Does Tennessee's 2023 ban on at-large elections for district-nominated candidates apply to home-rule cities that draw their districts geographically rather than by population?

Subject

Whether Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-53-110, as amended by Chapter 391 of the Public Acts of 2023, applies to a home-rule municipality whose districts are drawn geographically rather than by population, and which currently elects all members of its Board of Commissioners at-large.

Plain-English summary

Senator Bo Watson asked the AG whether the 2023 amendment to § 6-53-110 reaches a home-rule city that has three geographically defined districts but elects its five-member Board of Commissioners at-large. The AG said yes, the amended statute applies to all Tennessee municipalities, including home-rule municipalities, regardless of how districts are drawn.

The statute prohibits an election procedure under which candidates are "nominated from a district and elected at-large." If a city requires candidates to be nominated by district, the city must elect them by district. The amended districts must be substantially equal in population (one-person, one-vote), reasonably compact and contiguous, non-overlapping, and reapportioned at least as often as county legislative body districts.

Before 2023, the statute had a population trigger: it applied only to municipalities over 50,000 and counties over 90,000 that opted in. Chapter 391 deleted those subsections, making the rule universal. Knoxville and Morristown were identified during debate as cities that would be affected, plus "two or three" others.

Three legal points reinforce the holding:

1. Section 6-53-110(a) operates "[n]otwithstanding any other law or charter to the contrary," so it overrides conflicting charter provisions. Cities exercise only those powers delegated by the General Assembly.

2. Home-rule status (Tenn. Const. art. XI, § 9) does not block application of a general law. The home-rule clause permits the General Assembly to act on home-rule cities through laws "general in terms and effect." The amended § 6-53-110(a) is general in terms (it applies to "any municipality") and general in effect (it is "designed to apply" to all municipalities throughout the state, even if only a few currently violate it).

3. The reference to "a district" in the statute means "any district," not just population-based districts. The textual canon (First American Bank v. Olsen, 1987) supports the broad reading. So whether a city draws districts by population, geography, or some other method, if it requires district nomination, district election follows.

The opinion also clarifies (footnote 2) that § 6-53-110(a) does not apply to a city that is divided into districts but does not require candidates to be nominated from districts (e.g., a city that allows candidates to be nominated at-large and elected at-large from its districts). The statute targets the mismatch between district nomination and at-large election.

What this means for you

If you are a city attorney for a Tennessee home-rule municipality

If your city currently nominates from districts and elects at-large, the procedure is invalid as of the effective date of Chapter 391. You need to either: (a) move to district-based elections (each district's voters choose its representative); or (b) eliminate the district nomination requirement and use full at-large procedures (candidates run at-large and are elected at-large). Either fix avoids the prohibited combination. Coordinate with your city council or board of commissioners on a charter amendment if needed.

If you are a city council or board of commissioners member

Audit your election procedure now. If candidates must be nominated from districts under your charter, voters of those districts must elect them. If you currently allow at-large voting after district nomination, you need to fix one or the other. Implementation timing should align with your next election cycle to avoid disruption.

If you are running for municipal office in a home-rule city

Find out which procedure your city follows now. If your city's election procedure requires district nomination + at-large election, that procedure is no longer lawful, and your city should be moving to either pure district elections or pure at-large elections. The transition rules and timing will affect candidacy strategy.

If you are a voter advocate or fair-elections group

The AG opinion gives you a tool. The amended § 6-53-110(a) is broadly applicable, including to home-rule cities. If your city has not transitioned to compliance, you have a clear legal basis to push for change. The one-person/one-vote requirement is now uniformly applicable to all Tennessee municipalities that nominate from districts.

If you are a state legislator

The 2023 amendment achieves what the original 1983 enactment promised: a single, uniform rule across the state. The AG's analysis confirms the universal reach. If unintended consequences emerge in particular cities (small towns where district elections are impractical), the legislative remedy is a clean amendment, not a patchwork charter exemption.

