IN THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT FOR DAVIDSON COUNTY, TELJt:.

ED
JOHN JAY HOOKER, WALTER ) 15 AHI/:48
BRUMIT, and ANTHONY )
GOTTLIEB, )
Plaintiffs,
v.
LT. GOVERNOR RON RAMSEY,
HOUSE SPEAKER BETH HARWELL,
HON. ROBERT JONES, MICHAEL
E. TANT, CHRISTOPHER CLEM,
HENRIETTA GRANT, J. GREGORY
GRISHAM, HON. ROBERT
MONTGOMERY, JR., HON. J
MICHAEL SHARP, RENATASOTO
JOSEPH A. WOODRUFF, DAVID
HAINES, SECRETARY OF STATE
TRE HARGETT" GOVERNOR BILL
HASLAM, and ATTORNEY
GENERAL ROBERT E. COOPER, JR.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
FINAL ORDER
RICI1"RD R.ROGKER. CLERK

No. 13C-5012
This cause cwne on to be heard on January 14, 2014, on the Defendants' Motion
To Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Application for Declaratory Judgment and an Injunction. on
Plaintiffs Motion to Amend the Amended Application to name Holly Spann as a Plaintiff, and on
the Motion to Allow and Accept Amicus Brief of Mr. James D. R. Roberts, Jr. Based 00 the
pleadings of the parties, the arguments of counsel, the applicable law and the record as a whole,
the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
I. This Court finds that Plaintiffs' general challenges to the constitutionality of the
Retention Election Statutes, Tenn. Code Ann 17-4-101, et seq. are currently pending before the
Special Supreme Court in the case of Hooker v. Haslam, No. M20l2-01299-SC-Rl I-CV, and
therefore, such claims shall be dismissed under the doctrine of prior case pending.
2. TIus Court finds that Plaintiffs, John Jay Hooker, Walter Brunlit and Anthony
Gottlieb have standing to challenge alleged procedural denials of their constitutional right to
present grievances before the Evaluation Commission, to challenge the conduct of any Judge
under Article 1, sect. 23 and Supreme Court Rule 27, Section 2, alleging they were denied that
right, stating a recognizable basis affording them standing both as to subject matter and personal
standing, if true.
'This Court also finds that John J. Hooker by reference, is a professed judicial candidate
based on findings in the case of Hooker v. Haslam, No. M20l2-01299-SC-RI l-CV, and thus
has separate standing.
'This Court finds that Plaintiffs' motion to amend to add Holly Spann as a Plaintiff, -
representating women of Tennessee, is well-taken, and as such she also has standing in her
own behalf and as representative of the female population of the State_
3. This Court finds that the decision of Monder v. Board of Professional Responsibility,
M2012-0079-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 2490576 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 6, 2013) is controlling as to
the issue of the validity of Tenn. Supr. Ct. R. 27, and the Plaintiffs' challenges to the
validity of Rule 27 should be dismissed.
The Court further finds that the Supreme Court has the sole authority to establish the
procedures of its agencies pursuant to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 27 and the Supreme Court has
established the procedures for the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission.
The court finds that it is without authority or power to issue injunctive relief against the
Judicial Evaluation Commission or its members as the sole power to administer the Judicial
Evaluation Connnission lies with the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
4. lbis court fmds that all Plaintiffs have standing to seek a declaratory judgment as to
the validity of the composition of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission under the
provisions of the Tenn. Code Ann. 17-4-201 (b)(6) which reads: " The appointing authorities for
the judicial perfonnance evaluation commission shall make appointments that approximate the
population of the state with respect to race and gender ... the speakers shall receive, but shall not
be bound by, reconnnendations from any interested person or organization."
5. This court finds that the language of the legislative enabling statute for the
membership of the nine member Judicial Evaluation Connnission language is
mandatory, not permissive, and requires that the appointing authorities for the Judicial
Performance Evaluation Connnission shall make appointments that approximate the population
of the state with respect to race and gender.
This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the population of Tennessee,
according to the United States Census Bureau for 2012 is 52% women, 48% men
and 17% African- American, rounded off.
This Court finds that the composition of the current Judicial Performance Evaluation
Commission consists of nine men and two women and therefore, only
represents 22% of the female population of this state and 11 % of African- Americans
popUlation.
6. This Court concludes that the composition of the current Judicial Performance
Evaluation Commission is invalid ab initio under Tenn. Code Ann 17-4-20 1(b)(6) and is
discriminatory against the female and black population of the State of Tennessee, in violation of
the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of both the United
States and Tennessee Constitutions.
7. lbis Court declines, however, to enjoin any further actions of the
Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission and denies Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief
nor to declare that the actions of the Judicial Evaluation Commission "nul! and void", as such
declarations would invade the province of the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that:
1. Defendants Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' general challenge to the
constitutionality of the Retention Election Statutes is granted;
2. Defendants Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' challenge to validity of Tenn. Sup.
et. R. 27 is granted;
3. Defendaots Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Application on the
grounds that Plaintiffs lack standing is denied;
4. Plaintiffs' request for a declaratory judgment as to the validity of the
composition of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission is granted and the Court rules
that the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission is invalid under Tenn. Code Ann. 17-4-
201 (b )(6) and unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United
States and Tennessee Constitutions as being discriminatory toward the female and' black
population of the State of Tennessee;
5. The Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief enjoying any further actions of
the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission is denied; the Plaintiffs' petition for this court
to declare the actions ofthe Judicial Evaluation Cormnission "null and void" is denied;
6. That Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend to add Holly Spann as a Plaintiff is
granted;
7. That Mr. Roberts' Motion to File an Amicus Brief is granted; and
8. That all costs are assessed against the Defendants for which execution may
issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
~
Judge Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr.
I hereby certify that an exact and true copy of the foregoing has been mailed to:
Janet Kleinfelter
Deputy Attorney General
Office of Attorney General
P.O. Box 20207
Nashville, Tennessee 37202
John Jay Hooker
1I5 Woodmont Blvd.
Nashville, Tennessee 37205
On this the I.st'd!y of January, 2014.
Clerk