I guess it's more efficient to suppress one Democratic candidate than trying to suppress thousands of Democratic votes.

Do they really think this is going to fly?

They chose what appears to be a highly experienced attorney to pick on. This might get interesting.

Betty Bean says Election Administrator Rogers "suggests that she might want to run in Anderson County"
(link...)

This is out of line.
No election official should opine as to who should run, where they should run or what they should run for.
One would hope that the election officials are not basing decisions on their personal or party preferences.

In complete fairness, I don't think we Dems are reasonable to assert that Repubs are necessarily trying to deny the very accomplished Ms. Breeding's candidacy.

Per TCA 2-12-201(a)(9), the Local Election Administrator Cliff Rodgers' duty is "compilation, maintenance and dissemination of information to the public, the candidates, the voters, the press and all inquiring parties in regard to all aspects of the electoral process on all governmental levels." That subsection outlining the LEA's duties does require that the LEA compile information, but it does not require--or even allow--that the LEA personally qualify or disqualify any candidate.

Conversely, TCA 2-11-202(a)(12) specifically requires the State Election Coordinator to "ensure that all election commissions within the state shall prohibit any person from becoming qualified to have such person's name placed on any ballot wherein such person is seeking to be nominated or elected to an office for which such person is ineligible."

Therefore, it looks to me like the correct party, namely the State Election Coordinator, will make this interpretation of law and presumably relate it to our Local Election Commission.

Local Election Administrator Cliff Rodger's only role will then be to carry out (or "administer") that interpretation.

Also, to the best of my memory, former LEA Greg Mackay followed this same "punting" process provided for in statute when he compiled or otherwise gained access to confusing candidate information of this sort.

Finally, my understanding is that this "punting" process provided for in statute enables someone at arm's length from a given local race to opine on such local controversies, which is a model I can appreciate.

Meanwhile, here is the full text of TCA 2-2-122, which Betty's story references and which provides the six factors guiding how a voter's (or a candidate's) residency is to be decided:

2-2-122. Principles for determination of residence -- Factors involved.

(a) The determination of whether a person is a resident or where the person resides or has residence for purposes of the election code shall be made in the light of the following principles:

(1) The residence of a person is that place in which the person's habitation is fixed, and to which, whenever the person is absent, the person has a definite intention to return; provided, that a person may not register to vote using a business location as the registration address when the sole basis for the person's presence at such location is based on a business or commercial use;

(2) A change of residence is generally made only by the act of removal joined with the intent to remain in another place. There can be only one (1) residence;

(3) A person does not become a resident of a place solely by intending to make it the person's residence. There must be appropriate action consistent with the intention;

(4) A person does not lose residence if, with the definite intention of returning, the person leaves home and goes to another country, state or place within this state for temporary purposes, even if of one or more years duration;

(5) The place where a married person's spouse and family have their habitation is presumed to be the person's place of residence, but a married person who takes up or continues abode with the intention of remaining at a place other than where the person's family resides is a resident where the person abides;

(6) A person may be a resident of a place regardless of the nature of the person's habitation, whether house or apartment, mobile home or public institution, owned or rented; however, a commercial address may not be used for residential purposes, unless the applicant provides evidence of such applicant's residential use of such address;

(7) A person does not gain or lose residence solely by reason of the person's presence or absence while employed in the service of the United States or of this state, or while a student at an institution of learning, or while kept in an institution at public expense, or while confined in a public prison or while living on a military reservation; and

(8) No member of the armed forces of the United States, or such member's spouse or dependent, is a resident of this state solely by reason of being stationed in this state.

(b) (1) The following factors, among other relevant matters, may be considered in the determination of where a person is a resident:

(A) The person's possession, acquisition or surrender of inhabitable property;

(B) Location of the person's occupation;

(C) Place of licensing or registration of the person's personal property;

(D) Place of payment of taxes which are governed by residence;

(E) Purpose of the person's presence in a particular place; and

(F) Place of the person's licensing for activities such as driving.

