ROBIN M. MCNABB v. GREGORY HARRISON

This election contest action is before this Court for the second time on appeal. The plaintiff, Robin M. McNabb, initially sought a judgment declaring the August 2022 election for Lenoir City Municipal Court Judge void because the defendant, Gregory H. Harrison, who had received the greatest number of votes, did not meet the one-year “district” residency requirement set forth in Article VI, Section 4 of the Tennessee Constitution. After the trial court dismissed Ms. McNabb’s complaint and this Court affirmed the dismissal, our Supreme Court reversed those decisions upon holding that Article VI, Section 4 required a candidate to have been a resident of the municipality for at least one year prior to the election. McNabb v. Harrison, 710 S.W.3d 653 (Tenn. 2025) (“McNabb I”). On remand, the trial court declared the election void. Mr. Harrison subsequently filed a motion to set aside that order predicated on a newly enacted statute, Tennessee Code Annotated § 16- 18-206, which provides that the McNabb I decision “shall apply prospectively and shall be enforced beginning with the next regularly scheduled election for any affected municipal judgeship after May 21, 2025.” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-18-206(c). Ms. McNabb filed a response opposing Mr. Harrison’s motion, and she filed a motion to amend her complaint wherein she requested that she be declared the “winner” of the August 2022 election. The trial court granted Mr. Harrison’s motion to set aside the order and denied Ms. McNabb’s motion to amend her complaint. The trial court found, inter alia, that Ms. McNabb had failed to properly raise a constitutional challenge to § 16-18-206. Ms. McNabb has appealed. Upon thorough review, we determine that Ms. McNabb sufficiently raised a constitutional challenge to § 16-18-206. We therefore reverse the trial court’s finding that Ms. McNabb did not raise a constitutional challenge, vacate the trial court’s grant of Mr. Harrison’s motion to set aside, and remand for the trial court to consider the constitutionality of § 16-18-206 and to reconsider Mr. Harrison’s motion to set aside. However, we affirm the trial court’s finding that under the precepts of § 16-18-206, Mr. Harrison was the de facto Lenoir City Municipal Court Judge.