Common questions

Q: My home-rule city has districts but elects everyone at-large. Is that allowed?
A: Only if your city does not require candidates to be nominated from districts. If candidates run at-large and are elected at-large (no district nomination), § 6-53-110(a) does not apply. If candidates must be nominated from a particular district and then everyone votes city-wide, that combination is prohibited.

Q: What if our charter says we can do nominate-from-district, elect-at-large?
A: Your charter is overridden by § 6-53-110(a) ("Notwithstanding any other law or charter to the contrary"). The General Assembly has the power to do this even for home-rule municipalities because the statute is "general in terms and effect."

Q: What's the effective date?
A: Chapter 391 of the Public Acts of 2023. Implementation timing for any specific city depends on the city's election cycle and any transition provisions in the Act.

Q: Does this affect counties too?
A: Yes. The pre-2023 version had a 90,000 population threshold for counties. Chapter 391 removes that threshold; § 6-53-110 applies to all counties.

Q: What about boards and commissions, like school boards?
A: The statute reaches "the legislative body of a municipality, a popularly elected school board, or any other similarly constituted and elected board or commission of a county or municipality." The same nominate-from-district, elect-by-district rule applies.

Q: How are population district lines drawn under the statute?
A: Three requirements: (1) substantially equal populations to satisfy one-person, one-vote; (2) reasonably compact and contiguous; (3) non-overlapping. Reapportionment must occur at least as often as county legislative body districts.

Q: What if a city is small and switching to district elections is impractical?
A: A small city can use a pure at-large procedure (no district nomination requirement) and still comply with § 6-53-110(a). The statute does not require districts; it only prohibits the mismatch.

Background and statutory framework

Section 6-53-110 was enacted in 1983 to address the constitutional and policy concerns about nominate-from-district, elect-at-large hybrid procedures. Such procedures can dilute minority voting strength in violation of one-person, one-vote and the Voting Rights Act. The 1983 statute applied only to large municipalities (over 50,000 population) and large counties (over 90,000 population) that adopted the Act. Chapter 391 of the Public Acts of 2023 deleted the population thresholds and the opt-in requirement, making § 6-53-110(a) uniformly applicable.

The non-obstante clause ("Notwithstanding any other law or charter to the contrary") means the statute overrides conflicting local law and charter provisions. New Oxford American Dictionary defines "notwithstanding" as "in spite of." The Tennessee Supreme Court has held that municipalities exercise only those powers delegated by the General Assembly (Allmand v. Pavletic, 2009; City of Lebanon v. Baird, 1998), and that the legislature "may give and take away as it choses [a municipality's] powers and privileges" (Highwoods Properties, 2009).

The home-rule provision in art. XI, § 9 of the Tennessee Constitution requires the General Assembly to act on home-rule municipalities only by laws "general in terms and effect." The Tennessee Supreme Court in Civil Serv. Merit Bd. v. Burson (1991) emphasized this requirement. The Farris v. Blanton (1975) test for general-in-effect is whether the statute is "designed to apply" to all counties or municipalities throughout the state, regardless of how many currently come within its scope at the time of passage. Chapter 391 satisfies that test.

The statutory phrase "a district" applies the prohibition broadly. First Am. Nat'l Bank v. Olsen (1987) recognized that the indefinite article "a" can mean "any" in statutory construction. Reading § 6-53-110(a) consistently with this canon and with the legislative purpose covers all types of districts (population, geographic, or other).

