Newsom v. Golden

602 F.Supp.3d 1073

Robert Starbuck NEWSOM, aka Robby Starbuck, Plaintiff,

v.Scott GOLDEN, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Tennessee Republican Party ; the Tennessee Republican Party ; Mark Goins, in his official capacity as Coordinator of Elections–Office of the Tennessee Secretary of State; and Tre Hargett, in his official capacity as Tennessee Secretary of State, Defendants.

Case No. 3:22-cv-00318

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division.

Filed May 12, 2022

David A. Warrington, Michael A. Columbo, Dhillon Law Group, Inc., Alexandria, VA, Eric G. Osborne, Sherrard Roe Voight & Harbison, PLC, Nashville, TN, Mark A. Carver, Tennessee Attorney General's Office, Nashville, TN, for Plaintiff.

Autumn Gentry, Dickinson Wright PLLC, Nashville, TN, for Amicus Morgan Ortagus Dickinson Wright, PLLC.

Joshua A. Mullen, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendants Scott Golden, The Tennessee Republican Party.

Alexander Stuart Rieger, Tennessee Attorney General's Office, Nashville, TN, for Defendants Mark Goins, Tre Hargett.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR., CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Robby Starbuck, whose formal name is Robert Starbuck Newsom, wants to be the next United States Representative for the Fifth Congressional District of Tennessee. To that end, Starbuck officially declared his candidacy on June 22, 2021, and has been vigorously campaigning as a Republican candidate ever since. However, unlike famous Mr. Smith who goes to Washington after being appointed by Governor Hubert Hopper to fill the shoes of Senator Samuel Foley, Starbuck can only go to Washington as a Congressman if his name is placed on the August 4, 2022 Republican primary ballot. Therein lies the rub and the basis for Starbuck's Verified Complaint (Doc. No. 1) and Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 11).

I. Background

A relatively recent transplant from California, Starbuck claims that he has been a Republican his entire life and very active in its affairs. On March 22, 2022, well before the state imposed April 7, 2022 deadline, he filed his nominating petition with the State Election Commission seeking to be the Fifth District's Congressional candidate. However, after receiving one or more "bona fide challenges," the Tennessee Republican Party ("TRP") suspended Starbuck's candidacy. Accordingly, Starbuck was notified in writing on April 11, 2022 that "your candidacy was properly protested, and the State Executive Committee of the Tennessee Republican Party has recommended the suspension of your candidacy . It was determined that your candidacy did not currently meet the bona fide standard of the Tennessee Republican Party." (Doc. No. 1, Ex. 9 at 1) (emphasis in original).

The letter then quoted the following language from Article IX of the TRP's Bylaws:

Section 1. The following shall be Party membership requirements for candidacy to public office. The TRP hereby defines the term "bona fide Republican," as:

A. Any individual who is actively involved in the Tennessee Republican Party, his County Republican Party, or any recognized auxiliary organization of either; and resides and is registered to vote in said county; and either

B. Any individual who has voted in at least three (3) of the four (4) most recent Statewide Republican primary elections; or

C. Any individual who is vouched for in writing (to the satisfaction of the decision makers defined herein) as a bona fide Republican by an officer of the TRP or a member of the CEC [County Executive Committee], excluding SEC members, of the County and/or District where said individual resides. The decision makers defined herein may require additional verification that said individual is indeed a bona fide Republican.

Id. The letter also quoted the Bylaws's provision that "[t]he final decision concerning said individual's bona fide Republican status shall be determined by a majority vote of the following: the State Chairman and each SEC [State Executive Committee] member who represents any portion of the district covered by said individual's proposed candidacy." (Id. ).

The TRP "assume[d]" that Starbuck would appeal and informed him he had seven days to either verify his voting record "or submit a ‘vouch for’ as described in Article IX[.]" (Id. ). The TRP also informed Starbuck that if he could not "add sufficient information by April 21^st, 2022," he would "be removed from the primary ballot." (Id. ).

Starbuck alleges that by April 19, 2022, he had already "submitted evidence of hundreds of Tennessee voters, county GOP leaders, and national GOP politicians who vouched for his Republican bona fides." (Doc. No. 1, Cmpl. ¶ 38). This included written vouchers from nine CEC members from the Fifth Congressional District and the First Vice Chairman of the Williamson County Republican Party.

