Opinion ID: 1632626
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: County Legislative Body Vacancies

Text: There are two vacancies in the county legislative body for the terms expiring in 1982. These vacancies are governed by Section 5-502(b), T.C.A. [3] The Chancellor held this entire sub-section to be unconstitutional and void to the extent that it provides for filling a vacancy in a county office except at a general August election because it is in conflict with Article VII, Section 2 of the Constitution. We respectfully differ. When properly construed there is no conflict. Both the constitutional provision and the statute provide for the vacancy to be filled by the legislative body. They differ in that the Constitution provides that the appointed successor shall serve until a successor is elected at the next election occurring after the vacancy; while the statute provides that the successor shall serve until the office is filled at the next general election, primary election or referendum. In a word, the Legislature, superficially, has attempted to expand the language of the Constitution. Viewed differently the Legislature has exercised its right and duty to regulate the election process. In the case of McPherson v. Everett, supra , we went into this question at some length and concluded that Article VII, Section 2, was not self-executing and that the phrase next election does not include a primary election, and that a vacancy in the office of county clerk could not be filled by placing the names of candidates on the Presidential Primary ballot. We further held, however, that the Legislature, acting pursuant to Article VII, Section 5, and Article IV, was privileged to provide for a special election on May 6, 1980, conducted simultaneously, but independently of the primaries. In McPherson , we were dealing with the county clerk and there is no statute providing for a special election to that office. Here, we have a specific statute dealing with vacancies in the county legislative body. It is our duty in construing any statute to start with a presumption of its constitutionality and treat it as being within the legislative power. State ex rel. Turner v. Wilson, 196 Tenn. 152, 264 S.W.2d 796 (1954). Any doubt must be resolved in favor of its constitutionality. Williams v. Cothron, 199 Tenn. 618, 288 S.W.2d 698 (1956). It is our duty to adopt a construction which will sustain the statute and avoid constitutional conflict, if its recitations permit such a construction. The cardinal rule, of course, is that we endeavor to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature. We view the statute in the light of the substantial innovations made in county government by the recent constitutional amendment and the implemental legislative enactment taken in its totality. We believe the overriding legislative purpose was to provide a mechanism for the selection of successor county commissioners designed, on the one hand, to ensure that the people had continuing representation, and on the other, to give maximum opportunity for the public to exercise its choice. Hence, the remaining members of the legislative body name a temporary successor and the people fill the vacancy on the date of a primary or the date of a referendum election. The members of the Legislature are politically knowledgeable and we cannot believe they intended to elect officials in a primary election wherein party nominees are chosen or in a referendum or on the ballot used at either such election. What the Legislature obviously intended was that on the date of these elections, when voter-turnout will be enhanced, a special election will be held to fill vacancies on the county commission. We note that the compulsory Presidential Primary and the optional party primary both occur on May 6, 1980 (the first Tuesday in May). We recognize that the May primary is not compulsory and is not utilized in many counties of the State. In those counties the next general election, as a rule, will be the first opportunity for the people to fill a vacancy. This, however, does not defeat the scheme. The Legislature, in the consideration of the implemental legislation, was faced with a task of gigantic proportions and was working within the framework of an inadequate time schedule. As a result of this it will no doubt wish to reconsider this particular section in connection with a comprehensive statute dealing with vacancies. In the meantime, we uphold this statute, at least on a transitional basis. The legislative body of Marion County is privileged to fill these vacancies pending a final election by the people at a special election to be held on May 6, 1980, the date of the county primary. The person so elected shall serve until the August 1980 general election at which time a successor will be selected to serve for the remainder of the term expiring August 31, 1982. This awkward result is prompted by the language of the section specifying that [a] person elected to fill the vacancy at a general election shall serve for the remainder of the unexpired term. (Emphasis supplied.) It is implicit in this provision that those selected at a special election will only serve until the next regular election. This section is in need of substantial revision. Our construction preserves the statute and hopefully arrives at the correct legislative intent; however the result we reach is far from satisfactory.