Conservatives at the Tennessee Democratic Party Attempted the Dumbest Coup Possible
Note: I should note that I am not a disinterested party in this story. In my capacity as General Counsel of the Tennessee Young Democrats, I not only advocated in this story, but wrote an amicus brief supporting TNYD’s position. I think the prima facia facts are so obvious that any reasonable observer would agree with me, but add whatever grain of salt you feel necessary.
Risk-benefit analysis. While the means of measuring risk and benefit, and how to weigh each, can get complicated, the idea is conceptually simple: what are the likely benefits to a course of action, drawbacks, and the likelihood of each.
The most conservative faction of Tennessee’s Democratic Party (the “TNDP”) just triggered a nuclear option in a way that makes me wonder if they understand the concept. Buckle up, it will be a long and wild ride.
How the TNDP Works
To understand the story, you need to understand some things about the TNDP. The main body that directs the TNDP is the “Executive Committee” (which I’m shortening to “Exec”), a body of representatives from across the state which chose a Chairman and other Officers for TNDP and direct high-level strategic decisions.
Where do the members of Exec come from? Well, the bulk, by state law, are chosen every four years from each of Tennessee’s Senate districts. Seats for one male and one female in each district are up during the August primaries in midterm years. These specific members are also designated the “Primary Board,” functionally a rubber stamp that signs off on primary results (a point not elucidated until now, as this article will show).
What is notable about the this Senate district system is that it is based on population generally, not population of Democrats (or Republicans on the other side of the aisle). This means that conservative, older, and whiter areas with relatively few Democrats has the same say as a Senate District in a major blue Metro. Functionally, this has resulted in a state-enforced malapportionment on both parties’ board which would violate One Man One Vote if the principle applied to political parties.
And, indeed, as the Democratic Party writ large has shifted in the new century, and particularly since ’08, towards a larger tent, the remnants of the older party have retained an outsized role in the TNDP. These individuals tend to be (although certainly there are exceptions) white, older, and politically moderate or even outright conservative. And this faction has been either ascendent or a key bloc for a long time. However that has been changing…
“Ex-Officio” Board Members
One last piece of administrative minutia is necessary to set up this dispute; the concept of “ex-officio” board members. This is a pretty normal and known part of civic organizations, partisan or otherwise, and is essentially just the right of someone to be, in some capacity, in a body by virtue of a title they hold.
The TNDP, as currently composed, has seven ex-officio positions: the Chair of the state House Caucus; the Chair of the state Senate Caucus; the President of the County Party Association; the President of the TN Federation of Democratic Women; the President of the TN Young Dems; the President of the TN College Dems; and, the most recent and important for our purposes, the President of the TN High School Dems.
One last key fact is that these ex-officios have the power to vote on Exec business. Ex-officios don’t conceptually have to have voting power. They could essentially serve as advisors to the body. TNDP records are not public, so I cannot affirmatively say when the members got voting rights (or if they just had them from the word go), but it’s been at least since 2018, when County Parties Chair Randall Rice (remember that name) had voting powers because of his position.
That all being said, now to the actual facts.
High School, New School
So we’ve come to the inciting incident. As stated previously, the TN High School Democrats’ (“TNHSD”) President is the newest ex officio member on the TNDP Exec. And new indeed, they only gained the right this 27th of January. And the process to get there that day, hoo boy.
Other media outlets have covered this meeting pretty extensively. There’s no need to go in depth into all of the mutual recriminations, except to provide the briefest sketch. In short, the older faction accused the “younger” faction (though for what it’s worth, they have plenty of older people backing them up, so I’m going to use the term “Reformist” and “Conservative” from here) of being needlessly cavalier and not considering their criticism, while the Reformists accused the Conservatives of using frivolous arguments to limit their power. I think you can imagine where my personal sympathies lie, but I wasn’t there and am going to avoid the blame game. The one thing I would like to point out is that the Conservatives evidently openly threatened to bring in the Tennessee Attorney General. Which, considering that AG’s political bent and history, yeah, wonderful idea, cry to the GOP for help.
What I do need to talk about is the actual objection the Conservative faction had. At risk of over-simplifying, there were two significant argument: 1. high schoolers, being under 18, don’t have a voting record and therefore cannot be proven sufficiently to be bona fide Dems; and 2. state law does not allow ex-officio members voting privileges. I would note, at this juncture, they are asking questions and criticizing as a board should. Whatever ulterior motive exists, they have that right and in fact duty, and should not be begrudged that, especially on point #2 since the statutes around party executive committees aren’t exactly a model for clarity.