(2) In determining the residency of a person involuntarily confined in a state institution, the mere anticipation of a future grant of living quarters in a specific half-way house shall not be sufficient to establish intent to reside in such half-way house following release from the institution.

(c) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision in this chapter to the contrary, whenever county boundary lines cross through a farm being operated as a single unit, leaving such farm in two (2) separate counties, persons residing on such farms may make a one-time election to register to vote in either county. The administrator of elections shall place a person who chooses to register in the county which adjoins the physical location of the person's residence in the precinct where the property in the adjoining county is located.

(2) For the purpose of this subsection (c), "farm" means a tract of land of at least fifteen (15) acres constituting a farm unit engaged in the production of growing crops, plants, animals, nursery or floral products. Such farm shall produce gross agricultural income averaging at least one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) per year over a three-year period.

(d) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision in this chapter to the contrary, a person shall be eligible to register to vote in the county where the person pays property taxes on the person's primary residence even though the property is partially or totally located in another county, but the only access to the property is through the county where the person pays property taxes. Any person residing at such property shall make a one-time election to register to vote in either the county where the property taxes are paid or the county where the property is located.

(2) The county election commission may require the person to provide written documentation that the person pays property tax in the county if a person chooses to register in the county where the property taxes are paid.

HISTORY: Acts 1972, ch. 740, § 1; 1973, ch. 327, § 3; T.C.A., § 2-222; Acts 1989, ch. 590, § 11; 1994, ch. 859, § 13; 1994, ch. 919, § 19; 2005, ch. 163, §§ 1, 2; 2008, ch. 939, § 1.

It seemed odd to me that the statute should provide six determining factors--an even number rather than an odd number?

If I'm understanding these several circumstances correctly, Ms. Breeding would answer "Knox County" to three of them (items B, C, and F) and "Anderson County" to the other three (items A, D, and E)?

Excerpted from those six factors statute says determine residency...

(E) Purpose of the person's presence in a particular place; and

...is this one determinate, item E, that I didn't really understand.

Does item E mean that the State Coordinator is to ask "why does the voter/candidate reside where she does," namely in Anderson County, and that he will necessarily determine "she resides where she does because her house is there?"

That's why I concluded that Ms. Breeding would necessarily answer "Knox County" to three of those determinants and "Anderson County" to the other three.

But what do you understand item E to be asking???

Hell fire, Tamara! You're stepping all over next week's column!!!!!!

(Lemme tell you about the problems with weekly dead tree publications).

Oh, dear, Betty! Didn't mean to! Or you can blame Randy, maybe?!

(Just kidding, Randy.)

Well, without some help, I can't answer that question I posed, anyway...

I'll wait for "the weekly dead tree publication," then. Over and out!

But where's her long form driver's license!

Interesting. KGIS does not show her address as being in Knox Co., but the maps show part of it (front yard) as being in Knox Co. as she states. The house structure appears to be in Anderson Co.

Anderson Co. lists the address as theirs, and their maps show the same thing, i.e. the county boundary running through her property, but they also list her address as Knoxville, TN.

Who let a developer lay out plots like that?

Anyway, I can't find anything in state law about determining who collects property taxes when a county or other jurisdiction boundary runs through the property.

Never a dull moment in Knox Co. government and politics. As the Mrs. said, this might get interesting.

The new district maps also have the district boundary running through her property, and shows her front yard in the 89th district (where she's running) and her house in the 33rd.

WTF?

Anyway, I can't find anything in state law about determining who collects property taxes when a county or other jurisdiction boundary runs through the property.

Yeah, I looked, too.

And did you see this text, excerpted from TCA 2-2-122, above:

(d) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision in this chapter to the contrary, a person shall be eligible to register to vote in the county where the person pays property taxes on the person's primary residence even though the property is partially or totally located in another county, but the only access to the property is through the county where the person pays property taxes. Any person residing at such property shall make a one-time election to register to vote in either the county where the property taxes are paid or the county where the property is located.

