Federal judge sets May 20 hearing in Tennessee redistricting lawsuit

A federal court hearing is set for May 20 to determine whether a temporary restraining order should be placed on Tennessee’s new congressional district maps, five days later than the new deadline lawmakers scheduled for candidates to qualify for the ballot.

The Tennessee legislature redrew the maps last week, splitting a majority-Black district in Memphis, in a hastily-called special session to support President Donald Trump in the midterm election. The move is designed to give Republicans a 9-0 sweep of Tennessee’s congressional seats by diluting Memphis’ vote by separating the city into three districts containing rural red counties and Williamson and Maury counties in Middle Tennessee.

U.S. District Court Judge William Campbell encouraged attorneys for the state attorney general, including three lawyers with Consovoy McCarthy in Arlington, Virginia, to work out agreements on procedural issues. The state is likely to argue that a three-judge panel is required to hear the case, which must be expedited because preparation for the election has been under way since the March 10 qualifying deadline.

Following a chaotic special session ordered by Gov. Bill Lee at Trump’s request, the Tennessee Democratic Party, four Democratic congressional candidates and four voters filed the federal challenge to Republican efforts to alter congressional maps in the midst of a 10-year apportionment cycle. The legislature changed a state law prohibiting such revisions and redrew the maps, splitting Shelby County into three districts, a move Republicans claim is legal following the U.S. Supreme Court decision that weakens a key provision in the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Lawmakers also extended the candidate qualifying date to May 15, a critical date in the election process when absentee ballots are also to be sent overseas to U.S troops.

The NAACP Tennessee State Conference filed a separate lawsuit in Davidson County Chancery Court to stop the map from taking effect.

Plaintiffs in the federal case filed an amended motion to their initial challenge and additional statements contending that the new act violates constitutional rights and jeopardizes the election process.

“These are extraordinary circumstances,” David Garrison, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said during a Monday phone conference with the judge. He said that a temporary restraining order should be issued by this Friday to maintain the “status quo” or risk violating people’s constitutional rights.

Garrison said the state argued in a 2022 legal challenge that changing district maps late in the election process would cause “irreparable harm” and disenfranchise voters. That took place before the qualifying deadline four years ago in a challenge of the state’s district map, which failed to abide by a constitutional requirement that multiple Senate seats in Davidson County be consecutively numbered.

Taylor Meehan, with Consovoy McCarthy, said the defendants need time to respond in writing to the plaintiffs’ arguments, mainly to explain “how the 2022 circumstances can be conflated with the present circumstances.”