Citations

Constitutional and statutory provisions:
- Tenn. Const. art. XI, § 9 (home rule)
- Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-53-110(a)(1), (a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B), (a)(2)
- 2023 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 391

Cases:
- Allmand v. Pavletic, 292 S.W.3d 618 (Tenn. 2009)
- City of Lebanon v. Baird, 756 S.W.2d 236 (Tenn. 1998)
- Highwoods Properties, Inc. v. City of Memphis, 297 S.W.3d 695 (Tenn. 2009)
- First Suburban Water Util. Dist. v. McCanless, 146 S.W.2d 948 (Tenn. 1941)
- Civil Serv. Merit Bd. v. Burson, 816 S.W.2d 725 (Tenn. 1991)
- Farris v. Blanton, 528 S.W.2d 549 (Tenn. 1975)
- First Am. Nat'l Bank v. Olsen, 751 S.W.2d 417 (Tenn. 1987)
- Worley v. Weigels, Inc., 919 S.W.2d 589 (Tenn. 1996)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/opinions.html
• Original PDF: https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/attorneygeneral/documents/ops/2024/op24-003.pdf

Original opinion text

STATE OF TENNESSEE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
February 15, 2024
Opinion No. 24-003

Scope of Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-53-110 as Amended by 2023 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 391

Question

Does Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-53-110 as amended by Chapter 391 of the Public Acts of 2023 apply to a home-rule municipality that is divided geographically (as opposed to being divided by population) into three (3) districts and that elects all the members—e.g., five (5) members—of its Board of Commissioners at-large?

Opinion

Tennessee Code Annotated § 6-53-110 as amended by Chapter 391 of the Public Acts of 2023 applies to all municipalities, including home-rule municipalities, that require candidates to be nominated from districts, regardless of the manner in which the municipalities have established their districts.

ANALYSIS

Tennessee Code Annotated § 6-53-110 addresses election districts in municipal and county elections. Since its enactment in 1983, Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-53-110 has provided that if a municipality or county has an election procedure that requires candidates for boards and commissions to be nominated from districts, those candidates may not be elected at-large. Such a candidate must be elected by that district's voters. Further, the districts must be apportioned according to the one-man, one-vote principle. Specifically, subsection (a) of Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-53-110 states:

(a)(1) Notwithstanding any other law or charter to the contrary, no member of the legislative body of a municipality, a popularly elected school board, or any other similarly constituted and elected board or commission of a county or municipality shall be elected to such office through an election procedure requiring candidates to be nominated from a district and elected at-large, but such members shall be elected from districts as established by the appropriate county or municipality, which districts shall:

(A) Assure representation of substantially equal populations and guarantee the principle of one man/one vote in compliance with the Constitution of the United States; and

(B) Be reasonably compact and contiguous and not overlap.

(2) Following the establishment of the districts, such districts shall be reapportioned at least as often as districts for the county legislative body of such county are reapportioned to ensure compliance with the limitations prescribed in this section.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-53-110(a) (emphasis added).

As sweeping as this language of subsection (a) is, its impact on municipalities and counties following its enactment was very limited because subsections (b) and (c) provided that subsection (a) applied only to municipalities with a population of more than 50,000 and counties with a population of more than 90,000 that chose to adopt the Act. Chapter 391 of the Public Acts of 2023, however, deletes subsections (b) and (c), which means that subsection (a) is no longer so limited and its full impact is realized now.

As set forth above, the provisions of Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-53-110(a) apply "[n]otwithstanding any other law or charter to the contrary." Consequently, § 6-53-110(a), which prohibits an election procedure that requires candidates to be nominated from districts and elected at-large, operates and is effective in spite of any other law or charter provision that currently allows such a procedure. See New Oxford American Dictionary 1201 (3d ed. 2010). It is well settled that municipalities may exercise only those express or necessarily implied powers that are delegated to them by the General Assembly in their charters or under statutes. Allmand v. Pavletic, 292 S.W.3d 618, 625-26 (Tenn. 2009); City of Lebanon v. Baird, 756 S.W.2d 236, 241 (Tenn. 1998). Hence, "[it] is elementary that the Legislature . . . may give and take away as it choses [a municipality's] powers and privileges." Highwoods Properties, Inc. v. City of Memphis, 297 S.W.3d 695, 702 (Tenn. 2009).

