Court Opinion

ID: 9757267
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 22:28:31.693695+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:37.497066
License: Public Domain

HARRY PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge (sitting as district judge by designation), (dissenting):
I do not agree that the “one man, one vote” rule applies to the Rutherford County School Commission, which is a local administrative agency created by the Legislature to administer the affairs of the county school system.
The Tennessee apportionment statute now provides for reapportionment of the Legislature upon the basis of population in accordance with Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506, and Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663. Under the latest decision in Baker v. Carr, 247 F. Supp. 629 (M.D.Tenn.), the General Assembly which will be elected in November 1966 and which will convene on the first Monday in January 1967 will be a validly apportioned body under the “one man, one vote” rule.
In Tennessee a school board or district is an arm or instrumentality of government subject to the unlimited control of the Legislature. Taylor v. Taylor, 189 Tenn. 81, 222 S.W.2d 372; Kee v. Parks, 153 Tenn. 306, 309, 283 S.W. 751. It is “under the control of the legislature, so that it may be abolished, or its power may be enlarged or its responsibilities increased, at any time, by that body, without the danger of encountering constitutional difficulties.” Edmondson v. Board of Education, 108 Tenn. 557, 561, 69 S.W. 274, 275, 58 L.R.A. 170. It has “no rights which the legislature may not subsequently modify or abrogate.” Cunningham v. Broadbent, 177 Tenn. 202, 207, 147 S.W.2d 408, 410; Williams v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 289 U.S. 36, 53 S.Ct. 431, 77 L.Ed. 1015; City of Trenton v. State of New Jersey, 262 U.S. 182, 43 S.Ct. 534, 67 L.Ed. 937.
Further, the powers of the Rutherford County School Commission are administrative, not legislative, in character. It does not have the power of taxation, nor could such authority be delegated to it by the Legislature. Williamson v. McClain, 147 Tenn. 491, 249 S.W. 811; Waterhouse v. Cleveland Public Schools, 68 Tenn. 398. It is not authorized to adopt ordinances or otherwise exercise legislative powers. Although created by private statute, Chapter 426, Private Acts of 1943, its powers are controlled by the general school laws of the State, TCA, Title 49, by the General Education statute enacted biennially by the Legislature (see, e. g., Ch. 76, Public Acts of 1965; *837Ch. 39, Public Acts of 1963), and by rules and regulations promulgated by the State Board of Education.
We cannot assume that the Tennessee Legislature, which now has been reapportioned on a constitutional basis, will fail to correct any malapportionment that may exist in its arms, agencies and instrumentalities, when corrective measures are needed. I do not read Reynolds v. Sims, supra, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506, and Baker v. Carr, supra, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed. 2d 663, as construing the Fourteenth Amendment to require extension of the “one man, one vote” rule to every local election, and particularly the election of local agencies possessing no legislative powers. See Weinstein, The Effect of the Federal Reapportionment Decisions on Counties and Other Forms of Municipal Government, 65 Colum.L.Rev. 21.
Once the Legislature is validly constituted, I do not believe there is a constitutional requirement that personnel of its subservient arms and agencies, created to perform purely administrative functions, must be elected on the “one man, one vote” basis.
In my opinion the election of members of the Rutherford County School Commission, in accordance with the private statute here involved, does not violate rights secured to plaintiffs by the Fourteenth Amendment. Glass v. Hancock County Election Commission, 250 Miss. 40, 156 So.2d 825, appeal dismissed, 378 U.S. 558, 84 S.Ct. 1910, 12 L.Ed.2d 1035; Tedesco v. Board of Supervisors of Elections, La.App., 43 So.2d 514, appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 339 U.S. 940, 70 S.Ct. 797, 94 L.Ed. 1357; Lynch v. Torquato, 343 F.2d 370 (C.A.3); Moody v. Flowers, 256 F. Supp. 195, (M.D.Ala.); Johnson v. Genesee County, Michigan, 232 F.Supp. 567 (E.D.Mich.).
I would dismiss the complaint.