That being said, I’d like to dispose of point #1 immediately, because it is dangerous BS. The idea that the only means of proving bona fides is voting history is absurd. It would essentially exclude not only college students, but non-citizens (including documented ones, to be clear), previously-incarcerated felons, and even just recently activated voters from meaningfully contributing to the Party. It also would include Republicans in major metros who vote in Democratic primaries as a means of influencing the one election that matters locally, and exclude good Democrats in deep red areas who do the inverse. All while pretending activism and reputation are irrelevant. In a word, it’s stupid. That is, unless you consider that this standard inherently favors those with long voting histories, i.e. older individuals.
Point #2, while the older faction ended up being wrong, is at least a much thornier issue, especially in the context of the unclear statutes. However, the specifics are for later on. Suffice to say that they had the right to ask and get an answer.
And Exec agreed that it was at least a question that needed an answer. The Motion was modified, based on these suggestions, to only allow the TNHSD onto the Board after legal review, assuming the Motion itself passed.
The Vote
With one concern being, frankly, dumb, and this question of legality being explicitly provided for, the Conservative faction still refused to support TNHSD’s place on the Board. The problem for them is they lost. Bad. The final tally ended up being 40–15, with 17 other seats being some version of “refused to vote,” absent or vacant. It was so lopsided they would have lost by a supermajority even if there were no voting ex officio members.
And before digging into the escalation, it’s worth analyzing WHO those 15 people are. Some might find my description of this faction as white, rural and old unfair. And to be as fair as possible, while districts are, of course objective, and I can pretty easily find ages, racial info is a little harder to find outside of pure googling. Also, let me acknowledge the possibility that someone who does not fit some or all of those descriptors happened to be absent this meeting. Finally, I’ll repeat that, while pretty much the entire Conservative faction hits most or all of those boxes, plenty of people who also fit some or all of those boxes fall in the Reformist camp. These are somewhat obscure positions, I will admit to errors if I made them, but I cannot conceive of enough errors happening to change the overall point.
That being said, here’s the list of no votes with some key datapoints.
The thrust is pretty clear. Of the 15 no votes, 14 are 60+ (with the one exception being 59). 13 are at or over retirement age. 10 are over 70. Only two are confirmably non-white, one of whom is married to another no vote (13%, this in a state that is about 28% non-white, in a party which disproportionately represents minority interests). The vast majority can most reasonably be said to represent rural areas, with some bled over into suburban counties. To demonstrate the point, here’s the vote as reflected on a map.
Then, of course, the legal opinion came in. A legal opinion from the specific firm Randall Rice (told you to remember that name) requested, it should be noted. It said, in brief, that having a voting ex officio member was fine, no big deal. And without further ceremony, TNHSD had their Member on the Board. The Conservative faction had their argument heard, got a the concession they wanted (even if the answer ended up displeasing them), clearly lost on the merit’s of the issue. Life goes on. That should have been the end of it.
It wasn’t.
The Lawsuit
On April 1, 2024, the Conservatives faction went nuclear. They filed a lawsuit in Davidson County Court (we’ll get into which Court and why that’s interesting in a sec) alleging that all voting ex officio positions violate Tennessee law. Not just the TNHSD, all of them. The women, the county chairs, the young people. Essentially, the argument was that, because the state mandated elections in the Senate districts, these could be the only voting members, full stop. As you can imagine, this is where my “I disagree but it’s reasonable to ask” perspective ends.
First, it’s worth analyzing the four named Plaintiffs: John Summers, Erick Huth, and the Rices, Randall and Meryl. John Summers is a former Nashville Metro Councilman and all around well-liked guy in that role. Being the only one in Nashville proper and connected as he is, it seems likely he brought on the attorney (described in more detail below). Erick Huth is a recent appointee filling a vacancy, and frankly seems to be a non-entity, both in this lawsuit and on Exec. Then there are the Rices, a couple from far rural Southwest Tennessee. There’s no Democratic candidate in the Senate district they live in this year, and it’s one of the few areas trending away from the Democratic Party in the state, so their organizational competency is to be admired. Moreover, they have a pretty long history of opposing youth involvement in politics. Unsurprisingly, they seem to be the heart of this operation. It also here might be worth noting that, before being elected in District 26, he was ex officio voting member of the Committee as President of the County Chairs. Rules for thee and not for me I suppose.
