WPC} lveiI]&|J)m~'Z.k,rlT"zĬFJ.K0UuToWt+ _M,g+EJ6?烉]TKm`sժ͗i,́Oe7 6E%aݖߒ_Uiи@&5KM: kE1xi(z'=9X05 =j<$"d(9R7vл#a8|QV%ʞAR|<"\#I}w[HByZt>ʟz9SS&1|cK$-* `ThђX٭q4mz2Zre߳bGsu>>>>>> 0a@ 0&A 0A 0B 0QC 0C 0D 0FE 0P F 0l[G 0H 0I 0KJ 0_K 0< L 0HM 0BNN 0N 07O 04O 0[ P 0ngP 0P 0pQ 0R 0R 0TS 0"T 0T 0|U 0 V 0V 0VW 0W 0rX 0$Y 0Y 0>Z 0Z 0[ 0\ 0] 0 |^ 0_ 0_ 0` Ba 0a 0Vb D5b D-c 0K>c 02c AScd 0Vd 0D*e Ane 0f 0:g 0YOg 0_g 0 h 0i 0j B*l D/l 0l D/n 0'o 06o 0+p 0:3q 0^mq 0<q 1erU6lrU>rU*r 0c sbmsususususvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv 0'zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz {F| l|M}(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,ԁLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5("  Z6Times New Roman Regulari/1 ]!1:i+003|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5  RDMGoldin t]heBrickerCURIAM\\IB01S01\CLERK1NAS,,,,0  R $USUS.,    2  X XXX  _X XXX XX ArticleXI,section9ofTennesseesConstitution#Ԅ#Ԁdeclaresthatalthoughhg f  g omerf  g ulef  g municipalitiesf  g ,suchas  theCity,hag f  g vef  g Ԁbroadpowerstoamendf  g theirf  g Ԁcharterf  g sf  g Ԁbyreferendum,"thepoweroftaxationofsuchf  municipalityf  g Ԁshall t notbeenlargedorincreasedexceptbygeneralactoftheGeneralAssembly."###X Xԣ# b R $USUS.,    4  X XXX  _XX InhisAugust25,2004,letter,theCoordinatorstatedthathewould notapproveanyballotthatcontained  theOrdinance.TheCitycorrectlypointsoutthat,althoughCountyElectionCommissionsmustsubmitforthe t Coordinatorsapprovalasampleballotof candidatesforpublicoffices,theplainlanguageofTennesseeCode 8 Annotatedsections25206(c)and25207(e)doesnotappeartorequireCountyElectionCommissionstosubmitfor L theCoordinatorsapprovalasampleballotofreferendumquestions.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.25206(c)(providing  thattheelectioncommission shallprepareasampleballotofallcandidatesandmailthissampleballottothe  coordinatorofelectionsforapproval);Tenn.CodeAnn.25207(e)(providingthattheelectioncommission shall H  prepareasampleballotofallcandidateslistedin213202andshallmailthissampleballottothecoordinatorof  \ electionsforapproval).TheCommissiondisputestheCitysassertionandpointsoutthatsections206(c)and   207(e)clearlystatethat [_n]o_Ԁballotshallbeprintedorfundsexpendedthereforbyanycountyuntil[the    Coordinators]approvalhasbeengranted.Nonetheless,thisstatutedoesnotdefinewhichportionsoftheballotthe X   Coordinatormustapprovepriortoprinting.AstheCityasserts,theplainlanguageofthestatuteappearstorequire  l  Coordinator approvalofthesampleballotfor candidatesratherthanforreferendumquestions.Regardless,we  0  neednotdecidethescopeoftheCoordinatorsapprovalauthorityinthisappeal.#X XԄ#    j R $USUS.,    5  X XXX  _XX ArticleII,section1provides: ThepowersoftheGovernmentshallbedividedintothreedistinct  departments:theLegislative,Executive,andJudicial.Furthermore,TennesseeArticleII,section2states: No t personorpersonsbelongingtooneofthesedepartmentsshallexerciseanyofthepowersproperlybelongingto 8 eitheroftheothers,exceptinthecaseshereindirectedorpermitted.Tenn.Const.art.II,1,2. L #X XԄ# XX u#u##X X#*+ (_2623  ..(#$  0  *G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (# m R $USUS.,    7  X XXX  _XX Thecautionandrestraintwhichcourtstypicallyexerciseinreviewingpreelectionchallengestothe  substantiveconstitutionalityofreferendummeasuresfurthersupportsthisCourtsholdingthattheCommission,a t nonjudicial,ministerialbody,lackedtheauthoritytoundertakeainitialdeterminationofthesubstantive 8 constitutionalityoftheOrdinance.