Posted on 09/07/2006 7:54:04 AM PDT by SmithL
It was a packed house for a historic court case.
But if folks came in search of clues to how the state Supreme Court justices might rule on the validity of Knox County's charter, they left empty-handed.
The state high court's five justices - Gary Wade, Janice Holder, William "Mickey" Barker, Cornelia A. Clark and the retiring Riley Anderson - fired off plenty of questions for the slew of attorneys arguing various points on the charter, term limits and application of term limits.
None of those queries, however, revealed the justices' leanings in a case that some contend could rend the very fabric of Knox County's form of government.
Barker, for instance, took Knox County Law Director John Owings' argument that the charter is valid even though it does not detail the duties of various county officeholders and turned it upside down.
"Is it your position the charter would not be constitutional if it assigned responsibilities to the sheriff and these other (constitutional officeholders)?" Barker asked.
"Absolutely not," Owings answered.
Clark's first question was blunt.
"What about term limits?" she demanded of Owings.
"Does it apply to constitutional officers?" Barker added.
"Some of the folks here will tell you yes," Owings answered. "I will tell you no. It is permissible to term-limit commissioners and the county mayor, the county law director. That's it."
The justices also peppered opposing attorney John Valliant with questions as he argued that the charter was invalid and term limits void.
Like Barker in his approach with Owings, Wade twisted Valliant's position to the extreme.
"Where does that place your client today if we decide term limits are applicable, yet she was duly re-elected?" Wade asked, referring to County Commissioner Diane Jordan, one of five term-limited officials Valliant represents. All but one of the five commissioners, David Collins, won re-election last month.
"It would appear to me the argument could be made that is the will of the people," Valliant responded.
It was Jordan and four of her commission colleagues - Phil Guthe, John Griess, Billy Tindell and Collins - whose legal action put the charter in jeopardy.
The charter chaos began after the state Supreme Court upheld a term-limits provision under Shelby County's charter, which is a mirror image of Knox County's governmental framework. Although voters in Knox County had approved a term-limits amendment years ago, it had been ignored at the advice of the Knox County law director's office.
That changed with the Shelby County ruling earlier this year.
The five commissioners, all of whom would be ineligible to seek re-election under the term-limits provision, filed suit in Knox County Chancery Court.
In June, Chancellor John Weaver ruled that the charter was legally flawed, as was the term limits amendment. Knox County appealed, and the state's high court agreed to exercise its rarely used power to snatch the case up directly for review.
Along the way, a third legal argument has been added: If the charter and term limits are valid, to whom do they apply?
Officeholders such as Sheriff Tim Hutchison, Trustee Mike Lowe and County Clerk Mike Padgett contend via their respective attorneys that they are constitutional officers exempt from the charter's control and term limits.
Knox County Commissioner John Schmid disagrees, arguing that voters intended when a majority of them approved the term-limits amendment to apply the two-term limit to all county officeholders.
At Wednesday's arguments before the justices, Schmid's attorney, Tom McAdams, urged the justices to uphold the charter and apply the term-limits provision to all elected leaders.
"We would like the court to throw them all out of office, including my client John Schmid," McAdams said.
"You say throw them all out of office," Barker replied. "Do we call a special election? How does that mechanic work?"
"Either they do the right thing and resign or some sort of removal or ouster proceeding should be (initiated)," McAdams answered.
"Are you saying that for the last 16 years, Knox County has not been served by a (legally elected) sheriff?" Barker pressed.
"That's absolutely correct, Your Honor," McAdams responded.
Attorney Jon Roach, who represented the so-called constitutional officeholders along with attorneys Albert Harb and Ralph Harwell, argued that there is a reason certain leaders' positions are governed by the state constitution and not local law.
"(Legislators) intended to have some uniformity across the state," Roach argued.
He cited a need for consistent practices in recording deeds, collecting state revenue and enforcing state laws as examples.
It will be in the very least weeks and possibly a few months before the court issues a ruling in the case.
Owings insists there will be fallout if the county loses its battle to prop up the charter, including the sudden lack of legal teeth in many ordinances passed with the charter as the basis.
Valliant counters that county government will revert back to the law that formed its basis before the charter was enacted in 1988, while steps are taken to allow Knox Countians to vote on a revised charter.
"We had a pretty good government back in 1988," Valliant told the justices. "I don't see the chaos some people are saying we'll have."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.