Why, if someone's property were located totally
in another county, would statute suggest that that person might pay property tax to a county other than the one in which the property lies?!

I don't understand parts of these statutes, I don't understand why anyone let a developer lay such a plot, and I have absolutely no prediction on how the State Coordinator will find for the candidate...but truly, I can understand why Cliff Rodgers "punted!"

Quite confusing.

Exactly, Randy.

And Toby, what I'm saying is that the statute appears to be acknowledging that in an instance in which a given county has allowed a house to be sited within its boundaries (as in Breeding's house being sited in Anderson), that county (as in Anderson) may "forfeit" the collection of property taxes for its failure to provide an access road to the house.

However, that is precisely what Anderson county has done with Breeding's house--allowed it to be sited in Anderson, then failed to provide any access road to reach it--and yet Anderson is collecting property tax on the house.

I'm confused, then, as to what circumstances must exist in order for some superior entity (the state?) to conclude that a county has "forfeited" its right to collect any property tax on a house sited within its boundaries, yet inaccessible by its roads.

At least I think that's what I'm confused about. I'm confused, anyway...

One last question: Are we correct in assuming that Ms. Breeding accesses her home via Knox County because she cannot access it through any Anderson County road?

Or does she possibly access her home that way only because she works in Knox County, although access is also possible via some Anderson County road?

If the latter is the case, it may explain why Anderson County hasn't "forfeited" collecting property taxes on the home, as in because it's located there AND it's accessible from there?

Just another point on which we need clarification, I think.

Goins has issued an opinion that she is not a resident of the 89th district or Knox Co. He advises the ED to go ahead and get a court ruling because it will be contested either way. More links when I'm near a real computer.

Here's the State Election Coordinator's letter/opinion regarding the matter.

The Knox Co. EC will hold a meeting on Thursday, April 19, 2012 at 8 a.m. in the Main Assembly Room of the City-County Building to discuss.

Randy said:

Looking at the maps, her house is on a cul-de-sac. It and the street are entirely in Knox Co. and there doesn't appear to be any other access.

Oh, the "it" you refer to in the above sentence is the cul-de-sac, right? You're saying both the cul-de-sac and the road approaching it are in Knox County?

On my first read, I thought you were saying that "it," as in "the house," is entirely in Knox County, which of course contradicts what we see on both the KGIS and district maps.

Apologies and carry on.

An alert readers forwards the subdivision survey

See the surveyor's note #8 that "The Surveyor has made no attempt to locate the Anderson County - Knox County Boundary Line and the line shown hereon was provided by others and is approximate only."

So, it sounds like the only way to settle this one way or another is to survey the property and fix the boundary.

Except for citing Zillow property records (instead of their own state records) Goins' lawyers have done a pretty thorough job on the statutes and case law.

My conclusion, unfortunately, is that the EC will prevail in court, Breeding will be determined to not be a Knox Co. resident, and will be removed from the Knox Co. voter registration rolls.

Unless a survey fixes the boundary such that her home is indeed in Knox Co., in which case the state and county property records should be updated, Knox Co. should start collecting the property taxes, and Breeding should be allowed on the ballot.

What Tamara said above:

However, that is precisely what Anderson county has done with Breeding's house--allowed it to be sited in Anderson, then failed to provide any access road to reach it--and yet Anderson is collecting property tax on the house.

I'm confused, then, as to what circumstances must exist in order for some superior entity (the state?) to conclude that a county has "forfeited" its right to collect any property tax on a house sited within its boundaries, yet inaccessible by its roads.

That's also an interesting and possibly stronger argument that Breeding could pursue, especially since state law does not appear to cover this scenario.