#X XԄ# s R $USUS.,    8  X XXX  _XX Astotaxingpower,Section756oftheCitysexistingcharterprovidesbroadly:  8  8`   Thepowerconferredthustoimposetaxesshallapplytoeveryobjectandsubject t oftaxationwithinthecorporatelimitsofthecityofMemphis.Saidpowershall 8 extendtoeveryspeciesofpropertyandtoprivilegesandwharfagedues,andall L otherthingsuponwhichthelegislatureorthecityhasheretoforelaidtaxes,rates,  orassessmentsforthesupportandmaintenanceofsaidgovernment,theobject  beingtoprovidefortheexerciseofthepowerhereinconferredunderthe H  restrictionsnamedasfullyasthesamecouldbeexercisedifthelegislatureand  \ notthecitywereexercisingthepower. ` x` x 8  #X XԄ#8`     R $USUS.,    1  X XXX  _XX ThisCourtsOrderofFriday,September10,2004,allowedtheCityuntilMonday,September13,2004,  andtheCommissionuntilTuesday,September14,2004,inwhichtobriefthiscause.#X XԄ#*8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  64Body Text  X  5+ ` hp x 5XXX  5+ ` hp x 5 X  <:Body Text Fi  X    5+ ` hp x 5XXX    5+ ` hp x 5 X  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  8kq6Block Text    /%` ` hp x /XXX   5+ ` hp x 5  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` :8Body Text 2   5+ ` hp x 5XXX  5+ ` hp x 5  <ee:footnote tex   5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  <:footnote ref*22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  .,term1 86Hyperlink6 3   <:Block Text CXXX*,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (.G2 $ !USUS.,      0  X XXX(]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5   d8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5(.3$ !USUS.,  VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ,*CITE^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(.3$ !USUS.,  ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK,dl*CODEKt<6X9`(Courier NewKSu\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard Kt<6X9`(Courier NewKSu\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/Kt<6X9`(Courier NewKSu\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7j(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?v%2A`Arial?  Su\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d di)1dxd<:zTop of For7l(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?v%2A`Arial?  Su\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  i)2dxd0KS.SampleKt<6X9`(Courier NewKSu\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKt<6X9`(Courier NewKSu\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  /2359:>? 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial(;3$2#  0  .3  0  - - | R $USUS.,    6  X XXX  _XX WerealizethattheCommissionreliedupontheadviceoftheCoordinator,whohadreliedupona1993  AttorneyGeneralsOpinionwhichhadconcludedthattheCitylackedtheauthoritytoassessandtoenforcea t proposed OccupationalPrivilegeTax,statinginrelevantpartthat theprivilegeitpurportstotaxhasnotbeen 8 declaredordefinedbystatelaw,and...nogeneralauthorityhasbeendelegatedtocitiestolevysuchatax.Tenn. L Op.Atty.Gen.No.9348.Ofcourse,AttorneyGeneralOpinionsarenot adjudications.Bricker,259S.W.2dat  665.#X XԄ#  R $USUS.,    3  X XXX  _XX TheCitycitesaprioreditionofBlacksLawDictionarywhichdefinesministerialofficialas [o]newhose  dutiesarepurelyministerial,asdistinguishedfromexecutive,legislative,orjudicialfunctions,requiringobedience t tothemandatesofsuperiorsandnotinvolvingtheexerciseofjudgmentordiscretion.BlacksLawDictionary996 8 (6thed.1990).Thatsameeditiondefinesa ministerialactas [t]hatwhichisdoneundertheauthorityofasuperior L ....Thatwhichinvolvesobediencetoinstructions,butdemandsnospecialdiscretion,judgment,orskill.Id.