Memphis, Tennessee

== Politics ==
{{Main|Government of Memphis, Tennessee}}
{{See also|List of mayors of Memphis, Tennessee}}
Beginning in 1963, Memphis adopted a mayor-council form of government, with 13 [[Memphis City Council|City Council]] members, six elected [[at-large]] from throughout the city and seven elected from geographic districts. Following passage of the [[Voting Rights Act of 1965]], civil rights activists challenged the at-large electoral system in court because it made it more difficult for the minority to elect candidates of their choice; at-large voting favored candidates who could command a majority across the city. In 1995, the city adopted a new plan. The 13 Council positions are elected from nine geographic districts: seven are single-member districts and two elect three members each.

[[Paul Young (Tennessee politician)|Paul Young]], a Democrat, is the city's mayor. He took office on January 1, 2024.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Brown |first1=Jackson |title=Watch Live as Paul Young gets sworn in as Memphis' next Mayor |url=https://www.localmemphis.com/article/news/politics/watch-live-paul-young-swearing-in-memphis-mayor/522-6d33d25b-617d-45fb-97eb-fdc734f0bbb1 |work=ABC24 |date=January 1, 2024}}</ref>

Since the late 20th century, regional discussions have recurred on the concept of consolidating unincorporated [[Shelby County, Tennessee|Shelby County]] and Memphis into a [[metropolitan government]], as Nashville-Davidson County did in 1963. Consolidation was a referendum item on the 2010 ballots in both the city of Memphis and Shelby County, under the state law for dual-voting on such measures. The referendum was controversial in both jurisdictions. Black leaders, including then-Shelby County Commissioner [[Joe Ford (politician)|Joe Ford]] and national civil rights leader [[Al Sharpton]], opposed the consolidation. According to the plaintiffs' expert, Marcus Pohlmann, these leaders "tried to turn that referendum into a civil rights issue, suggesting that for blacks to vote for consolidation was to give up hard-won civil rights victories of the past".<ref name="consvote" />

In October 2010 before the vote, eight Shelby County citizens had filed a lawsuit in federal court against the state and the Shelby County Elections Commission against the dual-voting requirement. Plaintiffs argued that total votes for the referendum should have been counted together, rather than as separate elections. City voters narrowly supported the measure for consolidation with 50.8% in favor; county voters overwhelmingly voted against the measure with 85% against.<ref name="dismiss">[http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/local-news/appellate-court-dismisses-challenge-of-dual-vote-requirement-for-consolidated-government_82638081 Clay Bailey, "Appellate court dismisses challenge of dual vote requirement for consolidated government"], ''Commercial Appeal'', December 31, 2014, accessed February 21, 2015</ref> The state argued that with the election decided, the lawsuit should be dismissed, but the federal court disagreed.<ref name="consvote">[http://www.memphisdailynews.com/news/2014/jan/6/consolidation-voting-case-still-complex-in-3rd-year/ Bill Dries, "Consolidation Voting Case Still Complex in 3rd Year"], ''Memphis Daily News'', January 6, 2014, accessed February 21, 2015</ref>

By late 2013, in pre-trial actions, both sides were trying to disqualify the other's experts, in discussions of whether regional voting revealed racial polarization, and whether voting on the referendum demonstrated racial bloc voting. "The experts for both sides have clashed on whether racial bloc voting is inevitable in local elections and whether that would require some kind of court remedy."<ref name="consvote" />

The defendants' expert, Todd Donovan, did not think that polarized voting as revealed for political candidates meant that "African-American voters and white voters have polarized interests when it comes to referendum choices on government administration, taxation, service provision and other policy questions."<ref name="consvote" /> He noted, "In the absence of distinct political interests that create polarized blocs of referendum voters defined by race, there is no cohesive racial minority voting interest that can be diluted by a referendum."<ref name="consvote" />

In 2014, the federal district court dismissed the lawsuit, on the grounds that the referendum would have failed when both jurisdictions' votes were counted together. (In total voting, 64% of voters opposed the consolidation.) In the last week of December 2014, the U.S. Sixth District Court of Appeals upheld that decision, ruling that, ""In this election, the referendum for consolidation did not pass and would not have passed even if there had been no dual-majority vote requirement (with the vote counts combined)."<ref name="dismiss" />

Before the referendum, the decision was made by the city and county to exclude public school management and operations from the proposed consolidation. As noted below, in 2011 the Memphis city council voted to dissolve its city school board and consolidate with the Shelby County School System, without the collaboration or agreement of Shelby County.<ref name="school">[http://columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/47_Anderson.pdf "MAKING A REGIONAL DISTRICT: MEMPHIS CITY SCHOOLS DISSOLVES INTO ITS SUBURBS"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150221194549/http://columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/47_Anderson.pdf |date=February 21, 2015 }}, ''Columbia Law Review'', March 2012</ref> The city had authority for this action under Tennessee state laws that differentiate between city and county powers.