Opinion ID: 1506501
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Individual Plaintiffs[8]

Text: The record on appeal clearly indicates that the individual Plaintiffs were aware of the proposed Marriage Amendment prior to the 2004 election, despite the alleged untimely publication. Moreover, the individual Plaintiffs have neither alleged nor even suggested that they learned of the Marriage Amendment from the notice published by the Secretary of State on June 20, 2004. In fact, none of the Plaintiffs saw this notice. Additionally, as the Chancellor found, Plaintiffs failed to establish that the alleged untimely publication impaired their right to vote in the 2004 election or precluded them from supporting candidates in the 2004 election who opposed the proposed Marriage Amendment. Plaintiffs also failed to establish that the alleged untimely publication precluded them from planning or conducting prior to the 2004 election lobbying or grassroots campaigns against the Marriage Amendment. As proof of an injury in fact, Plaintiffs point to allegations and deposition testimony of Plaintiffs Renee Kasman and Scott Hines. Plaintiff Renee Kasman, a citizen of Tennessee with a same-sex domestic partner of 20 years whom she wishes to marry, testified that if she had been aware of the Marriage Amendment sooner, she would have spent more time and energy determining whether the candidates running to represent her district in the 2004 election supported or opposed the Marriage Amendment, and she would have lobbied these candidates with her views on the Marriage Amendment. Kasman maintained that she needed time just to catch up to speed on how the process works. Despite this testimony, an e-mail Kasman produced during discovery indicates that she became aware of HJR 990 and the Marriage Amendment as early as March 21, 2004, [9] only four days after HJR 990's introduction and long before the 2004 election. Kasman has failed to show how the alleged untimely publication rendered her unaware of the Marriage Amendment. Kasman admitted that she did not vote in the 2004 state legislative races, claiming that she had not been able to determine the candidates' positions on the Marriage Amendment. However, Kasman has not shown that her inability to determine the candidates' positions resulted from the alleged untimely publication. In fact, Kasman indicated that she had been unable to determine the candidates' positions on the Marriage Amendment because the campaign had focused on personalities rather than issues. Kasman at no time explained how or why she would have been able or better able to determine the candidates' position on the Marriage Amendment if the Secretary of State had published notice of the Marriage Amendment on May 2, 2004, rather than June 20, 2004. Plaintiff Scott Hines also is in a committed same-sex relationship and is personally affected by the proposed amendment. The record reflects that Scott Hines knew of the Marriage Amendment prior to the 2004 election, that he contacted his state representative and state senator to express opposition to the Marriage Amendment, that he contacted other members of the General Assembly via telephone and electronic mail to express opposition to the measure, and that both he and Jonathan Hines attended legislative committee hearings and talked with legislators about several issues, including the Marriage Amendment. However, Scott Hines maintained that he would have done more, but organizations, such as ACLU and TEP, that he relies upon to direct his lobbying activities got started late in the process because notification did not happen. According to Scott Hines, if publication had been timely these organizations would have known of the Marriage Amendment earlier and could have advised him to lobby in a variety of other ways from holding up street signs to putting sign markers in yards. Scott Hines opined that [t]here are only certain things that informed citizens can do as individuals, and I think we did those things. I called, I e-mailed my representatives and told them I didn't want them to do this. And I did that soon after I found out about this and was notified through some of the grassroot organizations that I belong to. . . . Scott Hines' assertion that he was precluded from additional lobbying activities because the alleged untimely publication resulted in organizations not being aware of the Marriage Amendment is belied by the record on appeal. Indeed, the executive director of ACLU testified that she learned of HJR 990 on the day it was introduced and aggressively lobbied against its passage. Responses to interrogatories filed on behalf of TEP indicate that it was formed to oppose HJR 990 and that, although TEP did not convene its first official Board meeting until September 2004, TEP officers and board members had numerous person-to-person conversations with state legislators in April and May of 2004 on behalf of the group that would later be called the Tennessee Equality Project. All such conversations were about HJR 990. TEP continued its efforts to oppose HJR 990 in May and throughout the summer and fall of 2004. TEP eventually hired a lobbyist to represent its interest during the 104th General Assembly and considered SJR 31 and the Marriage Amendment one of the most important issues for the TEP lobbyist to