She should take it to the DOJ as a civil rights matter.

Qualifications-wise, Shelley would have been a solid candidate, and the type of Democrat we need to encourage to run for office. However, as unjust as this appears to be, I think it is time to turn in another direction. It is unlikely the Supreme Court would even grant an appeal of this decision (review is discretionary in this instance).

It is my understanding that the Election Commission is going to open up the process for the Democrats to nominate another candidate for this race. That's what the Democratic Party should focus on right now, recruiting a candidate to set up a long-shot race in case Hutchison is nominated by the GOP.

Shelley is young, smart, charismatic and will have plenty of opportunities to serve in her future, but asking the Supreme Court to review this decision will take time, and even if they take the case, it will be quixotic, as it will inevitably achieve the same awful result. Therefore, I urge Shelley to abandon this and to ask the Democratic Party to find a qualified replacement to carry the torch and work with that person to mount a strong challenge to the GOP nominee in November.

Because eliminating the competition is better than beating it. Please see the voter-roll shenanigans in Florida, Tennessee and elsewhere.

This ruling came from Charles Susano. He's a fine man, a good judge, a former Knox County Democratic Party chair and a former Tennessee Democratic Committee member. And he ruled against her.

If I'm not mistaken, all three Eastern Div. appellate court judges were appointed by Democrats. Unfortunately they are now operating behind enemy lines.

It strikes me that the law may not be on Breeding's side. That may be a problem with the law, but it seems that is the way the law reads.

No, that is not the way the law reads. The law lists multiple factors that may be considered in determining residence. It does not declare any of these factors to be "dispositive." Location of the physical dwelling is a factor. Where property taxes are paid is a factor. Several other factors are listed, and none is declared as the determining factor.

Furthermore, the law identifies two circumstances where residency is ambiguous, and in both cases it resolves the ambiguity by granting the citizen the choice. Unfortunately, those sections are overly specified such that Breeding's circumstance does not map to either. So the law is neither on her side or against her. It's ambiguous.

Rather than resolving the ambiguity using the cure provided for a similar circumstance (TCA 2-2-122(d)), the courts have invented a standard that does not come from the law. The chancery court did so by simply disposing of the parts of 2-2-122 that complicate matters, literally justifying this by saying it "the decision is much easier to make than if all factors of 2-2-122(b) have to be considered." (c) and (d) were dismissed out of hand. Likewise, the appellate court simply declared as a premise that physical location of the house is "dispositive" and considered nothing else.

So neither court based its ruling on the law, just the part of the law that allowed them to assert the power of the state rather than deferring power to a mere citizen. That's what someone who despises state-sanctioned political parties thinks, based strictly on the written law. My stance would be identical if it were a Democrat-controlled EC trying to cheat a Republican out of his or her civil rights.

The other gimmick in this farce is the sentence repeated in every KNS story, judicial ruling and KCEC filing: "District 89 is solely within Knox County." House districts can and do cross county lines. The 89th nominally includes only Knox Co voters, but there is no legally binding relationship between the drawn district and the county line. District lines were drawn up using the voter registration data, and Breeding, her husband and their similarly situated next-door neighbors were in the drawn district. It's a total artifice to pretend the house district must include the county line as one of its edges. It's an arbitrary line drawn around a set of voters. In this case, it is a set of Knox Co voters, one of whom is Shelley Breeding.

This whole thing is an abuse of authority, and it's sickening to see an appellate court playing along. The fact that the appellate court did not even bother to address whether the law supports their choice of "dispositive issue" suggests that Breeding's attorneys are not doing a very good job, like they are conceding to battle on turf where they are disadvantaged. I guess I'd better read the arguments from her attorneys and the TNDP.

I'm just trying to help folks understand the process, Sandra. Randy asked a question, I knew the answer. I didn't post here to become the subject of attacks. I've been out of the political world for nearly two years. If you can offer some insight into the process, great, go ahead and do it. Otherwise, perhaps you should shut up and refrain from turning this into something it's not.

Sandra, Democratic candidates are hard to find! But to the KCDP's credit, they are fielding candidates in every state race except the 19th House district if I'm not mistaken. Plus they have one unopposed in the 15th. (Unlike Blount Co., where there's not a single D on the Aug. ballot, and the only D on the March ballot was Barack Obama despite birther attempts to keep him off.)

Thanks, Gloria. Keep up the good work!

The last thing that needs to happen for Democrats is for there to be confusion about the process. So, Gloria is going in the right direction. As I said in an earlier post, the statute is very specific for what must occur when a candidate withdraws or is disqualified by a court. It appears to place the burden on the political party, not the commission. Here, the candidate was first disqualified by the Election Commission, then by a trial court, then by the Court of Appeals. Unlike the Supreme Court decision in '07 (the Jordan case), neither Court outlined a process other than what the statute provides. If I was Gloria, I'd get this verified IN WRITING by Cliff. The only time I recall this happening - re-opening the petition process - was after the Supreme Court ruling in '07.