Tennessee Supreme Court
From Judgepedia
| Tennessee Supreme Court |
|---|
|
| Sitting justices |
| William Barker Gary Wade Janice Holder Cornelia Clark William Koch Jr |
| 2008 retention candidates |
| William Koch Jr |
| Former justices |
| Tennessee on Judgepedia |
The Tennessee Supreme Court is the highest appellate court in Tennessee. Unlike those of other states, the Tennessee Supreme Court is responsible for the appointment of the state attorney general.
Contents |
Structure
The current Tennessee Constitution, adopted in 1870, calls for five justices, of which at least one but not more than two must be from each of the state's three "Grand Divisions," i.e. East Tennessee, Middle Tennessee, and West Tennessee, in order to prevent regional bias.
Additionally, the court is required to meet in Knoxville, Nashville, and Jackson, also to prevent regional bias. In recent years this provision has been regarded as permissive rather than restrictive, and court has also met in other cities throughout the state as part of a legal education project for high school students.
The Tennessee Supreme Court has no original jurisdiction. Other than in cases of worker's compensation, which have traditionally been appealed directly to it from the trial court, it only hears appeals of civil cases which have been heard by the Court of Appeals, and of criminal cases that have been heard by the Court of Criminal Appeals.
Justices
The justices serve eight-year terms and can succeed themselves; the office of chief justice rotates among them. Justices are required to recuse themselves in cases in which they may have a personal interest; the whole court once had to step aside and a case be heard by a special court appointed by the governor, this occurring when the court itself became the subject of litigation, described below.
Tennessee Justices Pick Next Chief
The next chief justice of the Tennessee Supreme Court will be Memphis Justice Janice Holder - who will be the state Supreme Court's first woman chief justice.
Holder will replace William M. Barker, who announced in April that he will retire effective Septempter 1. Barker told his fellow justices two years ago that he would retire soon, Justice Gary R. Wade told the Chattanooga Times Free Press. Wade said the justices selected Holder as the new chief justice then and there.
The Tennessee Constitution says the justices pick one of their own as chief justice.
Holder, a former Shelby County Circuit Court judge, was appointed in 1996 to the state Supreme Court by Gov. Don Sundquist and was elected in a yes/no retention vote in 1998. She was then re-elected to a full eight-year term in 2006.[1]
Methods of selection
The method by which Tennessee's supreme court justices are selected has changed significantly over the years. Originally, justices were elected by the Tennessee General Assembly and held lifetime tenures.
In 1853, the Tennessee Constitution was amended to set judicial term lengths at eight years, the length at which they remain, and to provide that all judges (including supreme court justices) would be elected by the people. Under this arrangement, a justice could enter office either through gubernatorial appointment (to fill a vacancy) or by winning a partisan election. Either way, the justice would have to stand for reelection during the next general state election.
In 1971, a statute was passed that modified this process at the appellate level. Under the Modified Missouri Plan, appellate judges (including supreme court justices) would only be subjected to a "Yes/No" retention vote rather than partisan opponents. Thus it became impossible to become an appellate judge without being appointed by the governor.
In 1974, supreme court justices were removed from the Modified Missouri Plan, but in 1994 the plan was revised and once again extended to supreme court justices. The plan was also renamed the Tennessee Plan at that time. See Tennessee Code, Annotated article 67.
Litigation
This method of judicial selection has been challenged in court several times. In the case of Higgins v. Dunn (1973), the Tennessee Supreme Court held that the retention elections were constitutional, as the constitution did not specify what type of elections the General Assembly had to enact for electing judges.
This decision, however, was contentious. Justice Allison Humphries, in his dissent, opined that the supreme court justices approving the constitutionality of the Modified Missouri Plan had, "like Esau, sold their soul for a mess of pottage" and had made the judicial branch subordinate to the legislative branch.
The revised Tennessee Plan was challenged in the case of DeLaney v. Thompson (1998). The plaintiffs argued that the process was not an "election" in the sense envisioned by the writers of the state constitution, and that the court in Higgins v. Dunn had been incompetent to render a decision due to their interest in the subject matter of the case. DeLaney v. Thompson was appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court, at which time the whole court was forced to recuse itself.
The special Supreme Court appointed by the governor to hear this case, however, refused to rule on the constitutionality of the Tennessee Plan, and instead remanded the case on a technicality.[2]
Effect of the Tennessee Plan
As of 2005, only one member of the Tennessee Supreme Court has ever been removed under the Tennessee Plan. Former Justice Penny White was removed in 1996 in a campaign reminiscient of that used a few years prior in California against former Chief Justice Rose Bird, and for largely the same reason: White's apparent opposition to the death penalty.
Holder Favors Plan Despite Concerns
Justice Janice Holder said recently that her colleagues on the Supreme Court are unanimous in support of maintaining the state’s current system of selecting its appellate court judges.
Republican leaders in the state Legislature have argued that the current so-called "Tennessee Plan" violates the state constitution which provides, "The judges of the Supreme Court shall be elected by the qualified voters of the state." The Plan will be automatically repealed July 1, 2009 if lawmakers fail to renew or modify it during the session. Despite the Plan's constitutionally questionable nature, Holder states:
"This court is not in favor of partisan election in which judges are obligated to raise millions of dollars for campaigns. This court is in favor of the current principles that comprise the Tennessee Plan."[3]
See Also
External Links
References
- ↑ The Memphis Daily News
- ↑ Robert L. Delaney vs. Brook Thompson, 01S01-9808-CH-00144 (Tenn. 1998).
- ↑ Holder Supports TN Plan
- Judicial Selection in the States: Tennessee (accessed September 20, 2005)
- Supreme Court Information and Biographies (accessed September 20, 2005)
- Supreme Court in the Tennessee Blue Book (pdf)
|