Look at the county boundary line for the house three lots down the street (away from the cul-de-sac) in Mrs. Breeding's subdivision. On the Knox County map the entire lot and house is in Knox and on the Anderson County map the entire lot and house is in Anderson. WTH? No wonder she says it isn't accurate. I've heard she has argued to the Election Commission that the only way to determine the county boundary is to survey the entire county boundary line. There isn't anything on her lot to show where the Knox-Anderson line is on her property. She says has surveyors lined up to show that none of the maps are accurate and the only remedy is a really expensive survey for the entire Knox County or entire Anderson County boundary. The Election Commission thinks Mrs. Breeding should have to pay for this just to run for office. That just isn't fair to any voter.

Seems to me that she "resides" at the address, which includes the house, the lot, and certainly the driveway. When you are playing with the dog in the front yard, don't you consider yourself to be "home"? If her place of residence is split between the two counties (and clearly the lot where the house is located is) shouldn't she have that one time election, which she exercised in Knox County? If they tell her she isn't a Knox County resident, think of her neighbors who are in the same situation. Then look along the boundary of the map at all of the other subdivisions that overlap the county line. Are they going to tell several dozen households that they have to switch voting districts? It's no wonder the people get tired of political games and quit voting at all!

If her place of residence is split between the two counties (and clearly the lot where the house is located is) shouldn't she have that one time election, which she exercised in Knox County?

Ms. Breeding's circumstances are convoluted enough that statute probably should afford her some one-time election of that sort.

And it's also true--according to Goins' zillow pic, I think it was--that Goins' interpretation focusing on the location of her house wouldn't work to decide residency for Ms. Breeding's next door neighbor to the east, whose very house is divided by the county line!

All I'm saying is that I don't see that this particular statute we're looking at does offer Ms. Breeding any one-time election (unless her property serves as a farm).

Neither have I yet come across any other statute that appears to offer her any one-time election or to otherwise instruct in the matter.

Meanwhile, Goins' focus on the location of Breeding's house does presently seem to me to be the most logical way to decide residency for Ms. Breeding, if not for her neighbor.

Given that Goins has arrived at this focus on the location of the house based not on any clause he can cite in statute but on case law he's reviewed, though, possibly Ms. Breeding is aware of other case law that might be applied to the decision?

Goins bases his opinions on the politics, not the law.
Always has.

Something else to consider is that the Anderson and Knox Trustees apparently have a "gentlemen's agreement" that rather than split taxes on split properties, they decided "I take this one and you take that one", which the state says is illegal and apparently violates a supreme court decision against such agreements. I would be pretty hacked if I found out I was paying all taxes at a higher Anderson County rate when I should be paying taxes proportionately in both counties (Knox is definitely lower) and my neighbor is paying the less expensive Knox taxes for his entire property based on the luck of the draw! The deed is registered in both counties and Shelley meets 4 and potentially 5 of the 6, Run Shelley Run!

Betty Bean

Imagine you’re a candidate and the election commission says you’re not a bona fide Knox County resident and schedules a meeting to compel you go to court to defend your right to run. You’d appreciate them telling you when and where the above-mentioned meeting was going to happen, wouldn’t you?

At the time of the EC meeting Breeding is scheduled for jury duty. In Knox Co.

Sigh.

With every expectation that enough people disagreeing with me will soon swing by to angrily hide this comment, here's why I think both Ms. Breeding, whom I don't know but whose accomplishments I certainly admire, and Betty, whom I count as a friend, neither one correctly characterize where this process is right now:

Firstly, I don't think any evidence yet exists to suggest that "partisans" are challenging Breeding's right to run, nor that Cliff Rodgers personally "challenged" her candidacy. Thus far, it appears to me that officials at the local and state levels are fulfilling their shared duty to qualify candidates in the manner directed in statute. So far as I'm aware, Democrats Greg McKay and Brook Thompson used to address this same sort of question in this same manner.