#X XԄ#<`.] :Outline032_3  5+ ` hp x 5 23  ..5+ ` hp x 5  Shelby County Election Comm. v. Turner, 755 S.W.2d 774, 776 (Tenn. 1988)1 _}{insrsid11227631ShelbyCountyElectionComm.v.Turner,}{charrsid4596071755S.W.2d  774,776(Tenn.1988)}{Peeler v. State, 231 S.W.2d 321, 323 (Tenn. 1950)1 _}{ cf1charrsid4596071Peelerv.State}{insrsid11227631,}{insrsid11227631231S.W.2d  321,323(Tenn.1950)}{ !USUS.,  _f @ x8 XXdd8  = XXdd=@ g X XXX^XX INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON & #X X^#LXX  f  g @THECITYOFMEMPHISv.SHELBYCOUNTYELECTIONg f  Ԉ 8 g f  g @""!COMMISSION,ETAL. #X XL#LXX Ԉ L #X XL#   `     h      p      x @b b  AppealfromtheChanceryCourtofShelbyCounty  8 @  No.CH041736IIArnoldB.Goldin,Judge #X XXX #Ԉ  $ @* @*AV) ` dE<` A߈   @  LXX X XLNo.W200402182SC_RDM_ԄCVFiledSeptember15,2004   AV) ` dE<j` A k     #LXX 1#X XLInthisexpeditedappeal,thisCourtisaskedtodecidewhethertheShelbyCountyElection R CommissionexceededitsauthoritybyrefusingtoplaceReferendumOrdinanceNo.5072onthe > November2,2004,ballotbasedupontheStateElectionCoordinatorsopinionthattheOrdinance *z isunconstitutional.WeholdthattheShelbyCountyElectionCommissionexceededitsauthority f inrefusingtoplacethemeasureontheballot.Accordingly,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtis R reversed,andtheCommissionisherebyorderedtoincludeReferendumOrdinanceNo.5072onthe > November2,2004,ballot. *  X XXX   Tenn.CodeAnn.163201;JudgmentoftheTrialCourtReversed     FrankF.Drowota,III,C.J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichE.RileyAnderson, b AdolphoA.Birch,Jr.,JaniceM.Holder,andWilliamM.Barker,JJ.,joined. N  AllanJ.Wade,Lori_Hackleman_ԀPatterson,BrandyS._Parrish_,SaraL.Hall,Memphis,Tennessee, &"v! fortheappellant,TheCityofMemphis. #b" PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneral&Reporter;MichaelE.Moore,SolicitorGeneral;Ann $: $ Louise_Vix_,SeniorCounsel,CharlesL.Lewis,DeputyAttorneyGeneral,Nashville,Tennessee, %&!% fortheappellee,ShelbyCountyElectionCommission,GregoryM._Duckett_,RichardJ.Holden &"& andMauraBlackSullivan,Members. '"'    `     h   @66' OPINION  ^+&+ #X XXX G #   6-(- Ї  @YY I.MotiontoAssumeJurisdiction     OnSeptember10,2004,theCityofMemphisf  ( City)g filedamotionpursuanttoTennessee  CodeAnnotatedsection163201requestingthatthisCourtassumejurisdictionofthisappealand t renderanexpediteddecision.TheCityassertedthatthisisacaseofunusualpublicimportance ` involvingconstitutionalseparationofpowersissues.TheCitymaintainedthatexpeditingtheappeal L  isnecessarytoenabletheShelbyCountyElectionCommissiontoprepareandtodistributeto 8  militarypersonnelbySeptember18,2004,theballotsfortheNovember2,2004,generalelection. $ t ThisCourtf  g Ԁimmediatelyorderedthepartiestosubmitbriefsaddressingf  g Ԁthefollowingissues:f  g Ԁ(1)  ` whethertheShelbyCountyElectionCommissionandCommissionMembersf  g Ԁ( Commission)had  L  theauthoritytorefusetoplaceReferendumOrdinanceNo.5072ontheNovember2,2004,ballot  8  becausetheybelievedittobeunconstitutionalf  g ;f  g Ԁandf  g Ԁ(2)whetherReferendumOrdinanceNo.5072 $  isunconstitutional.     Upondueconsiderationofthewellwrittenandthoroughbriefs,preparedonshortnotice,! #  1         thisCourtfindsthattheCity'smotioniswelltaken.f  WeagreewiththeCitythatthisisacaseof   unusualpublicimportance,presentingaspecialneedforexpediteddecisionandinvolvingissuesof p constitutionallaw.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.163201(Supp.2003).g Accordingly,weherebygrant \ theCitysmotion,assumejurisdictionoff  g f  g thisappeal,and,asexplainedbelow,reversethejudgment H ofthetrialcourt. 4 @   II.FactualandProceduralBackground   \   Petitioner,theCity,isahomerulemunicipalitydulycharteredunderArticleXI,section9 H oftheTennesseeConstitution.TheCommissionisresponsibleforadministeringpublicelections 4 inShelbyCountyandintheCity.Onf  g ԀAugust17,2004,thef  g Memphisf  g Cityf  g ԀCouncilf  g Ԁpassedonthird   andfinalreadingReferendumOrdinanceNo.5072.Ifapprovedbythevoters,thismeasurewould   amendtheCitysCharterbyaddingthefollowingprovision:  8  TheCounciloftheCityofMemphisisauthorizedbyOrdinancetoauthorizetheCity  ofMemphistolevyandcollectanadditionalprivilegetaxand/orfeeontheprivilege l ofengagingincertainvocations,occupations,callingsandemploymentrelated X  activitieswithintheCityandtoauthorizetheuseofrevenuederivedtherefromfor D! budgetexpendituresforfire,policeandforcorrespondingreductionsofadvalorem 0"  taxesforexpendituresmadefromsuchrevenues.