Opinion ID: 1057905
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: issues raised by judicial selection commission

Text: In its first issue, the Judicial Selection Commission joins Lewis in arguing that the trial court erred in ruling that the Tennessee Human Rights Act does not apply to the Governor when appointing individuals to fill judicial vacancies. For the reasons stated above in our analysis of Lewis's issues, we affirm the trial court's ruling that the THRA does not apply in this case. In its second issue, the Commission argues that the Governor's letter dated July 24, 2006, in which he requested that the Commission send him a new panel of nominees that includes qualified minority candidates, encroached on the powers assigned to the Commission by the Tennessee Plan. The Commission asserts that the Governor's letter amounted to an instruction to the Commission that the second panel contain one or more minority nominees and that such an instruction invades the authority of the Commission to determine the best qualified persons available for service. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 17-4-101(a). The trial court rejected this argument, concluding that the disputed portion of the Governor's letter was clearly a request and that the letter does not rise to the level of an executive directive or order. We agree with the trial court's characterization of the Governor's letter as a request, rather than an executive directive or order. Therefore, we conclude that the Governor's letter did not impermissibly encroach upon the Commission's powers. In its third issue, the Commission asserts that the trial court erred in its determination of the appropriate remedy. Based upon its resolution of the various issues raised by the parties, the trial court ordered the Commission to certify and submit to the Governor a second panel of nominees, which panel could not include the names of Gordon or Lewis. The trial court went further, however, and provided that: 3. The Commission shall not open the matter to new applicants or convene additional public hearings, but shall minimize the time and expense and draw upon the work they [sic] have already done by considering the applications of the pool already collected. 4. From that pool, the Commission shall select a third nominee to add to and complete the second panel already comprised of Judge D'Army Bailey and Judge William Koch. The Commission argues that the remedy imposed by the trial court went too far and unduly restricts the manner in which the Commission is to perform its statutory duties. The Commission goes on to assert in its brief: As a result of the Governor's actions and the Chancellor's ruling in this case, the landscape has changed. Therefore, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court (1) reverse the part of the Chancellor's Order restricting the selection of the third name to the current pool of applicants, and (2) allow the Commission the discretion as to how it will proceed to pick the third nominee. Among the trial judge's stated reasons for the limited scope of the remedy was the importance of filling, as soon as practicable, the existing vacancy on this Court. [12] While we commend the trial judge for her concern about the vacancy's impact on this Court and on Tennessee's judicial system, we agree with the Commission that the remedy ordered by the trial court unduly restricts the Commission's authority under the Tennessee Plan. As stated in the Commission's brief, [o]ther than setting out some general rules to guide the Commission's work, Tenn.Code Ann. § 17-4-109, the Tennessee Plan leaves the basic operating procedures to Commission's discretion. Section 17-4-109(e) provides that the Commission by a majority vote shall select three (3) persons whom the commission deems best qualified and available to fill the vacancy and certify the names of the three (3) persons to the governor as nominees for the judicial vacancy. Because an ineligible nominee (Gordon) was included on the second panel certified to the Governor, the statutory requirement that the Commission certify the names of three persons was never satisfied; under those circumstances, the panel was void ab initio, and the Commission must reinstitute the selection process for all three nominees to be included on the second panel. [13] Even if we were to conclude that the panel was not void ab initio, there is another reason why the Commission must reinstitute the selection process for the second panel. The Commission argues in part that the trial court erred in limiting the Commission's discretion to accept additional applications for the second panel. We note again that the Commission has the statutory duty to select three (3) persons whom the commission deems best qualified and available to fill the vacancy. Tenn.Code Ann. § 17-4-109(e). It logically follows from the statute that, in order to make an informed judgment as to which applicants are the three persons best qualified and available, the Commission necessarily must compare each applicant with all of the other applicants who seek to fill the judicial vacancy. Consequently, it would contradict the intent of the statute if the Commission were to select one nominee from a group of applicants that differs, either in whole or in part, from the group of applicants from which the other two nominees were selected. The Commission therefore must consider together, in a single group, all applicants to fill the judicial vacancy. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the Commission is required to re-institute the selection process for all three of the nominees to be certified to the Governor as the second panel. Accordingly, we modify the trial court's judgment by overruling the remedy ordered by that court. As required by section 17-4-112(a), the Commission shall select and certify to the Governor a second panel of three nominees to fill the judicial vacancy on this Court. Although we encourage the Commission to act expeditiously, we leave to its discretion the manner in which it will select and certify the three nominees. We note, for the Commission's guidance, however, that it may, but is not required to, do any of the following: (1) consider all of the applications previously submitted for the second panel; [14] (2) accept additional applications for consideration; or (3) hold additional hearings as part of the selection process. Upon concluding the process adopted by the Commission, the Commission shall select and certify to the Governor three nominees to fill the judicial vacancy. [15]