Secondly, it is not my understanding from Mark Goins' letter of April 11 that he advised our local EC to call any meeting at which commissioners might personally decide Breeding's qualification. On the contrary, it is my understanding from the letter that this upcoming EC meeting has been scheduled simply so that commissioners may act on Goins' advice to file a request for declaratory judgment from the court. It is also my understanding, then, that if the EC does not plan to personally reach any decision on Breeding's candidacy at this meeting, the meeting would not be the correct venue at which she would need to present her arguments supporting her qualification, either.

Thirdly--and this point is admittedly conjecture on my part--I would be very surprised if the Knox County court to have summoned Breeding for jury duty were to actually require her service, given that Goins has already opined in writing that she may not be a Knox County resident and given the resulting possibility that the court matter she is scheduled to help decide could culminate in a mistrial due to her service, should this other court proceeding we anticipate result in her being declared an Anderson County resident. I don't see why either side would care to take the risk of selecting a juror so positioned, I don't see why Breeding--as an attorney herself--would not be cognizant of this possibility, so I don't see why she would assert that she is "double-booked" and unable to attend this upcoming EC meeting (at which no decision on her candidacy is to be reached, anyway).

Finally, let me assure that I am a Democrat living in the new 89th District, that I am always pleased to see a candidate so well-qualifed as Ms. Breeding step up to the plate, and that I don't think Rob McNutt should be serving on the EC, either (but Republican legislators made that decision, not Cliff Rodgers and Mark Goins).

One motivation for my sharing these thoughts is that I hope to see this question of Breeding's qualification decided by a process in which voters may place their trust now and into the future.

My other motivation for my post is that I hope my peers in the Democratic party will avoid making irrational or overly shrill complaints about that process as it plays out, provided it continues to play out in the manner we now anticipate.

There's a time and place for everything, and it appears that with regard to this "thing," our opportunity will occur at an upcoming hearing for declaratory judgment, with or without any advance spin.

...when presented with a properly signed and completed qualifying petition, the KCEC cannot, by statute, refuse to place a candidate's name on the ballot. It cannot "investigate" whether a candidate is a resident or not...By statute, neither the county Election Commission nor the State Coordinator of Elections has discretion to deviate from this. By not providing Shelley access to the ballot, the KCEC has plainly exercised . . . discretion.

Don, the question of Ms. Breeding's "access to the ballot" remains wide open.

The KCEC has not "investigated" her candidacy, nor has it "exercised discretion."

My information is that a local Democrat first carried a map or some sort of document to Cliff Rodgers (no, it wasn't me and no, I don't know who it was), who in turn contacted State Election Coordinator Mark Goins for guidance.

It was appropriate that Rodgers contact Goins for guidance, given that TCA 2-11-202(a)(12) provides that the State Election Coordinator is the party required to "ensure that all election commissions within the state shall prohibit any person from becoming qualified to have such person's name placed on any ballot wherein such person is seeking to be nominated or elected to an office for which such person is ineligible."

I am quite perplexed that some posters here seem to be demanding that our local election commission decide Ms. Breeding's convoluted situation--especially given some of those same posters' parallel protests against election commissioner Rob McNutt having refused to resign his position on that body, following disclosure of his own apparent voter fraud.

It certainly appears to me that Ms. Breeding's qualification is being "ensured" in exactly the manner called for by statute, that local and state officials have in fact gone out of their way to make certain a final decision is rendered by a party all sides can agree is impartial (namely a judge), and that we Democrats--being the minority party statewide--should take comfort in the statuatorily correct and "arms length" sort of process we've seen them employ thus far.

Meanwhile, I am just now starting to plow through this memo I see Ms. Breeding's attorney has forwarded to Randy--and trying to read in full some of the cases it cites--which case law is actually painting an even more complex picture of her circumstances.

I can't tell you how relieved I am that Goins has advised such a convoluted matter should be decided by a judge, rather than by laypersons, and I hope that, should any equally confusing question of candidate qualification arise in the future, we may depend on his continued effort to keep such decisionmaking as apolitical as possible,