#l!     TheCitysComptrollerdeliveredtotheCommissionacopyofReferendumOrdinanceNo. $D # 5072,alongwithasuggestedreferendumquestion(collectively Ordinance),forinclusiononthe %0!$ November2,2004,ballot.ThereisapparentlynodisputethattheOrdinancewasdulyenactedby &"% theMemphisCityCouncil,signedbytheMayor,andproperlyandtimelysubmittedtothe '#& Commissionforinclusionontheballot.g f  g However,onAugust26,2004,theCommissionrefused (#' toplacetheOrdinanceontheballot.Indoingso,theCommissionrelieduponanAugust25,2004,  letterfromBrookThompson,f  g ԀTennesseeCoordinatorofElectionsf  g f  g ( Coordinator).Inthisletter,the  CoordinatordeclaredthathewouldnotapproveanyballotcontainingtheOrdinanceandstatedthat  aprivilege/payrolltax,towhichtheOrdinancef  g Ԁultimatelyspeaks,f  g f  g isf  g Ԁunconstitutionalf  g Ԁunlessand t untiltheGeneralAssemblyauthorizescitiestoimposesuchataxf  g .f  g f  g Ԁ `   OnAugust27,2004,theCityfileda petitionforwritofmandamus,forinjunctiverelief,and 8  foradeclaratoryjudgment,challengingthef  g Commissionsf  g Ԁrefusaltoplacethef  g f  g Ordinancef  g Ԁonthe $ t ballot.AhearingwasheldonSeptember7,2004,beforeChancellorArnoldGoldin.g Af  g lthoughg   ` characterizingf  g Ԁthedutiesofthef  g f  g Commissionf  g andtheg Coordinatorf  g f  g asf  g Ԁministerialinnature,f  g f  g the  L  Chancellorconcludedthattheseofficialsf  g Ԁhadtheauthoritytorefusetoplacethef  g f  g Ordinancef  g Ԁonthe  8  ballot.Thef  g Cf  g hancellorfurtherfoundthatthef  g Ordinancef  Ԁwouldbeunconstitutionalbecauseitwould $  unlawfullyincreasethetaxingpoweroftheCityinviolationofArticleXI,section9oftheTennessee   Constitution. #  2      ׀TheCityfiledanoticeofappealonSeptember8,2004,f  g Ԁand,twodayslaterf  g ,f  g Ԁfileda   motionf  g f  g askingf  g ԀthisCourtf  g f  g tof  g ԀassumejurisdictionoftheappealpursuanttoTennesseeCodeAnnotated   section163201.g WegrantedtheCitysmotion.   @TT III.AuthorityoftheCommission  \   TheCityarguesthattheCommissionandtheCoordinator8  8K*g   рareministerialofficialswhohad H noauthoritytorefusetoplacetheOrdinanceontheballotbecausetheybelievedittobe 4 unconstitutional.Insupportofitsargument,theCitypointstoseveralstatutes,discussedhereinafter,  p delineatingthedutiesoftheCommission,aswellastoseveralstatutessettingforththedutiesofthe  \ CoordinatorwhoseopiniontheCommissionrelieduponinrefusingtoplacetheOrdinanceonthe H ballot.TheCommissionrespondsthatithasthedutytoreviewproposedreferendummeasuresand 4 todetermineinitiallywhethersuchmeasurescomplywithstatestatutesandwiththestate   constitution.       TheCitycorrectlypointsoutthattheCoordinatorandtheCommissionareministerial  officers.ShelbyCountyElection_Commn_Ԁv.Turner,755S.W.2d774,776(Tenn.1988)  Ԁ( [T]he  ElectionCommissionhasonlyministerialduties.);Peelerv.Stateexrel._Beaseley_,231S.W.2d321, l 323(Tenn.1950)  Ԁ(holdingthatthedutiesofcountyelectioncommissionsareministerial);Curtisv. X  State,43S.W.2d391(Tenn.1931);Taylorv.Carr,141S.W.745,750(Tenn.1911)(holdingthat D!  thedutiesofcommissionersofelectionareonlyministerial);seeStateexrel._Tidwell_Ԁv.Morrison, 0"  274S.W.551,552(Tenn.1924).Thetrialcourtinthiscaseaccuratelycharacterizedthe #l! Commissionsdutiesasministerial.TheCommissionandtheCoordinatorrespectivelyperform $X" importantfunctionsvitaltothemaintenanceandadvancementofourpoliticalsystem.Nonetheless, $D # asministerialofficers,theCommissionandtheCoordinatorhavelimiteddiscretion. %0!$   BlacksLawDictionarydefinesa ministerialofficeras [_o]ne_Ԁwhoperformsspecifiedlegal '#& dutieswhentheappropriateconditionshavebeenmet,butwhodoesnotexercisepersonaljudgment  ordiscretioninperformingthoseduties.BlacksLawDictionary1113(7thed.1999).A strictly  ministerialdutyisdefinedas: Adutythatisabsoluteandimperative,requiringneithertheexercise  ofofficialdiscretionnorjudgment.Id.at522.