Shelby County Board of Education authorizes litigation to challenge county commission—s election realignment
Summary
The board voted 6-0 on Nov. 18, 2025 to direct its general counsel to retain outside counsel to assess and, if appropriate, sue to block a Shelby County Commission resolution that would realign school board elections and shorten the terms of five recently elected members.
The Shelby County Board of Education voted unanimously Nov. 18 to authorize its general counsel to retain outside attorneys to investigate and, if warranted, initiate litigation challenging a Shelby County Commission resolution that realigns school board elections and would place all nine seats on the 2026 ballot.
Board members said the commission—s action abridges the terms of five recently elected members and could undermine voter expectations. Mr. Jenkins read the resolution into the record, which cites Tennessee Code Annotated (as read aloud in the meeting) regarding statutory terms of board members. The motion to proceed was moved by Board member Love and seconded by Board member Murphy.
Why it matters: Board members framed the resolution as a defense of voters— expectations and the statutory terms of office. Several members described the move to accelerate elections as potentially unconstitutional and said the district has a compelling interest in protecting the integrity of its governance.
What the board said: Board member Murphy urged colleagues to act, linking the issue to long-standing civil-rights struggles and the right to vote. "If my ancestors bled and died for us to have this right to vote, who are you to tell me to take it away?" she said during debate. Board member Porter and others described voter turnout and community investment in recent elections as a reason to preserve terms.
Vote and next steps: At roll call the board recorded votes in favor from Porter, Murphy, Love, Otey, Vice Chair Coleman and the chair; the motion passed with six affirmative votes. The resolution directs the general counsel to consult outside counsel and report back to the board on any proposed or initiated legal action.
Legal and factual limits: The resolution, as read into the record, cites Tennessee Code Annotated language; the transcript contains a dense recital of dates and statutory citations as read aloud. The board did not itself file suit at the meeting but authorized staff to retain counsel and pursue legal assessment and potential litigation.
What remains unresolved: The precise legal theories and timetable for any filing were not specified in the meeting. Members also noted the county mayor had vetoed the commission resolution and the commission later voted to override the veto; procedural history is included in the resolution read aloud.