From there, I want to dispose of a disingenuous argument right off the bat. Some Conservatives have claimed their suit isn’t meant to get rid of the ex-officios but confirm their legality (or lack thereof) and therefore they’re actually helping TNDP you see. This is stupid. These guys could easily have filed a declaratory action that said “this is a dispute, we don’t know what the law is, help Judge” without taking a position. They didn’t. They, in pleadings and in open Court, advocated for their removal full stop. When they didn’t have to. This isn’t a lawsuit to determine a position’s legality. This is a lawsuit to remove those positions. Any argument otherwise is disingenuous and can be safely disregarded.
Moving to the suit itself, as a lawyer, there are a few interesting things about this lawsuit. First off, the lawyer is W. Gary Blackburn, husband of current General Sessions Judge Melissa Blackburn. Looking at his website, he appears to be a general purpose plaintiff’s attorney, not too dissimilar from my own practice. He seems to have done well and be good at it, he has a “00” bar number (meaning the first two numbers on his bar card are 0, indicating a long time in practice) and in his 53 years of practice has no public discipline from the Board of Professional Responsibility. However, the kind of lawsuit here is very different from that area, and there are indications in this case that he doesn’t know much about these types of lawsuits. Which to be clear, does not make you a bad lawyer in the slightest. I’d be clueless if you set me in a criminal trial or immigration law hearing, that alone doesn’t mean I’m a bad lawyer, it just means I should have let someone else take those cases (or at a minimum advise me). However, it does have an effect.
First off all is the choice of court. There are two major Court systems in Tennessee: Chancery and Circuit. To simplify SIGNIFICANTLY some fairly complicated concepts, Circuit is where you go if you just want someone to give you money (someone punches you, crashes their car into you, etc.), and Chancery is where you go if you want someone to do something or declare some right (make them perform this contract, determine this property line, etc.). You’re allowed to put a case like this in either, but it’s both customary and helpful to hew as close as you can to that principle.
What the Plaintiffs asked for here is for the Court to determine who does and doesn’t have rights on the Exec, aka an ajudication of rights best left to Chancery Court. And yet, Blackburn chose to file in Circuit. This might be strategic, might be just because he’s more familiar with Circuit, or he may have straight up just not known. Maybe he though he could more easily pull wool over a Judge who does this less (which, for the record, would be misplaced if that were the case). Whatever the reason, this is a very strange choice.
Another interesting element is the Complaint itself. Despite not needing to be notarized, Blackburn elected to notarize the Complaint. And it was done by Clark Casada. Now, I can’t outright CONFIRM this based on just the name, but if the name sounds familiar, it is because it is the same name as former GOP State House Speaker and Cool Guy Glen Casada. And indeed, Glen Casada has a son named Clark. If this isn’t his son, this would be a hell of a coincidence, especially in Tennessee where “Casada” isn’t necessarily the most common name. And if that is not a coincidence, it’s interesting a suit against the state Democratic Party was notarized by the son of a well-known GOP politician. It would also be an own-goal since it didn’t need notarization in the first place.
Finally, there’s the nature of what the Plaintiffs were asking for. In addition to the normal adjudication, the Plaintiffs asked for both an Emergency and Temporary Injunction. The former requires a much higher burden of proving why there is some danger NOW, before there is time for a formal hearing on a Temporary Injunction. It also requires a rapid hearing (as does the later, but in a less short-notice time frame). This Complaint had neither, meaning the Court threw that out before defense counsel even came in, and had to get with the parties for a time on the permanent injunction.
The Proceedings
The TNDP, of course, has the most respected liberal firm in Nashville (and probably the state), Stranch Jennings, on retainer, and they got straight to work. Unlike Blackburn, Stranch is one of the most experienced firms in election and political law in Tennessee.
Obviously, the Emergency Injunction failed without the need to even respond. Leaving only the Temporary Injunction to be heard immediately. For legal reasons too complicated to get into here, the decision in the Temporary Injunction will almost certainly be the final decision, though that is still ongoing.
There were a few obvious arguments. First off, there are obvious 1st Amendment implications to telling a Party how to run its Board. That decision is, in a very real sense, a decision of where a party’s priorities lie. For the State to tell a party how to decide its priorities very clearly has 1st Amendment implications. It would after all be the state telling the Party what voices it should value.
But there are more terra firma statutory concerns as well. Of course, there is the concerns about bona fide Democrats, which I’ve already spent enough ink on. But then there are the statutes. Again, they are not a model for clarity. They reference both a Primary Board and an Executive Committee, and never seem to explicitly tell the difference. The only real job this “Primary Board” has is certifying the Primary elections, and it’s members are explicitly those elected. The Executive Committee does not have that restriction, and its powers are never explicitly spelt out.