address. In sum, the proof in the record refutes Scott Hines' assertion that the alleged untimely publication resulted in interested organizations being unaware of the Marriage Amendment and unable to direct his lobbying activities. Scott Hines also testified that he would have contributed more money to candidates opposing the Marriage Amendment had he known of the measure sooner. However, Scott Hines did not identify the candidates to whom he would have contributed money. In addition, Scott Hines stated that he voted for Representative Gary Odom in the 2004 election knowing that Representative Odom supported the Marriage Amendment. Finally, Scott Hines failed to explain how publication of the Marriage Amendment on June 20, 2004, rather than May 2, 2004, hindered or precluded him from contributing to candidates opposing the Marriage Amendment. Like Kasman, Scott Hines has not shown a causal connection between his claimed injury and the alleged illegality. See Korioth v. Brisco, 523 F.2d 1271, 1275 (5th Cir.1975) ([A]lthough an irate citizen might vigorously pursue litigation challenging alleged governmental illegalities, a court cannot fashion a specific remedy without some finding of specific harm.). Kasman and Hines also may not predicate standing to bring this lawsuit upon their belief that the Marriage Amendment will adversely affect their lives and their legal rights and liabilities if it is ratified. Plaintiffs' sexual orientation and interest in same gender marriage simply are not relevant to their claim that the Marriage Amendment was not published in accordance with Article XI, section 3. Plaintiffs' reliance upon Campbell v. Sundquist, 926 S.W.2d 250 (Tenn.Ct.App.1996) perm. app. denied (Tenn.1996), to afford them standing is misplaced. Plaintiffs in Campbell were challenging the constitutionality of a criminal statute, titled The Homosexual Practices Act, which threatened their liberty interests. As the Defendants and Intervenors point out, any deficiency in the timeliness of publication of the Marriage Amendment operated on all members of the public equally, whether gay or not. Standing may not be predicated upon injury to an interest that a plaintiff shares in common with all citizens. Plaintiffs also argue that they have special standing as voters, and rely upon Walker v. Dunn, 498 S.W.2d 102 (Tenn. 1972), Bergdoll v. Kane, 557 Pa. 72, 731 A.2d 1261, 1268 (1999), and Moore v. Shanahan, 207 Kan. 1, 486 P.2d 506 (1971) to support this argument. Plaintiffs are mistaken. In Walker , the General Assembly met in special session to ratify a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution. The Walker plaintiffs claimed that this action violated Article II, section 32 of the Tennessee Constitution and wholly deprived them of their right to vote for the General Assembly that would be charged with ratifying the amendment. This Court described the plaintiffs' allegations as sufficient to establish a real interest in the suit, id. at 105, and held that the plaintiffs' had standing as voters to maintain the lawsuit challenging an action that had denied them of their right to vote. Thus, despite Plaintiffs' assertions to the contrary, standing in Walker was predicated upon a distinct, concrete injury in fact denial of the right to vote. Standing was not predicated upon the Walker plaintiffs' status as voters. See also Schultz v. Lewallen, 188 Tenn. 206, 217 S.W.2d 944 (1948) (holding that voters lacked standing to bring suit to enjoin elections in two county district); State ex rel. Hammond v. Wimberly, 184 Tenn. 132, 196 S.W.2d 561 (1946) (holding that voters lacked standing to sue to enjoin local officials from certifying a recall petition and holding a recall election); Parks, 608 S.W.2d 881 (holding that voters lacked standing to challenge a constitutional amendment under Article XI, section 3). Unlike the Walker plaintiffs, Plaintiffs in this case are not seeking to vindicate their right to vote. Rather, Plaintiffs are asking this Court to enjoin an election. Plaintiffs were not denied their right to vote in the 2004 election. In addition, as previously noted, Plaintiffs were aware of the Marriage Amendment before the 2004 election and were able to consider it when voting in the 2004 election. Plaintiffs have failed to establish that their right to vote in the 2004 election was compromised by the Secretary of State publishing the Marriage Amendment on June 20, 2004, rather than May 2, 2004. [10] Finally, having held that the Plaintiffs fail to satisfy the first and second prongs of our test for standing, we refrain from addressing whether they satisfy the third and final prong as well. Well-settled principles of judicial restraint establish that when a case must be decided upon constitutional grounds, a court should strive to resolve the matter as narrowly as possible. . . . Powers v. City of Richmond, 10 Cal.4th 85, 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 839, 857, 893 P.2d 1160 (1995). Because standing to be heard requires the Plaintiffs to fulfill three requirementscognizable injury, causation, and redressibilityit is not necessary for us to reach the issue of whether Plaintiffs have proved that the relief requested from this Court would redress the putative injuries of which they complain. We decline to address this issue here.