Three-judge panels to hear law challenges
Tennessee lawmakers have approved a plan to change the way judges can rule on constitutional claims against state law.
The bill creating new three-judge panels to hear the cases passed the House 67-22, with one present not voting, Wednesday night. The Senate followed with a 27-2 vote.
The measure dramatically reshapes how the judiciary operates in Tennessee ahead of what could be more challenges by local governments and others to state law.
In recent months, debate swirled around the idea of removing some power from Davidson County judges, which Republican lawmakers consider too liberal and not representative of the state as a whole
On Wednesday, the House and Senate passed conflicting versions of the bill.
Instead, lawmakers reached a compromise.
The new version tosses out the idea of creating a separate body and instead modifies the existing process.
“We are not going to be creating a new court,” Rep. Andrew Farmer, R-sevierville, said Wednesday evening. “We’re going to be saving taxpayers billions of dollars.”
The bill would have the Tennessee Supreme Court step in and appoint two additional elected judges to form a panel to hear cases, including constitutional claims against the state and those over upcoming redistricting plans.
Each time, the chief justice would choose one judge from each of the other two Grand Divisions to join the original judge in each relevant case.
The cases would then be heard in the division where the case was first filed.
“I believe it’s better than what either body passed to start with,” said Sen. Mike Bell, R-riceville, and a sponsor of the measure. “We have all three Grand Divisions represented.”
“This is much more equitable, much more fair to the citizens of the state of Tennessee.”
Challenges to laws and executive orders have long been handled centrally in Davidson County chancery court.
In recent months, Tennessee Republicans have increasingly been critical of decisions from the county blocking Gop-backed laws or policies.
The move to create a new chancery court comes after a wave of unsuccessful state level pushes focused on reshaping the Davidson County judiciary and targeting judges in the Democratic-leaning county.
Senate Republicans insisted the idea had been tossed around for years and wasn’t prompted by recent losses.
Instead, they argue that sending all cases that affect the whole state to one county is inequitable.
The compromise pulls in arguments made all week by the sponsors. It adds voices from outside the capital city and allows a local venue for people who bring lawsuits elsewhere in Tennessee.
If someone who is not a Tennessee resident files the suit, the case will be heard in Sumner County, a move paralleling a push by Rep. Johnny Garrett, R-goodlettsville, earlier this year.
Appeals to the panel’s decisions would still go to the state’s normal court of appeals.
The panel would hear challenges around redistricting plans in the coming years.
It would be required by this bill to give the legislature the chance to revise issues or defects in a plan before imposing an alternative one.
The new panel rule is set to go into effect in July. Bell and Farmer sponsored the bill in their respective chambers.
Sharp change created last day of session
More than $2 million in recurring money already has been earmarked for the court in the fiscal year 2021-22 budget.
Democrats have slammed the moves.
“This legislation just couldn’t be less necessary,” Senate Minority Leader Jeff Yarbro, D-nashville, said Wednesday.
“Folks, this is madness,” Yarbro said. “We have no idea how this is going to work.”
Bell argued that the judicial philosophy of judges elected statewide would “more specifically reflect the views of the people of the state” versus those elected solely in Nashville.
Rep. John Ray Clemmons, D-nashville, strongly condemned the push Wednesday and called it “sausage making at its worst,” from “rotten meat to begin with.”
Later, he said a panel of judges at the trial level was
“completely unprecedented ... and nonsensical“and raised questions about the function of multiple judges in a fact-finding stage.
The panel will set its own local rules, Garrett said. “We all know from history in America that lawyers and judges are humans like everybody else. They have their political philosophy,” said Rep. Bruce Griffey, Rparis. He told representatives he had discussed the bill with a judge and doesn’t believe there are issues with it.
Farmer said he does not anticipate that, if passed, this legislation would be challenged in court.
Lawyers and judges have spoken out against the push, arguing the move would introduce the partisanship Bell wanted to avoid into what they say should be a fair and impartial body.
Earlier Wednesday, the House passed their version 68-23; in the Senate, it passed 27-6.
There were several differences between the versions, but most notably the House version put the new judges at the appellate court level and the Senate at the trial court level.
They also differed on the manner of election. Natalie Allison and Yue Stella Yu contributed to this report.
Reach reporter Mariah Timms at mtimms@ tennessean.com or 615-259-8344.