The Plaintiffs seemed to just try to hand waive this away as a mixing of terminology, meaning the restrictions on the Primary Board are just restrictions on the Executive Committee. However, Stranch made a lot more sense in stating that the Primary Board is meant for official acts of the Party enforceable by the state (of which there is only one: the decision of who to put on the Democratic line) while the Executive Committee is the general body for all other purposes. And a recent decision by the state (ironically given to us by Robby Starbuck when he got kicked off the Republican ballot) supported this. Meaning the Plaintiffs were arguing against both recent precedent and basic precepts of statutory construction (i.e. if there’s a difference, it must mean something).
I was there for the Temporary Injunction hearing. The only two Plaintiffs to show up were the Rices, even though they live the farthest away, lending credence to the idea they are the beating heart of that side. A couple of Reformist Board members also showed up in the gallery.
The hearing went about as well as the context would indicate. Blackburn had a very old southern lawyer vibe to him, which meant he presented well, but tended to go on tangents and not just get to the point. Stranch, while less colorful, was much more technical and much more focused on the facts and law, the later of which, indeed, Blackburn seemed only able to hand waive away. In a way, this in and of itself is indicative of where each faction is at in the modern day. Here I should note I gave about two minutes of argument summarizing TNYD’s position as an amicus.
In the end, while the Judge took it under advisement for a bit more briefing on Federal law, it was clear which way he was leaning. The next week, he ruled, functionally, for the Defendants and denied the Temporary Injunction. In doing so, he effectively adopted the Primary Board/Executive Committee distinction, and that appointed Exec members can’t be on the Primary Board. While a technical victory, all this really means is appointed members don’t get to sign off on the primary results every two years. They can vote and contribute in all other ways. For all intents and purposes, appointed members kept their power. Again, there are still proceedings on the actual merits (costing the TNDP God knows how much money), but the injunction decision was premised on the Defendants being right, and it will take a lot to reverse that.
The Aftermath
I also personally went to the next Executive Committee Meeting, after all, at that point I was invested in the Order’s effect. I wanted to see how the Conservative faction responded, whether it would be muted or defiant.
It was certainly the former. To my recollection, the four Defendants only occasionally or never spoke the whole meeting. Moreover, this was the meeting where the Board chose Delegates to the DNC, along with five alternates. All but one of the Delegates were functionally pre-chosen by the Biden campaign, meaning the real fight was over the alternates. And when the dust cleared, four of five chose were under 35, despite opposition from the Conservative faction. And with a bit more coordination, the under 35s probably could have swept the vote.
It seems the Conservative faction was more or less licking their wounds. And honestly, there is no other conclusion that could have happened. Because, think, what would have happened if they DID win. They would have essentially cried to daddy and got their way despite being substantially outvoted, and despite one of their number having very openly benefited from the arrangement before challenged. Their stock would have functionally been 0 even if they won. And they didn’t win. Like I said, the dumbest coup ever.
Coda
However, a weird thing happened towards the end. Charles Uffelman stood up and announced his resignation from his seat representing District 22. If you don’t know, he is the Legislative Democrats’ Political Director, the Montgomery Co. Dems Chair, and all around one of (if not the) most competent people working in the Tennessee Democratic scene. My assumption in-meeting was that, illustrious as he was, he was just too busy to bother with Exec (after all I’ve written, could you blame him?).
My subsequent understanding is that I was wrong. Chaz, competent and active as he is, is a reliable vote for the Reformist faction. And the Conservative cohort, not liking this, pointed out that his Legislative Dems job, his day job and how he makes a living, is funded by the TNDP, and ultimately Exec. And they wanted to kick him off, supposedly for this conflict of interest. This despite the pretty narrow nature of Tennessee Democratic politics and the fact that someone competent enough to earn that position is someone you might also want on Exec. However, weak as they are, your livelihood is something you don’t want to risk. So, the Conservative faction ran one of the state’s most competent Democrats off Exec.
This faction is still there, and is still capable of causing damage and holding the party back as long as they form a critical mass. And that’s not even mentioning some talk I’ve been made aware of from some rural County Party Chairs that should make them lose their jobs and (ironically) bona fides. The only way forward is to replace these officials in these obscure, elected positions.
While all seats are up in 2026, seats where vacancies occurred between now and 2022 are up this year. And, unsurprisingly, that is a lot of them, just as obscure and hard to research as they’ve always been. While there’s no statewide source as of writing, the Nashville area has a good resource, in part courtesy of yours truly. Other orgs have also started endorsing in those races, and mostly lining up with Reformist candidates. And my suspicion is that more resources are coming down the line.
