Correction: This story has been updated to correct inaccurate information about how the Downtown Memphis Commission CEO is appointed.

In a crowded courtroom Wednesday afternoon, May 10, Memphis City Councilman JB Smiley Jr. said to no one in particular what has been on a lot of people’s minds. 

“This is the most political lawsuit I’ve ever seen,” the councilman said.

Lawyers, journalists and a mayoral candidate (J.W. Gibson II) were milling about, waiting for Shelby County Chancellor JoeDae Jenkins to rule whether the Memphis City Council could in fact sue the city administration. It would officially put the two of the city’s branches of government at loggerheads over a five-year residency requirement for mayoral candidates. 

Council sends residency question to voters next year

A few minutes later, Jenkins ruled the City Council could be in the lawsuit, adding to the legal melodrama. 

The lawsuit now pits the Memphis City Council and two mayoral candidates, Floyd Bonner Jr. and Van Turner, against Mayor Jim Strickland and his administration. The administration argues Memphis has a five-year residency requirement for candidates. The now-three plaintiffs argue it does not. 

The Shelby County Election Commission, once a defendant in the suit originally brought by Turner and Bonner, is now watching from the sidelines, waiting to see what rules will govern the upcoming Memphis municipal election, which is fast approaching. 

The court hearing Wednesday included accusations from the city administration that the Memphis City Council had violated the Open Meetings Act in suing the executive branch. It included accusations from the City Council that the administration was violating the Memphis city charter by hiring outside attorneys to defend it in the residency case. 

In short, it’s a mess. But it’s a mess that, when sorted, will shape the city’s political future. 

Van Turner says he lives in Binghampton, though MLGW bills show he doesn’t use any water

The fight over residency has broad ramifications for Memphis’ political destiny. If Jenkins, or an appeals court, rules the city does have a residency requirement, at least two mayoral contenders will be out of the race. 

If a court decides the city does not have a residency requirement, the race remains wide open. Those two contenders — Bonner and Turner — will have sued the city and won. They will also have Allan Wade, the City Council’s longtime private attorney whose arguments have been the underpinning of their case, to thank. 

A victory for Bonner or Turner this fall means that Allan Wade helped them out. 

Why didn’t this come up in 2019

Strickland, in his public statements, has remained neutral and not weighed in on the residency requirement. Any comment one way or the other would be seen as tipping the scales — and he has connections in multiple directions.

He appointed mayoral candidate Paul Young to director of housing and community development.

City’s attorney won’t issue opinion on mayoral residency requirement

As for Bonner, he and Strickland agree on most things criminal justice, and Bonner is seen by many as Strickland’s heir apparent in tough-on-crime policing.

The mayor and Turner worked together to remove Confederate statues in 2017, a maneuver that is now a hallmark of Turner’s stump speech. 

City Attorney Jennifer Sink serves at the pleasure of Strickland and while the mayor has said nothing, Sink, by adopting the legal opinion, has acted for the city administration and advanced the city’s opinion that it still has a residency requirement. 

It’s a position Strickland could’ve taken years ago. Why didn’t he?

Strickland delivered an answer to that question on “Behind The Headlines” two weeks ago. He thought he would beat former mayor Willie Herenton without it. 

“It was drawing more attention to a fact — it was kind of a side issue,” he said. “I thought we were going to win anyway. I just wanted to get out there and get as many votes as possible.”

There’s also the flip side of that coin. If, in majority-Black Memphis, the sitting white mayor had tried to kick the city’s first Black elected mayor off the ballot, it may have backfired.

It would have given Herenton, the former Golden Gloves boxer, an issue to fight with and it could have made the race a referendum on race, something that Strickland wanted to avoid at all costs. 

So he did nothing. And, four years later, with Strickland and his staff on the way out the door, the issue is now before a court. 

What will voters think?

If Turner and Bonner aren’t on that ballot, voters won’t be saying what they think of residency. If they are, they still might not say what they think of residency. 

A new poll has some insight into the question but polling has its limits. The data, from a poll conducted by Caissa Public Strategy and the Greater 901 Initiative political action committee, showed that a majority of voters (51%) responding to a multiple-choice question favored either a five-year residency requirement or a three-year residency requirement. 

And it’s not clear if they would take issue with Bonner or Turner for not living in the city. 

Today’s media landscape may have something to do with that. In the days when most households took or at least read the newspaper, this issue would have dominated the front page for weeks.

But, today, in a media environment dominated by streaming services and where news consumption is an afterthought for many, how many voters even know about this controversy?