Case Summaries 
of Importance to Counties

2011 Elections

• Littlefield v. Hamilton County Election Commission, 36 TAM 50-15—Recall petition to remove mayor from office was instituted by a group of citizens.  The election commission certified the form of the petition and scheduled the recall election.  The election commission also determined the number of signatures that would be required for the petition to be certified based on the city’s charter.  The mayor brought suit against the election commission seeking a declaratory judgment and an injunction in order to prevent the election commission from certifying the recall petition.  In the suit, the mayor argued that state law, and not the city charter, governs the number of required signatures on the petition.  The trial court granted the injunction.  On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that by issuing an injunction, the trial court prevented the election commission from making a final determination  prior to judicial review as required by T.C.A. § 27-9-101.  As the election commission had not made a final decision, judicial review was improper, and thus, the trial court did not have jurisdiction (November 3, 2011).

• Barrett v. Giles County, 36 TAM 46-15—Unsuccessful candidate for county commission filed suit seeking to void election based upon fact that petition of successful candidate contained two signatures which should not have been approved by the county election commission.  Without those signatures, the petition would not have had the required twenty-five signatures.  The Court declined to void the election finding that a challenge to the petition should have been made prior to the election and that approving the signatures was an honest mistake on the part of the election commission.  According to the Court, such mistakes will not void an election unless they affect the result or render the result uncertain, and there was not sufficient proof either of those occurred in this case (October 5, 2011). 

• Taylor v. Lawrence County Election Commission, 36 TAM 29-19—Former sheriff filed suit alleging that candidate for office was not qualified to run and should not have appeared on ballot.  County argued that sheriff was barred from pursing this litigation because of laches.  Sheriff knew of his concerns for months and did not file complaint with election commission, the administrator of elections, the district attorney, the POST Commission or the State Division of Elections.  The county had the election, candidates spent money on their campaigns and a new election would cost the county over $30,000.  The Court found that the sheriff’s delay in filing suit would prejudice the county and the current sheriff, and therefore, the former sheriff was guilty of gross laches and not allowed to pursue the litigation (April 23, 2011).