TENNESSEE TRUTH — SPECIAL INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
Maryville, Tennessee | 2026
Tennessee law gives citizens a rarely discussed legal mechanism for seeking the removal of certain public officials accused of serious misconduct: the Tennessee Ouster Act.
Under Tennessee Code Annotated § 8-47-101 et seq., an official who falls within the statute and who knowingly or willfully commits misconduct in office, knowingly or willfully neglects a legally required duty, engages in certain other prohibited conduct, or commits a qualifying criminal offense can be removed through an ouster proceeding.
Perhaps most significantly for citizens, Tennessee law does not require a district attorney general, county attorney or city attorney to agree before a citizen-initiated proceeding can be filed.
T.C.A. § 8-47-110 expressly provides that an ouster petition may be filed, without the concurrence of those government attorneys, upon the relation of 10 or more citizens and freeholders of the state, county or city involved, provided the statutory requirements—including security for costs—are satisfied.
That provision makes the Ouster Act an unusual accountability mechanism: under the statute, qualifying citizens can invoke the judicial process themselves rather than merely asking a government prosecutor to take action.
WHAT IS AN OUSTER?
An ouster proceeding is a civil proceeding designed to remove an unfit public officer from office.
It is not a criminal prosecution, and an official does not have to be criminally convicted before an ouster action can succeed.
T.C.A. § 8-47-101 identifies the statutory grounds for removal. The statute applies to persons holding an office of trust or profit under state law, whether state, county or municipal, subject to constitutional exceptions.
The statute provides for ouster when a covered officer:
- knowingly or willfully commits misconduct in office;
- knowingly or willfully neglects to perform a duty imposed by state law;
- is voluntarily intoxicated in a public place under the circumstances specified by the statute;
- engages in illegal gambling; or
- commits an act violating a penal statute involving moral turpitude.
If the statutory requirements are established, the statute provides that the officer shall forfeit the office and be ousted.
The important distinction is that not every mistake, disagreement, unpopular decision or failure of government administration constitutes ouster-worthy misconduct.
Tennessee appellate decisions have repeatedly emphasized that ouster is a serious remedy and that the courts look for a clear case of official dereliction rather than ordinary mistakes in judgment.
In Tennessee ex rel. Leech v. Wright, the Tennessee Supreme Court emphasized that ouster proceedings should not be brought unless there is a clear case of official dereliction. The same principle has been recognized in subsequent Tennessee appellate decisions.
THE “POWER OF TEN”
The citizen provision is found in T.C.A. § 8-47-110.
The statute provides that an ouster petition may be filed in the name of the State upon the relation of the appropriate government attorney. But it also specifically provides that, without the concurrence of those officials, the action may be filed upon the relation of 10 or more citizens and freeholders of the applicable jurisdiction.
Those citizen relators must provide the usual security for costs.
The Tennessee courts therefore recognize two distinct avenues:
Government-initiated proceedings:
A qualified government attorney can institute an ouster proceeding.
Citizen-initiated proceedings:
Ten or more qualifying citizens and freeholders can institute the proceeding without obtaining the concurrence of the government attorney.
The Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts likewise explains that citizens may initiate ouster proceedings and that ten citizens and freeholders are required, together with security for the costs of the lawsuit.
TEN CITIZENS DO NOT AUTOMATICALLY REMOVE AN OFFICIAL
There is an important misconception that should be avoided.
The “power of ten” does not mean that ten citizens can vote an official out of office.
The ten citizens merely provide the statutory basis for initiating the judicial proceeding.
The case must still proceed through the courts. The petition must satisfy statutory requirements, the alleged misconduct must be proven, and the defendant has the right to defend against the allegations.
T.C.A. § 8-47-113 requires the petition to be verified and to state the charges with reasonable certainty. The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently emphasized the importance of those requirements in State ex rel. Pelley v. Perkinson. In that case, the attempted citizen ouster ultimately did not result in removal, and the appellate litigation included a dispute over whether the relators’ declarations adequately verified the allegations.
That case illustrates an important point: having ten people sign papers is not enough. The statutory procedure must be followed correctly.
THE COURT CAN SUSPEND AN OFFICIAL BEFORE THE FINAL TRIAL
The Ouster Act contains another significant provision.