} #  3      ׀Thesedefinitionsillustratehow,asministerial t officersperformingministerialacts,theCommissionandtheCoordinatormustimplementthe ` electionlaws,notdeterminethesubstantiveconstitutionalityofballotmeasures. L    Withoutquestion,theCommissionandtheCoordinatorhavecertainstatutorilyprescribed $ t ministerialdutiesthatallow!indeedrequire!themtodosuchthingsasexamineballotinitiatives  ` todeterminewhethersignaturerequirementsaremet,determinewhethersubmissionsaretimely,and  L  determinewhethercandidateshaveproperlyqualifiedtobeplacedontheballot.SeeTenn.Code  8  Ann.21101through216(2003)etseq.However,thesestatutesdonotrequireorevenpermit $  theCommissiontorefusetoincludeareferendumquestionontheballotbecausetheCommission   believesthequestiontobesubstantivelyunconstitutional.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.212101   through212216(delineatingthedutiesoftheCommission).TheCommissioncontendsthatithas   thepoweranddutytomakean initialdeterminationwhetherthelawauthorizestheactsitis   requiredtoperform.ThiscontentionistruewithrespecttotheCommissionsperformanceofits p ministerialduties.However,itisinaccuratetosaythattheCommissionhasthepoweranddutyto \ performaninitialorcursoryreviewofthesubstantiveconstitutionalityofmeasurestobeplacedon H theballotforreferendum.Determiningthesubstantiveconstitutionalityofsuchmeasuresisa 4 functionreservedforthejudicialbranchofgovernment.  p   Furthermore,theCoordinator,anappointed,ministerialofficial,alsolacksthestatutory H authoritytoforbidtheinclusionofareferendumquestionbasedupontheCoordinatorsopinionthat 4 themeasureissubstantivelyunconstitutional.TheCoordinatorsstatutorydutytoapprovethe form   oftheballotdoesnotprovideauthoritytodeterminethesubstantiveconstitutionalityofreferendum   questions,liketheOrdinanceatissueinthiscase.The formsofballotsonvotingmachinesand  the formofpaperballotsareprescribedbystatute.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.25206,207.These  statutesdescribetheproper formoftheballotindetail,including,forexample,thecolorofinkand  theproperplacementofcertaintitlesandcandidatenames.Seeid.at206,207However,these l statutesdonotaddressthesubstanceofballotmeasures. X    Finally,TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection211202doesnotprovidetheCoordinatorwith 0"  authoritytoexcludetheOrdinancebasedupontheCoordinatorsopinionthattheOrdinanceis #l! substantivelyunconstitutional.Section211202providesinrelevantpartasfollows: $X" 8  8`   0 ` x` x ` (a)Thecoordinatorofelectionsshall:%0!$ x x 8  8`   8 ` x` x(1)Generallysuperviseallelections;&"%   8  8`   8 ` x` x(2)Prepareinstructionsfortheconductofregistration;   8  8`   8 ` x` x(3)Adviseelectioncommissions,primaryboards,and  administratorsofelectionsastothepropermethodsof  performingtheirduties;t   8  8`   8 ` x` x(4)Authoritativelyinterprettheelectionlawsforall ` personsadministeringthem;....L    Tenn.CodeAnn.211202(2003).AlthoughtheCoordinatormust authoritativelyinterpretthe $ t electionlawsforallpersonsadministeringthem,thisstatutedoesnotpermitorinstructthe  ` Coordinatortoprovideanauthoritativeinterpretationastowhetheramunicipalordinanceplacing  L  aquestionontheballotviolatestheTennesseeConstitution._ #  4      _Ԁ  8    Indeed,anystatutepurportingtogranttheCoordinatorortheCommissionsuchbroad   interpretiveauthoritywouldrunafouloftheprincipleofseparationofpowersembodiedinthe   TennesseeConstitution,ArticleII,sections1and2.4  #  5      ׀ThisCourthasexplained:8 @ uX XXX    8  8`   Thepowersofgovernment,dividedintothelegislative,executive, p andjudicialbranches,areseparateanddivisible.Thelegislative \ branchhastheauthoritytomake,alter,andrepealthelaw;the H executivebranchadministersandenforcesthe#X XXuX *J#uX XXX law;andthejudicial 4 branchhastheauthoritytointerpretandapplythelaw.