Tennessee’s Supreme Court just dropped a bombshell on the state’s redistricting drama, siding with lawmakers on a contentious 2022 map fight.
The court overturned a lower ruling against the state Senate map while affirming the constitutionality of the House map, wrapping up a long legal tussle sparked by post-Census district redraws.
This saga kicked off in February 2022 when Republican-majority lawmakers in the Senate and House rolled out new district lines after the latest U.S. Census data dropped. Critics, including three plaintiffs supported by the Tennessee Democratic Party, cried foul, alleging the House plan unnecessarily split counties. They also targeted the Senate map for violating a state constitutional rule on consecutive numbering in multi-district counties like Davidson.
By April 2022, a three-judge panel slapped an injunction on the Senate map, pointing to its nonconsecutive numbering mess in Davidson County. They gave lawmakers a tight 15-day window to fix it. But quicker than a jackrabbit, the Tennessee Supreme Court swooped in, lifting that injunction just days later.
Enter Gov. Bill Lee, Secretary of State Tre Hargett, and Elections Coordinator Mark Goins, who weren’t about to let a lower court dictate terms. They pushed back with an appeal in the Tennessee Court of Appeals, keeping the pressure on to defend the maps. It’s no surprise Hargett cheered the final ruling, saying, “Congratulations to the Attorney General’s Office in another court victory.”
Now, let’s talk about Francie Hunt, executive director of Tennessee Advocates for Planned Parenthood, who became a central figure in this fight. Living in Davidson County’s Senate District 17—which awkwardly stretches into Wilson County—she challenged the map in 2023 over its nonconsecutive numbering. Hunt argued this setup skewed election cycles, with three of Davidson’s senators now up during gubernatorial years instead of a balanced split.
The majority opinion, however, wasn’t buying Hunt’s case. They ruled she lacked standing since living in a misnumbered district didn’t dilute her vote’s power. Justice Sarah K. Campbell put it bluntly: “Hunt’s complaint is simply that she lives in a non-consecutively numbered Senate district, while other Tennessee voters do not.”
Campbell’s words cut to the chase, arguing that Hunt’s grievance didn’t show real harm to her voting rights. It’s a tough pill for progressive activists to swallow, but the court’s logic holds—redistricting quirks don’t automatically equal voter suppression. Still, one wonders if this sets too high a bar for challenging bad maps.
Justice Holly Kirby, in a dissenting opinion, saw it differently, insisting Hunt’s rights took a hit. She argued the 3-1 election cycle stagger in Davidson County was a concrete injury. It’s a fair point—shifting voters between districts and cycles isn’t just bureaucratic trivia; it can mess with representation.
On the House side, plaintiff Gary Wygant had standing to challenge the splitting of Gibson County into two districts. But the court upheld the lower ruling, finding no proof the legislature lacked a rational basis for the division. Wygant’s claim—that voters lost a unified voice—didn’t sway the majority.
Justice Dwight Tarwater doubled down in a separate opinion, noting Wygant couldn’t show personal harm from Gibson County’s split. It’s a classic conservative take: If the harm isn’t direct, the courts won’t play nanny. A hard line, but it keeps judicial overreach in check.
Back to Hunt’s plight—history shows Davidson County’s Senate districts were also numbered out of order after the 1990 and 2000 censuses. She’s lived there since 1999 and admits she didn’t notice the issue back then. Ignorance isn’t a legal argument, though, and the court wasn’t moved by past oversights.
The ruling isn’t a total shutdown on redistricting gripes. Campbell herself noted, “Other plaintiffs—whether voters, candidates or public officials—may be able to establish standing based on different facts in future cases.” That’s a sliver of hope for those itching to fight another day.
Let’s not pretend this ends the debate—redistricting is a political chess game, and both sides will keep strategizing. For now, Tennessee’s maps stand as drawn, a win for those who value legislative authority over judicial meddling. Still, the minority’s concerns linger like a pesky fly at a picnic.
At the end of the day, this ruling reinforces a key principle: Courts aren’t here to fix every perceived unfairness in politics. If voters want change, they’ll need to push harder at the ballot box or find plaintiffs with ironclad harm. It’s a bitter lesson for some, but a necessary guardrail against endless litigation.
