Opinion ID: 1796970
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: does the complaint state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted?

Text: Having resolved the question of the appropriateness of the attorney general's representation of the defendants, we now turn to the substantive ruling of the trial court that the amended complaint filed herein should be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. We are of the opinion that the action of the learned chancellor was correct in deciding that the complaint failed to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted. The four bases for the court's holding are discussed hereafter.
Plaintiffs urge that the provisions of T.C.A. § 2-13-201 requiring substantial compliance with the election code and T.C.A. § 2-13-203, providing that political parties may nominate their candidate by any method authorized by party rules or by primary election, renders the chancery court a forum for party members to challenge alleged misconduct in making party nominations. We expressly reject that contention. Courts of equity are conversant only with matters of property and the maintenance of civil rights, and in the absence of statutory authority will not interfere to enforce or protect purely political rights. Accordingly, a court of equity ordinarily will not undertake by injunction or otherwise to supervise the acts and management of a political party for the protection of purely political rights when no rights of property are involved. The rule that courts of equity are without jurisdiction to enforce purely political rights is particularly applicable in all questions involving the irregularity of party organization and in matters involving nominations of party candidates where the nominations are held under rules and regulations promulgated by the party organization and are not governed by any statutory proceedings. ... 25 AM.JUR.2d Election § 127 (1966). (Emphasis supplied). Further, the election code read in its entirety indicates that T.C.A. § 2-13-203 is to be read permissively. T.C.A. § 2-1-102 plainly states that the election code is to regulate the conduct of all elections by the people. T.C.A. § 2-1-104(6) defines elections as including general elections, primary elections and submission of questions to the people by a ballot  not the method of selecting nominees by the Tennessee State Democratic Executive Committee. It is argued by the plaintiffs that the State Executive Committee actions are regulated by the code and that the State Executive Committee, in selecting by secret ballot the nominees now challenged, violated the sunshine law, T.C.A. § 2-1-113. We expressly reject this contention. A clear indication of the legislative intent to keep the courts and the public sector out of intra-party actions, reactions and squabbles is T.C.A. § 2-17-104, which provides that challenges to primary elections are to be settled within the party structure. And in the case of Heiskell v. Ledgerwood, 144 Tenn. 666, 234 S.W. 1001 (1921), the court held in clear and unmistakable terms that party determinations are conclusive on the courts. If the party structure is to make the final determination in matters of primary elections, even though expressly regulated by the code, [11] it would stretch the imagination to conclude that nominations otherwise made and unregulated are to be determined by the courts. Allowing these disputes to be settled by the party, prior to the elections, assures the electorate that the candidate, once fairly and honestly elected, will not be prevented from serving because of challenges to the pre-election nomination process. And if the previously existing law were not clear enough on the subject, one has only to read the express holding of a previous case on this matter, Taylor v. Tennessee State Democratic Executive Committee, supra , wherein it was held that: The chancery courts of this state do not have jurisdiction of this subject matter. At common law there existed no right to contest in the courts the title to nomination of a political party for office; and therefore no such right exists unless specifically provided by statute... . There is no such statute in this state. T.C.A. § 2-1701 confers exclusive jurisdiction on the chancery courts for election contests, not nomination contests. 574 S.W.2d at 717. (Emphasis supplied). No holding on the subject could be more clear, lucid, definitive or final. The chancellor was correct in dismissing this suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The courts throughout this land seem uniformly to be concerned about the expression of the will of the majority of the electors, a full, fair and free expression of the public will, and, of course, the consideration that the successful candidate is otherwise qualified to hold office. See Moore v. State, 37 Tenn. 510 (5 Sneed 1858). In Browning v. Gray, 137 Tenn. 70, 191 S.W. 525, 526 (1917), the Tennessee courts for the first time many years ago established the general proposition that: Courts are properly very slow to interfere with the declared result of an election unless there are specific charges of fraud directed against named voters sufficient in number to change the result. This rule is supported by a sound public policy grounded in a due regard for the peace and order of society and the stability of governments. If the will of a majority of the legal and qualified voters has been ascertained, although irregularly ascertained, it would be bootless to order another election to accomplish the same purpose. Id. 191 S.W. at 526. In Summitt v. Russell, 199 Tenn. 174, 285 S.W.2d 137 (1955), it is noted that a mere irregularity doing no injury to voters or candidates will not invalidate an election. The contrary rule would defeat the will of the majority. McCraw v. Harralson, 44 Tenn. 34 (4 Cold. 1867), discusses the objective of a statute relating to election inspectors and says that strict conformity is not required, because it would result in interminable contests about unsubstantial formalities, and end in a practical denial of the right of the people to choose their own officers. That case also holds to avoid an election for a technicality in choosing inspectors would lead to defeat, rather than uphold, popular elections, and cannot be maintained. It was well stated in Barry v. Lauck, 45 Tenn. 588 (5 Cold. 1868), that to set aside an election, the alleged wrong must be so gross and palpable a failure of opportunity for a free and equal expression of the popular will, that the election cannot be permitted to stand. See also Hanover v. Boyd, 173 Tenn. 426, 121 S.W.2d 120 (1938) where an immaterial official oversight was not permitted to interfere with the express will of the voters.