#X XXuX K#uX XXX Sincethe  p UnitedStatesSupremeCourtdecisionin#X XXuX yL#_Marbury_Ԁv.Madison,uX XXX Ԁithas  \ beenthesoleobligationofthejudiciarytointerpretthelawand H determinetheconstitutionalityofactionstakenbytheothertwo  branchesofgovernment.#X XXuX :M#ԀTheTennesseeConstitution[Art.II,2]  forbidsanencroachmentbyonedepartmentuponthepowersor  functionsofanother.Thus,alegislativeactionvestingexecutive t branchagencieswiththeauthoritytodeterminetheconstitutionality ` ofstatuteswouldviolatetheseparationofpowersdoctrine.L ` x` x Richardsonv.TennesseeBd.ofDentistry,913S.W.2d446,453(Tenn.1995)(internalcitations $ t omitted)(emphasisadded).  `    f  g Reducedtoitsessence,theCitysg Ԁassertionisf  g Ԁthatf  g ,f  g Ԁregardlessofwhetherthef  g f  g Ordinancef  g   8  unconstitutionallyenlargestheCitystaxingpower,thef  g f  g CommissionandtheCoordinatorclearlyf  g  $  violatedthisconstitutionaldoctrineofseparationofpowersg .TheCitymaintainsthatthe   CommissionandtheCoordinatorusurpedthejudiciarysauthoritytodeterminetheconstitutionality   oflaws,includingmunicipalordinances,andencroachedupontheMemphisCityCouncils   legislativeauthoritytoenactandsubmitlawstotheelectorate.f  g ԀThef  g Commissionassertsg Ԁthatf  g itf  g Ԁhad   theauthority!indeedtheduty!toreviewf  g f  g thef  g ԀOrdinancef  ԀtodeterminewhetheritviolatedArticle p XI,f  g f  g sectionf  g Ԁ9byf  g enlargingtheCity'staxingauthority. \   Aftercarefullyconsideringg f  g thesef  g Ԁarguments,weg f  agreewiththeCitythattheCoordinatorand 4 theCommissionviolatedtheconstitutionalprincipleofseparationofpowersbyrefusingtoplacethe  p Ordinanceontheballot.Withregardtoreferendumcharteramendmentordinances,likethe  \ Ordinanceatissueinthiscase,ArticleXI,section9oftheTennesseeConstitutionclearlystates: H 8  Itshallbethedutyofthelegislativebodyofsuchmunicipalitytopublishany   proposalsomadeandtosubmitthesametoitsqualifiedvotersatthefirstgeneral   stateelectionwhichshallbeheldatleastsixty(60)daysaftersuchpublicationand  suchproposalshallbecomeeffectivesixty(60)daysafterapprovalbyamajorityof  thequalifiedvotersthereon.   ByrefusingtoincludetheOrdinance,theCoordinatorandtheCommissionthwartedtheMemphis X  CityCouncilsconstitutionaldutytosubmittheOrdinancetothequalifiedvotersatthefirstgeneral D! stateelection. 0"    Furthermore,theCoordinatorandtheCommissionusurpedthepowerofthejudiciaryg f  g to $X" determinef  g Ԁthesubstantiveconstitutionalityofdulyenactedlaws.WehavefoundnoTennessee $D # authority,andnonehasbeencitedtous,whereinexecutiveorlegislativebranchofficialsg Ԁare %0!$ permittedtodeterminef  g Ԁthesubstantiveconstitutionalityofdulyenacted,presumptivelyvalid &"% ordinances.Cf.Kirkv._Olgiati_,308S.W.2d471,473(Tenn.1957)( [T]henecessityand '#& advisabilityofaCityordinanceisforthelegislativepowertodetermineandthepresumptionisthat (#' saidordinanceisvalidandconstitutional.)Indeed,aspreviouslyexplained,ministerialofficials )$( areprohibitedfromexercisingthisuniquelyjudicialfunction.ThisCourthasemphasizedthat: |*%)  h+&* 8  [t]hegeneralpublicwelfare,andmoreespeciallythepeaceandgoodorderofsociety,  willnotadmitofministerialofficersbeingthejudgeoftheconstitutionalityof  statutesandordinances.Theirfailureandrefusaltoenforcethelawaswritten,inthe  absenceofanyproperadjudicationofunconstitutionality,wouldbeintolerable.t   Brickerv.Sims,259S.W.2d661,f  g f  g 66465f  g Ԁ(Tenn.1953).Here,ministerialf  g f  g Ԁofficialsadjudgedf  g Ԁthe L  substantiveconstitutionalityofadulyenactedOrdinanceand,f  g basedf  g onf  g f  g theirjudgment,forbadeits 8  inclusionf  g Ԁog f  g nf  g Ԁtheballot.WeagreewiththeCitythatf  g ,f  g Ԁindoingso,f  g ԀtheCoordinatorandthe $ t f  g f  g Commissionoversteppedtheirstatutoryandconstitutionalauthority.y #  6      ׀Accordingly,thetrialcourt's  ` decisiononthisissueisreversed.  