Tennessee Democrats Challenge Mid-Decade Redistricting as Violation of Voting Rights

Plaintiffs in Tennessee argue that the state’s mid-decade congressional redistricting and election calendar changes violate voters’ fundamental right to vote and burden First Amendment associational rights, seeking an emergency injunction to halt the new maps and rules before the August primary.

NASHVILLE (LN) — Plaintiffs in Hale et al v. Lee et al asked the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee to enjoin Governor Bill Lee, Secretary of State Tre Hargett, and Coordinator of Elections Mark Goins from implementing new Congressional Districts and election rules during the 2026 election cycle.

The plaintiffs, including U.S. Rep. Stephen Cohen, Rep. Justin Pearson, and the Tennessee Democratic Party, do not challenge the new maps themselves. Instead, they argue that the state’s decision to enact the changes via HB 7001, HB 7002, HB 7003, and HB 7005, which Governor Lee signed on May 8, 2026, and move the candidate qualifying deadline to May 15, 2026, creates irreparable harm.

The motion highlights that the new deadline is 10 days later than the one enjoined by the Tennessee Supreme Court in 2022. In Moore v. Lee, the state high court halted a trial court order that had moved the candidate qualifying deadline for the August 2022 elections from April 7 to May 5, citing risks of voter confusion and compromised election integrity.

Now, the plaintiffs argue, the state is repeating that error while simultaneously removing the requirement to provide specific notice to voters whose electoral districts have changed, requiring only website notice.

The suit also asserts that implementing the new districts two months after the candidate qualifying deadline and months into active campaigns severely burdens plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to associate.

The plaintiffs include voters who have been actively supporting candidates within long-established districts and candidates who have been campaigning for months in those same districts.

The motion cites Bost v. Illinois State Bd. of Elections for the proposition that 'Departures from the preordained rules cause [candidates] particularized and concrete harm.'

The motion argues that the new rules leave plaintiffs mere weeks before the August 6, 2026, primary to reorganize campaign operations, rebuild donor networks, and re-recruit volunteers.

Plaintiffs’ counsel notified the Office of the Tennessee Attorney General and Reporter of the anticipated filing on May 7, 2026. The Attorney General’s office confirmed that defendants oppose the motion.

The plaintiffs seek a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Counsel

Plaintiffs are represented by David W. Garrison, Scott P. Tift, Joshua A. Frank, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, PLLC, and John Spragens, Spragens Law PLC.

Defendants are represented by Zachary L Barker, Office of the Tennessee Attorney General, and Taylor A.R. Meehan, CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC.

Case

The case is Hale et al v. Lee et al, case number 3:26-cv-00603, in the Middle District of Tennessee.

Court

tnmd

Case Name

Hale et al v. Lee et al

Docket

3:26-cv-00603

View on PACER ↗