Starbuck further alleges that despite the large number of party loyalists willing to vouch for his Republican status and the TRP's receipt of hundreds of communications to that effect, a subcommittee of the SEC on April 19, 2022, in a closed door meeting without notice to him or the public, voted to remove his name from the primary ballot by a 16 to 13 vote. Accordingly, Scott Golden, Chairman of the TRP, instructed Mark Goins, the Coordinator of Elections, to remove Starbuck's name from the ballot for the upcoming Republican primary election in the Fifth District. (Cmpl. ¶ 11).

Starbuck claims on the same day as the vote, Goins spoke with him by phone and told him that no candidate had ever provided so many vouching letters and still been removed from the ballot. (Cmpl. ¶ 40). The next day, Golden publicly stated that Starbuck's removal was premised on his failure to have voted in the last four statewide primaries. If that were the real reason according to Starbuck, then the TRP got it wrong because of the disjunctive ("either") language in the Bylaws. Furthermore, this explanation is inconsistent with what some of the committee members understood because, again according to Starbuck, subcommittee member Angie McClanahan indicated her vote to end his candidacy was based upon a newly-enacted Tennessee statute regarding residency that was not yet in effect. (Cmpl. ¶ 46).

Exactly why Mr. Starbuck's name was removed from the ballot the Court may never know. His Complaint speaks of smoke-filled rooms with carpetbaggers engaged in political chicanery reminiscent of the Daley machine in Chicago during the 60's and 70's, and New York's Tammany Hall in the late 1800's and early 1900's. Whatever the reason, the only question now is whether Mr. Starbuck is entitled to a preliminary injunction under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He is not.

II. Application of Law

A. Doctrine of Laches

Prior to discussing the well-known preliminary injunction factors, an initial issue needs to be addressed. In its response, Defendants argue that Starbuck's request for preliminary injunctive relief is barred by the doctrine of laches.

"In this circuit, laches is ‘a negligent and unintentional failure to protect one's rights.’ " United States v. City of Loveland, 621 F.3d 465, 473 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Elvis Presley Enters., Inc. v. Elvisly Yours, Inc., 936 F.2d 889, 894 (6th Cir. 1991) ). " ‘A party asserting laches must show: (1) lack of diligence by the party against whom the defense is asserted, and (2) prejudice to the party asserting it.’ " Id. (quoting Herman Miller, Inc. v. Palazzetti Imports & Exports, Inc., 270 F.3d 298, 320 (6th Cir. 2001) ). Whether the doctrine applies is subject to a court's discretion. Chirco v. Crosswinds Communities, Inc., 474 F.3d 227, 231 (6th Cir. 2007).

There is something to be said about Defendants’ laches argument, particularly because Starbuck "waited until the eleventh hour to pursue his claims." Perry v. Judd, 471 F. App'x 219, 224 (4th Cir. 2012). After all, he was notified in writing on April 11, 2022 that his candidacy was being suspended, and the Coordinator of Elections was instructed by the TRP to remove his name from the ballot on that date. Further, he was definitively informed on April 19, 2022 that the TRP would not restore his name to the ballot. Nevertheless, he waited until May 2, 2022 to file his Complaint in this Court. The next day, he filed his request for injunctive relief, insisting that he needed a decision or hearing or both by May 6, 2022. This meant that the Court would have three days to consider the matter including his 44-page Complaint (that unquestionably took a long time to draft and finalize), and related filings and attachments. Meanwhile, Defendants were put in the position of having to scramble to respond to his request for an injunction.

Requests for temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions by their very nature are routinely emergency matters necessitating compressed time frames. However, "[t]here is no power the exercise of which is more delicate, which requires greater caution, deliberation, and sound discretion, or more dangerous in a doubtful case, than the issuing an injunction[.]" Detroit Newspaper Publishers Ass'n v. Detroit Typographical Union No. 18, Int'l Typographical Union, 471 F.2d 872, 876 (6th Cir. 1972) (citation omitted). Furthermore, in the election context, courts are reluctant to decide "constitutional questions presented without full briefing and argument and adequate opportunity for deliberation." O'Brien v. Brown, 409 U.S. 1, 4-5, 92 S.Ct. 2718, 34 L.Ed.2d 1 (1972). Hence, "[i]t is well established that in election related matters, extreme diligence and promptness are required," Lyons v. City of Columbus, No. 2:20-CV-3070, 2020 WL 3396319, at *5 (S.D. Ohio June 19, 2020), and, "[a]s a general rule, last-minute injunctions changing election procedures are strongly disfavored." SEIU Local 1 v. Husted, 698 F.3d 341, 345 (6th Cir. 2012). Nevertheless, the Court will not deny Starbuck's request for an injunction on the grounds that he waited too long to...