L  @A A  IV.ConstitutionalityoftheOrdinance 󀀀 $    TheCommissionassertsthattheOrdinanceisunconstitutionalbecauseit clearly,plainly,   andonitsfacewouldexpandMemphispoweroftaxation.TheCommissionasksthisCourtnot   torequireittoplacethepurportedlyinvalidOrdinanceontheballot.Insoarguing,theCommission   reliesuponthisCourtsdecisioninBrownv.Stateexrel.JubileeShops,Inc.,426S.W.2d192   (Tenn.1968),inwhichthisCourtreviewedtheconstitutionalchallengetoanordinancebefore t orderingtheCountyElectionCommissiontoplaceitonareferendumballot. `   TheCityf  g Ԁassertsthattheconstitutionalityoff  g f  g thef  g ԀOrdinanceg Ԁisnotripeforg Ԁjudicial 8 determination.TheCitymaintainsthattheCommissionsrelianceuponBrownismisplacedbecause $t Browninvolvedaconstitutionalchallengetotheformofthereferendumordinancewhereas,inthis ` case,theCommissionchallengesthesubstantiveconstitutionalityoftheOrdinance. L   Upondueconsideration,weagreewiththeCitythatachallengetothesubstantive $ constitutionalvalidityoftheOrdinanceisnotripeforjudicialdetermination.Tf  g heCitysvotersmay  ormaynotapprovetheOrdinance.IftheOrdinanceisapproved,theCitymayormaynotadopta  privilegetaxf  g Ԁtowhichthef  g f  g Of  g rdinancespeaks.TheCitymayormaynotseekapprovalbytheGeneral  Assemblyforsuchatax,andtheGeneralAssemblymayormaynotapproveanysuchrequest.In  short,wedeclinetopassupontheconstitutionalityoff  g f  g ameasuref  g Ԁthatisnotnowthelawandmay p neverbecomethelaw.f  ԀForustodosoatthisprematurestagewouldviolatetheestablishedrulethat \  appellatecourtswillnotrenderadvisoryopinions,Leachv.State,491S.W.2d81,82(Tenn.1973); H! Banksv.Jenkins,449S.W.2d712,717(Tenn.1969),andwillnotdecidetheoreticalissuesbased 4"  oncontingenciesthatmayormaynotarise._Dorothan_Ԁv._McMinn_ԀCounty,213S.W.2d173,178  #p! (Tenn.1948);UnitedStatesFidelity&GuarantyCo.v.Askew,191S.W.2d533,534(Tenn.1946).  $\" Ѐg f  g  $H #   Furthermore,weagreewiththeCitythatBrownisdistinguishableandnotcontrolling.In %4!$ thatcase,theconstitutionalchallengewastotheformoftheordinance,nottoitssubstance.The  bodyoftheordinancewasallegedtobebroaderthanitscaptioninviolationofArticleII,section17  oftheTennesseeConstitution.Thus,giventhechallengetotheformoftheordinance,weagreed  thatmandamusshouldnotissueuntilandunlesstheordinancewasdeterminedtobevalid.Brown, t 426S.W.2dat287.However,Browndidnotpresentthehypothetical,unripequestionofwhether ` theordinance,ifpassed,wouldbeunconstitutional.Rather,Brownpresentedtheconcreteandripe L  questionofwhethertheordinancehadbeenpassedintheformnecessarytolegitimatelyinvokethe 8  referendumprocess.Generally,preelectionchallengestothesubstantiveconstitutionalvalidityof $ t referendummeasuresarenotripefordeterminationbyacourt,whilepreelectionchallengestothe  ` formorfacialconstitutionalvalidityofreferendummeasuresareripeforjudicialscrutiny. #  7      See  L  JamesD.GordonIII&DavidB._Magleby_,PreElectionJudicialReviewofInitiativesand  <  Referendums,64NotreDameL.Rev.298,314(1989);seealsoDonovanv.Priest,931S.W.2d119, (  122(Ark.1996);_Burnell_Ԁv.CityofMorgantown,558S.E.2d306,31314(W.Va.2001)(explaining   andapplyingthisrule).TheauthorityfromotherjurisdictionsuponwhichtheCommissionrelies   involvedpreelectionchallengestotheformorfacialconstitutionalvalidityofreferendummeasures,   ratherthanpreelectionchallengestothesubstantiveconstitutionalvalidityofsuchmeasures.See   AlaskaConservativePoliticalActionComm.v.MunicipalityofAnchorage,745P.2d936,938 t (Alaska1987)(refusingtorequireelectionofficialstoplaceontheballotaninitiativethatonitsface ` soughttomakeanappropriationbecausetheAlaskaconstitutionspecificallyprohibitedmaking L appropriationsbyinitiative);uX XXX MissourianstoProtecttheInitiativeProcessv.Blunt,799S.W.2d824, 8 827(Mo.1990)(enbanc)(#X XXuX [{#considering,inapreelectionchallenge,whetheraballotmeasureviolated $t astatelawrequiringthataninitiativepetitioncontainnomorethanonesubjectandstatingthat `  [_o]ur_Ԁsinglefunctionistoaskwhethertheconstitutionalrequirementsandlimitsofpower,as L expressedintheprovisionsrelatingtotheprocedureandformofinitiativepetitions,havebeen 8 regarded);Stateexrel.HazelwoodYellowRibbonComm.v._Klos_,35S.W.3d457,468(Mo.Ct. $ App.2000)(statingthat modernprecedentsleavenodoubtthatMissouricourtsindeedrecognize  andfollowageneralruleagainstpreelectionjudicialreviewconcerningthesubstantivelegalityof  ballotmeasures)uX XXX ;Stateexrel._Childress_Ԁv.Anderson,865S.W.2d384,39091(Mo.Ct.App.1993)#X XXuX #  (holdingaballotzoningmeasureinvalidbecauseithadnotbeensubmittedtothecityplanningand  zoningcommissionforexaminationandrecommendationpriortoconsiderationbythecitycouncil, p asrequiredbythecitycharter);Stateexrel.Brantv._Beermann_,350N.W.2d18,21(Neb.1984) \  (statingthat [_u]nless_Ԁthesubjectoftheproposedpetitiononitsfaceisinvalidorunconstitutional, H! theSecretaryofStatecannotpassuponthevalidityorconstructionofanyproposedlaw...andthat 4"   [t]heSecretaryofStateisrequiredtoperformpromptlyalltheministerialdutiesimposedbylaw,  #p! excepttheSecretaryofStatemaydeterminewhetherthesubjectofthepetitionhasthesemblance  $\" ofalaworwhetherthesubjectislegallyappropriatefortheinitiative);TownofHiltonHeadIsland $H # v.CoalitionofExpresswayOpponents,415S.E.2d801,806(S.C.1992)(refusing,inapreelection %4!$ declaratoryjudgmentactionbroughtbythetownandvarioustaxpayers,torequirethetowntoplace & "% afaciallyunconstitutionalmeasureonthereferendumballot);Dixonv.ProvoCityCouncil,363P.2d  1115,1116(Utah1961)(refusingtocompelelectionauthoritiestoplacetheordinanceontheballot  becausetheproposalwhichcalledfortheelectionof threecommissionersandanauditoruX XXX was  faciallyinvalidinlightofagenerallyapplicablestatestatutevestingtheauthorityofmunicipal t government in#X XXuX ۆ#uX XXX Ԁaboardofcommissioners,consistingofamayorandtwocommissioners,#X XXuX ȇ#tobe ` electedatlarge). L    Regardlessofitsassertionstothecontrary,theCommissionschallengeistothesubstantive $ t constitutionalvalidityoftheOrdinance,ratherthanmerelytothefacialorprocedurallegalityofthe  ` measure.ThischallengeisunlikethechallengeinBrownwhichrequiredthisCourtmerelyto  L  reviewtheordinancetodetermineifitsbodywasbroaderthanitscaptioninviolationofArticleII,  8  section17oftheTennesseeConstitution.Decidingtheconstitutionalchallengeinthiscasewould $  requirenotonlyreviewoftheCitysexistingchartertodeterminehowbroadtheCitystaxing   powersareatpresent,butalsoreviewoftheOrdinancetodeterminewhetheritwould,upon   adoption,actuallyenlargeorincreasetheCitystaxingpowersinviolationofArticleXI,section9.  #  8      ׀   ЀInshort,thechallengeinthiscasestrikesatthesubstantiveconstitutionalvalidityoftheOrdinance.   Thus,aspreviouslystated,thispreelectionchallengesimplyisnotripeforjudicialdetermination. p @zz# V.Conclusionf  g   H   Asexplainedherein,theCity'smotionrequestingthatthisCourtassumejurisdictionofthe 4 appealiswelltakenandisgranted.WeholdthattheCommissionexceededitsstatutoryand  p constitutionalauthoritybyexcludingtheOrdinancefromtheNovember2,2004,ballot.Therefore,  \ theCommissionisherebyorderedtoincludef  g ԀtheOrdinanceontheg November2,2004,g f  f  g Ԁballot.The H substantiveconstitutionalityoftheOrdinance,oranylawthatmayeventuallyresultfromthe 4 measure,isnotnowanissueripeforjudicialdetermination.Thisopinionisnotsubjecttorehearing   underTennesseeRuleofAppellateProcedure39,andtheClerkisdirectedtocertifythisopinionas   finalandtoimmediatelyissuethemandate.Costsofthisappealaretaxedtothef  g f  g Commissionfor  whichexecutionmayissueifnecessaryf  g .     `     h     FORTHECOURT: l  0"  Ї   `     h     ____________________________________     `     h     FRANKF._DROWOTA_ԀIII,     `     h     CHIEFJUSTICE