Moreover, a municipality's adoption of home rule does not prevent the application of Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-53-110(a). Under the "home rule" provisions of article XI, section 9 of the Tennessee Constitution, the General Assembly may not pass local legislation affecting a municipality that has adopted home rule; it must "act with respect to such home rule municipality only by laws which are general in terms and effect." Civil Serv. Merit Bd. v. Burson, 816 S.W.2d 725, 727 (Tenn. 1991). For the reasons discussed above, Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-53-110(a) is "general in terms" because it prohibits any municipality or county from maintaining or establishing an election procedure that requires candidates to be nominated from districts and elected at-large. Tennessee Code Annotated § 6-53-110(a) is also "general in . . . effect" for the reasons that follow.

In considering whether a statute is general in effect, the Tennessee Supreme Court has explained that the "sole constitutional test must be whether the legislative enactment, irrespective of its form, is local in effect and application." Farris v. Blanton, 528 S.W.2d 549, 551 (Tenn. 1975). Specifically, the inquiry must be "whether th[e] legislation [in question] was designed to apply to any other county in Tennessee, for if it is potentially applicable throughout the state it is not local in effect even though at the time of its passage it might have applied to [only one county]." Id. at 552.

The legislation at issue here, Chapter 391 of the Public Acts of 2023, now makes the provisions of subsection (a) of Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-53-110 applicable to all municipalities and counties. While apparently only a handful of municipalities currently maintain an election procedure requiring candidates to be nominated from a district and elected at-large—and are therefore affected by the passage of Chapter 391—Chapter 391 is not local in effect and application because it is "designed to apply" to all municipalities "throughout the state." See Farris, 528 S.W.2d at 552.

In sum, Chapter 391 is general in terms and effect, and it applies to home-rule municipalities, as well as to municipalities organized under traditional charters. Therefore, following the passage of Chapter 391, Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-53-110(a) prevents any municipality from having "an election procedure requiring candidates to be nominated from a district and elected at-large." If a municipality requires candidates to be nominated from a district, Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-53-110(a) demands that such candidates "shall be elected from districts . . . ."

For those municipalities choosing to maintain or establish an election procedure requiring candidates to be nominated from districts, Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-53-110(a) establishes requirements for those districts. Section 6-53-110(a)(1)(A) requires the districts to be apportioned according to the one-man, one vote principle; § 6-53-110(a)(1)(B) requires the districts to be reasonably compact and contiguous and not overlap; and § 6-53-110(a)(2) addresses reapportionment requirements.

These district requirements, though, do not mean that Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-53-110(a) applies only to a municipality that currently establishes its districts by population because these district requirements do not come into play unless a municipality decides to maintain or establish an election procedure that requires candidates to be nominated from districts. Rather, § 6-53-110(a) applies broadly, "[n]otwithstanding any other law or charter to the contrary," to provide that "no member of the legislative body of a municipality . . . shall be elected to such office through an election procedure requiring candidates to be nominated from a district and elected at-large." Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-53-110(a)(1) (emphasis added).

In short, the General Assembly did not confine its ban on elections-at-large for candidates nominated by district to only those municipalities with population-based districts or any other type of districts. The statutory language "a district" signifies that Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-53-110(a) applies to all municipalities that have established any type of districts from which candidates are to be nominated. See First Am. Nat'l Bank v. Olsen, 751 S.W.2d 417, 421 & n. 4 (Tenn. 1987). Accordingly, Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-53-110(a) applies to any municipality that has an election procedure requiring candidates to be nominated from districts regardless of whether the municipality currently establishes its districts by population, geographically, or in some other manner. See Worley v. Weigels, Inc., 919 S.W.2d 589, 593 (Tenn. 1996).

JONATHAN SKRMETTI
Attorney General and Reporter

ANDRÉE SOPHIA BLUMSTEIN
Solicitor General

LAURA T. KIDWELL
Assistant Solicitor General

Requested by:
The Honorable Bo Watson
State Senator
425 Rep. John Lewis Way N.
Suite 706
Nashville, Tennessee 37243