Tennessee Supreme Court Rules Voters Can Decide Marriage Question
Knox News is reporting on the story and additional coverage is available on Google News. ADF Senior Attorney Byron Babione argued this case. Congrats to Byron! The opinion is ACLU of Tenn. v. Darnell, No. 05-1010-IV (Tenn. July 14, 2006). Here is an excerpt from the concluding paragraph:
Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a distinct, concrete injury in fact resulting from the alleged untimely publication of the Marriage Amendment. In addition, Plaintiffs failed to establish that their claimed injuries were causally connected to the alleged untimely publication of the Marriage Amendment. Therefore, Plaintiffs lack standing to bring this action. The Chancellor’s decision dismissing Plaintiffs’ complaint is affirmed on this basis alone. We express no opinion on whether the Chancellor properly interpreted Article XI, section 3 or whether the doctrine of substantial compliance applies to Article XI, section 3. Like the Chancellor, we leave for the General Assembly’s consideration the policy “issue of whether the Legislature should conduct the affairs of the people in such a risky manner as to be hailed into court to prove that the timing, volume and content of independent media coverage establish compliance with the constitutional publication requirement.”