Sharon G. Lee
Non-Partisan | Tennessee
Candidate Profile
Activist
BIOGRAPHY
Name
Sharon G. Lee
Party
Non-Partisan
Election Year
2022
Election
Primary
Race
Supreme Court (retention)
Incumbent
Yes
Links
EDUCATION
Candidate did not provide
WORK & MILITARY
Candidate did not provide
AFFILIATIONS
Candidate did not provide
POLITICAL OFFICES HELD
Candidate did not provide
POLITICAL OFFICES SOUGHT
Candidate did not provide
Race
SELECTED CONTRIBUTIONS
CONSERVATIVE
GIVEN BY CANDIDATE (1)
Jimmy Matlock (2018)
RECEIVED BY CANDIDATE (0)
LIBERAL
GIVEN BY CANDIDATE (2)
ActBlue (2008)
Phil Bredesen (2018)
RECEIVED BY CANDIDATE (0)
OTHER INFORMATION
Justice Lee has served on the Supreme Court since 2008. She was appointed by Governor Phil Bredesen (rated as Liberal by iVoterGuide in 2020). She formerly served on the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
Notable Cases:
- Abdur'Rahman v. Parker (2018): Wrote dissent. In a case regarding lethal injections, argued that petitioners deserved to be heard without regard to 1) the constitutionality of other injection procedures 2) their execution date 3) the length of their briefs (1). Argued that the court improperly rushed the executions to a "rocket docket," depriving them of a fair trial (1-2). Cited Justice Sotomayor's dissents in Glossip and McGeHee that Glossip's requirement that there be an available alternative is "'perverse' because it replaces the Eighth Amendment's categorical prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment with a conditional one" (i.e. that there must be an available alternative to the allegedly cruel punishment) (3). Argued that Glossip's requirement was also unworkable because "executions are clothed in secrecy," making it difficult to show that an alternative method was available (3). Argued that the accelerated schedule worsened the challenge posed by Glossip (4). "For all these reasons, petitioners were denied due process in the form of a fundamentally fair process" (6). Argued that petitioners deserved meaningful review of their claims, and their briefs were evidence that they did not have such time (6-7).
- Fisher v. Hargett and Lay v. Goins (2020): Wrote a concurrence in part and dissent in part from the majority’s opinion, which held that a lower court erred by granting injunctive relief allowing all Tennesseans to vote by absentee ballots during the 2020 election, regardless of their risk of contracting COVID-19 (1-2) Justice Lee agreed with the majority that high-risk individuals ought to be allowed to vote absentee, but she argued that the majority was wrong to not extend this to allow all Tennesseans to vote by absentee during a pandemic. She argued that the majority ought to have limited its opinion to deciding whether the lower court had abused its discretion in granting injunctive relief (3). Justice Lee said that, "Despite the significant increase in COVID-19 case counts, Tennessee has no statewide mask mandate. People continue to gather in enclosed places, such as bars and restaurants. School starts soon in many communities; even contact sports are allowed. See Tenn. Exec. Order No. 55 (July 31, 2020) at *3. COVID-19 test results are not always timely issued. There is no vaccine in sight. Tennessee is out of step with nearly every other state in the country in its response to absentee voting during this pandemic. Only three other states do not allow either voting by mail or no-excuse absentee-by-mail voting in the current pandemic. In the midst of this pandemic and while Tennessee remains under a state of emergency, qualified Tennessee voters with no underlying medical or health conditions should not be left with the impossible choice of voting in person and risking getting COVID-19 or forfeiting their constitutionally protected right to vote. Tennessee voters deserve better" (14).
