Memphis-Shelby County School Board Challenges the Constitutionality of Re-Election Shake-Up

MSCS Board Members Natalie McKinney (upper left), Stephanie Love (upper center), Tamarques Porter (upper right), Sable Otey (lower left), and Towanna Murphy (lower right) (Photos by Memphis-Shelby County Schools)

The Memphis-Shelby County School Board filed a lawsuit in Shelby County Chancery Court on Monday that challenges the constitutionality of a recent decision to put five members up for re-election two years early.

The Shelby County Commission approved that change earlier this year, aligning all nine school board seats on the same 2026 election cycle under a state law passed earlier this year. Commissioners made the move as a response to widespread criticism of the board’s decision to terminate former Superintendent Dr. Marie Feagins after less than a year on the job last January.

The board’s lawsuit names members of the Shelby County Election Commission as defendants instead of county commissioners. Board attorneys argue that election officials had no authority to place the terms of school board members Natalie McKinney, Stephanie Love, Tamarques Porter, Sable Otey, and Towanna Murphy up for re-election in 2026, because the commission’s action didn’t set a specific timeline.  Those five seats wouldn’t have been up for re-election until 2028 otherwise.

“The County Commission’s resolutions are silent as to the timing and manner of implementation, leaving the Election Commission without specific instruction as to when, or whether, it must act to enforce the term-abridgment provisions against sitting School Board members,” the lawsuit states. “As a ministerial body, the Election Commission has no authority under Tennessee law to amend, supplement, or modify local legislation to supply provisions that are not expressly provided.”

Board attorneys argue that cutting the terms short for these five school board members violates a provision of the Tennessee Constitution that prohibits state lawmakers from “abridging the term” of local offices without a public referendum or a two-thirds vote of the county commission.

The commission’s 7-5 vote to alter re-election dates would not have met that requirement.

Case for Staggered Elections

The lawsuit also argues that the school district itself benefits from the current staggered election cycle for its board members.

Attorneys make the case that the current election cycle has reduced turnover and political pressure from the entire board facing re-election every four years.

“Over the past decade staggering the terms of School Board Members has provided stability and continuity in decision making and governance,” the lawsuit states. “This electoral system has allowed Board members to build relationships with each other and develop expertise over time as they work alongside their colleagues and has led to more effective governance and decision making because members have a better understanding of each other’s perspectives and priorities.”

History of Rocky Relations

The lawsuit marks the latest chapter in an ongoing dispute between the board and other bodies of government.

Shelby County Commissioners passed a “no-confidence” resolution against the school board last January, days before Feagins’ termination.  Commissioners then made the initial vote in September to put all board seats up for re-election in 2026, only to see that decision vetoed by Shelby County Mayor Lee Harris.

The commission voted to override that veto in October, reaffirming a decision some members say was about more than just a dispute with the school board.

“I look at this as a long-term structural change,” said Commissioner Michael Whaley before the September vote. “I think it’s a mistake to rely on this to air a grievance with any individual board member or board as a whole.”

State lawmakers have additionally criticized district leaders for underperformance and considered other legislation this year to create state intervention into Memphis-Shelby County Schools.

Feagins herself filed a lawsuit accusing board members of violating state open meetings laws by holding closed-door discussions to plot her removal. She claims her termination stems from a disagreement over an expired tutoring and mentoring program.

Board attorneys claim Feagins was fired for multiple breaches of her contract including making false statements and dishonesty with the School Board about accepting donations and gifts without required Board approval.