The court below held that Taylor v. Tennessee State Democratic Executive Committee, supra , barred this suit on the basis of stare decisis. While the parties were different in the Taylor case the issues raised were in substance the same. Taylor v. Tennessee State Democratic Executive Committee, supra , is the law of this case. It is the rule in this state that party squabbles and disputes will be decided through the machinery of those political parties, not the courts. Counsel for the plaintiffs should know this rule better than any living person, because he was counsel in both the consolidated cases that became Taylor v. Tennessee State Democratic Executive Committee, 574 S.W.2d 716 (Tenn. 1978).
The law is clear in Tennessee that a private citizen may not institute a proceeding to have an election declared void on any ground. This principle was first alluded to by the distinguished Mr. Chief Justice Neil in the case of Skelton v. Barnett, 190 Tenn. 70, 227 S.W.2d 774, 775 (1950) when he said: There is no case in the books so far as we have been able to find wherein an individual citizen is permitted to file a bill seeking to have an election declared void upon any ground. Since the complainant in the instant case seeks no relief whatever for himself, he is not permitted to challenge the result of the election solely upon the grounds that he seeks to redress a public wrong. Thereafter, in Walker v. Sliger, 218 Tenn. 657, 405 S.W.2d 471 (1966) the court in reliance on Mr. Justice Neil's language in Skelton v. Barnett, supra , reaffirmed the principle that an individual citizen is not permitted to file a complaint seeking to have an election declared void upon any grounds. The rule is essentially that a private citizen, as such, cannot maintain an action complaining of wrongful acts of public officials unless such private citizen avers special interest or a special injury not common to the public generally. See generally Patton v. Mayor, Etc., City of Chattanooga, 108 Tenn. 197, 65 S.W. 414 (1901); Walldorf v. City of Chattanooga, 192 Tenn. 86, 237 S.W.2d 939 (1951); and Bennett v. Stutts, 521 S.W.2d 575 (Tenn. 1975). In Bennett v. Stutts, supra , the court reaffirmed the rule prohibiting private citizens from commencing a quo warranto action to rectify a public wrong. However, in dicta it was indicated that there was a requirement that the trial judge conduct an in limine hearing for the purpose of determining whether or not the attorney general had arbitrarily refused to lend his name and that of the state for the benefit of relators. No other Tennessee authority has been found or cited for this proposition. The in limine hearing conceived in Bennett v. Stutts, supra , is designed to determine whether or not to permit the plaintiffs to proceed. The trial court must determine whether the attorney general, in refusing to act, has done so arbitrarily or capriciously or in declining to bring such action has been guilty of palpable abuse of his discretion. It must be noted that the court in Bennett v. Stutts, supra , after making the above pronouncement, ruled that the plaintiffs in that case were correct in their insistence that the county officers being attacked were not elected in accordance with the provisions of the Tennessee Code. Nevertheless, the court held that they did not have standing to bring the suit. Even with the Bennett v. Stutts exception to the general rule, the trial judge would have to find that the district attorney general's refusal to bring the suit or authorize its institution was a palpable abuse of his discretion. Since Taylor v. Tennessee State Democratic Executive Committee, supra , had been previously decided, reasonable minds could not differ with the proposition that the district attorney general is absolutely shielded by that authority. The court in Taylor, supra , specifically held that the chancery court did not have jurisdiction to entertain a suit contesting title of the nominee of a political party to the office sought. This suit contests precisely that question. The district attorney general had every right, and indeed a duty, to rely upon the Taylor case as legal precedent in opposition to the request being made by the plaintiffs. Conversely, had the district attorney general brought a quo warranto suit in the face of the Taylor decision, he might well have been guilty of an abuse of the powers of his office. We think he acted with absolute propriety and that the court below quite properly sustained his actions. The plaintiffs have alleged special injury in this matter upon which they predicate their right to sue. The plaintiff James Edward Inman purports to have a special interest because the supreme court is alleged to have arbitrarily and wrongfully refused to hear his appeal. Giving him the benefit of the gravest doubt and assuming solely for purposes of argument that the nomination of these parties was, in fact, irregular prior to their election, they nevertheless received a clear majority of the vote. They have, since the date of their election in 1974, assumed the duties of the office and have carried out its functions. They are at a minimum, de facto the Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee under any possible construction. The acts of a de facto officer are binding upon the public at large; therefore, Mr. Inman does not have a special interest which would set him apart from the said public at large so as to give him standing to sue. See Country Club, Inc. v. City of Knoxville, 217 Tenn. 104, 395 S.W.2d 789, 793 (1965). To allow an unsuccessful litigant to make the claim of special standing solely because he was unsuccessful would be potentially destructive of the judicial system. This we will not allow.
In the Taylor case it was clearly held that the delay by the unsuccessful candidate in the Democratic Party Executive Committee struggle, who waited eight weeks before taking legal action, was sufficient to invoke the doctrine of laches when, during the eight weeks, the nominee, the Democratic Party and the entire election machinery of the state prepared for the general election. Here there is a delay of five years from the action complained of before suit is brought. Having concluded that plaintiff Inman is without sufficient special interest, or standing to sue, as an unsuccessful litigant, we find further that his five-year delay in bringing this action subjects the action to the same bar of laches as that applied in the Taylor court. Plaintiff Bench and Bar, which did not exist at the time of the contested nomination, may not escape the bar of laches merely by reason of being founded several years subsequent to that event. Furthermore, that entity's self-proclaimed purpose, to aid and strengthen the administration of justice ... does not create for it a special or peculiar interest; on the contrary, its interest is entirely consistent with that of the public at large. We, therefore, conclude that its appeal must be disposed of in the same manner as that of plaintiff Inman.