- State v. Pruitt (2016): Signed Justice Page's majority opinion. Held that the statute at issue in this case was not an ex post facto statute, so defendant's motion to suppress evidence was not well-taken (1). Overruled Miller v. State (Tenn 1979), which held that the scope of Tennessee's ex post facto clause was broader than the U.S. Constitution's scope (1). Explained the federal rationale behind the prevention of ex post facto laws (12). Explained that the U.S. Supreme Court attempted to find the original meaning of the ex post facto clause in Collins v. Youngblood (1990) (14-15). Criticized the Tennessee Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. State (1979) for expanding the interpretation of Tennessee's ex post facto clause without any reasoning aside from a quotation of the state's ex post facto provision (16). Cited Phillips v. Montgomery (Tenn 2014), which said that similarly worded provisions in the state constitution should not be interpreted differently from the federal constitution unless there are "sufficient textual or historical differences, or other grounds for doing so" (17). Held that the Court's lack of analysis in Miller was insufficient to broaden the interpretation of the state's ex post facto provision (18). Concluded that there was no reason for the Tennessee Constitution's ex post facto clause to be interpreted differently from the U.S. Constitution's clause (19).
- McClay v. Airport Management Services, LLC (2020): Wrote dissent. The majority held that a law placing a statutory cap on non-economic damages that could be awarded in civil trials did not 1) violate the right to trial by jury as outlined in Article I, Section 6 of the Tennessee Constitution 2) violate the separation of powers as described in Article I, Section 16 of the Tennessee Constitution or 3) disproportionately discriminate against women (pg. 1 of majority opinioj). Justice Lee argued that the statutory cap improperly "amended" the right to trial by jury, which was to remain "inviolate" according to the Tennessee Constitution (pg. 1 of Justice Lee’s dissent). Said that the cap is "one-size-fits-all and fails to consider the extent of a party’s noneconomic losses" (1). Argued that, therefore, the law unconstitutionally took away a citizen's right to trial by jury for noneconomic damages (1). Cited Borne which held that it is the jury's role to decide the "type and amount of any damages awarded to the plaintiff" (2). Argued that the law amounted to an amendment to the Constitution, and therefore, the legislature did not follow the proper process (4). Argued that the law did not change common law because it left the cause of action open to plaintiffs, but still blocked them from receiving full damages (7). Said that the majority's argument that the law did not limit the jury's fact finding and only later applied the law was "smoke and mirrors" (8).
Info from Other Sources:
- Justice Lee wrote an article for the Tennessee Bar Association explaining that Twitter may be used to demystify the legal process for the public, but that judges must also take care to maintain their impartial demeanor.
QUESTIONNAIRE
VALUES
I agree with Critical Race Theory (CRT) which asserts that the institutions in the United States are fundamentally racist.
Did not answer
Judeo-Christian values established a framework of morality that is necessary for our system of limited government.
Did not answer
Briefly describe your spiritual beliefs and values.
Did not answer
What types of pro bono work have you done?
Did not answer
ABOUT YOU
Have you ever been convicted of a felony or been penalized in either civil or criminal court for sexual misconduct? If so, please explain.
Did not answer
What education or experience qualifies you to hold the office for which you seek election?
Did not answer
Why should the voters choose you?
Did not answer
I voted in these primaries and general elections:
Did not answer
JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY
Justices should not interpret the federal and state constitutions as living documents, but should use a textualist and originalist approach to interpretation.
Did not answer
What is the proper use of legislative history in interpreting statutory law?
Did not answer
Which current or past U.S. Supreme Court justice best reflects your judicial philosophy?
Did not answer
How should a court address the balance between public health and individual freedoms in the time of a pandemic?
Did not answer
In light of the case Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include a prohibition on sexual-orientation discrimination, which justice’s opinion most closely aligns with your own opinion?
Did not answer
What role (if any) does a judge have in maintaining the separation of church and state?
Did not answer
Religious liberty is at risk in the United States and deserves the highest level of protection in the law.
Did not answer
When should a judge overturn past court decisions?
Did not answer
How should a judge determine which rights are protected by the Constitution even though they are not specifically mentioned?
Did not answer
What legal principles should a court consider when evaluating parents’ objection to their child obtaining medical procedures or drugs designed to affirm the child’s desired gender?
Did not answer
What principles should guide a court’s analysis of whether your state’s constitution gives terminally ill patients a right to assisted suicide?
Did not answer
Would you describe your judicial philosophy as originalist, living constitutionalist, or something else?
Did not answer
