, at the time, he served as the Roane County Attorney and in that capacity was a legal advisor to the Election Commission. Mr. McFarland did not serve as legal advisor to the Election Commission during the hearing on Mr. Pemberton's residency, however, based on a conflict of interest.⁵ As noted above, by the time of the hearing, Mr. McFarland was also a candidate for the position Mr. Pemberton sought. Nevertheless, Mr. McFarland did not participate in the Election Commission hearing in any capacity.

Mr. Hall retained counsel to represent him at the hearing.⁶ Mr. Pemberton represented himself at the hearing. Prior to the hearing, both Mr. Hall and Mr. Pemberton submitted materials to the Election Commission regarding Mr. Pemberton's residency. Those materials included U-Haul receipts, vehicle and voter registrations, Mr. Pemberton's driver's license, and utility bills. All of the submissions were made "part of the official minutes of the [Election Commission] meeting."⁷

The hearing was conducted as scheduled on April 28, 2014. Mark Goins, the Tennessee Coordinator of Elections, attended via speakerphone.⁸ At the outset, the Election Commission read aloud Tennessee Code Annotated section 2-2-122, which sets forth several principles for determining residency for purposes of the election statutes. The chair indicated that the statute was read "so everybody understands what we are talking about here."

The Election Commission then permitted Mr. Hall and Mr. Pemberton to each present a fifteen-minute argument and answer questions from the commission members. Neither was allowed to ask questions of the other.

Through counsel, Mr. Hall argued that, during all or part of the year preceding the election (August 8, 2013 through August 7, 2014), Mr. Pemberton was actually a resident of Knox County. Counsel for Mr. Hall noted that Mr. Pemberton owned a 4,500-square-foot home in Knoxville—

530 S.W.3d 82

outside the Ninth Judicial District—and that he and his family had lived in the Knox County home for some period of time. Mr. and Mrs. Pemberton both worked in Knoxville, and their five-year-old son attended kindergarten in a Knox County school near Mrs. Pemberton's workplace. Counsel for Mr. Hall conceded that Mr. Pemberton also owned a home in Roane County during the relevant time period, but he characterized it as a "lake house" or a "vacation place" and pointed out that it was located fifty miles from Mr. Pemberton's law office. Based on these facts and other evidence in the record, counsel for Mr. Hall...