Under T.C.A. § 8-47-116, once an ouster proceeding has been filed, the court may, upon an appropriate application, suspend the accused official from performing the duties of office while the case is pending.
That authority applies whether the proceeding was brought by a government attorney or by citizen relators.
If an official is suspended, the resulting vacancy is filled according to the applicable law governing vacancies in that particular office.
The suspension is therefore not the same thing as a final ouster. It is an interim judicial remedy that can be imposed while the case proceeds.
TENNESSEE COURTS HAVE ACTUALLY OUSTED PUBLIC OFFICIALS
The Ouster Act is not merely a theoretical statute sitting unused in the Tennessee Code.
Tennessee appellate courts have repeatedly upheld actual judgments removing public officials from office.
NASHVILLE MAYOR — STATE EX REL. TIMOTHY v. HOWSE
One of the earliest and most important examples is State ex rel. Timothy v. Howse, 134 Tenn. 67, 183 S.W. 510 (1916).
The proceeding involved H. E. Howse, the mayor of Nashville, and another municipal official.
The case arose under Tennessee’s newly enacted Ouster Act and involved citizen relators. The litigation demonstrates that citizen participation in ouster proceedings was contemplated by the statute from its earliest days.
The Tennessee Supreme Court ultimately upheld the ouster of Howse.
The case remains important because it demonstrates that the citizen-relator mechanism was not created merely as a symbolic provision. Tennessee courts have used the statutory procedure to remove an elected municipal official.
SHELBY COUNTY COMMISSIONER — JORDAN v. WILLIAMS
In Jordan v. State ex rel. Williams, 397 S.W.2d 383 (Tenn. 1965), the Tennessee Supreme Court upheld the ouster of a Shelby County commissioner.
The case involved the commissioner’s use, for his own benefit, of equipment and supplies belonging to the Shelby County Penal Farm as well as the labor of inmates.
The Tennessee Supreme Court upheld his removal from office.
The case is significant because it demonstrates that misuse of governmental property and public resources can constitute the type of official misconduct for which the Ouster Act provides a remedy.
COUNTY ROAD SUPERINTENDENT — TENNESSEE EX REL. LEECH v. WRIGHT
In Tennessee ex rel. Leech v. Wright, 622 S.W.2d 807 (Tenn. 1981), the Tennessee Supreme Court upheld the ouster of a county road superintendent.
The court’s decision involved several forms of official misconduct, including knowingly and willfully allowing county equipment to be used by a private company, permitting a county employee to work for a private company while being paid by the county, and failing to comply with competitive-bidding requirements.
The case is particularly important because it illustrates the difference between an ordinary administrative mistake and conduct that can rise to the level of knowing and willful misconduct.
The Tennessee Supreme Court also stressed that ouster should be reserved for a clear case of official dereliction.
SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT — STATE EX REL. ESTEP v. PETERS
In State ex rel. Estep v. Peters, 815 S.W.2d 161 (Tenn. 1991), the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the ouster of Dennis Peters, superintendent of schools in Claiborne County.
The case involved the superintendent’s knowing and willful handling of public funds and failure to make required financial reports.
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of ouster.
Importantly, the court held that the conduct could constitute statutory misconduct even though there was no finding that the superintendent acted with a personal financial motive.
That makes Estep a significant precedent when evaluating alleged misuse or mishandling of public money.
COUNTY COMMISSIONER — STATE EX REL. WOLFENBARGER v. MOORE
A more recent example involved a county commissioner.
In State ex rel. Wolfenbarger v. Moore, 2010 WL 520995 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010), the Tennessee Court of Appeals dealt with the ouster of a county commissioner for committing perjury.
The University of Tennessee’s County Technical Assistance Service lists the case among Tennessee’s successful ouster cases.
The case is particularly relevant because it demonstrates that the Ouster Act has been used against a modern elected county official—not simply historical municipal or administrative officers.
WHAT THESE CASES HAVE IN COMMON
The successful cases reveal an important pattern.
Tennessee courts have upheld ouster where officials engaged in conduct substantially more serious than a political disagreement or an ordinary mistake.
The successful cases include:
Misuse of public property and inmate labor — Jordan v. Williams.
Improper use of county equipment and public employees and failure to follow bidding requirements — Leech v. Wright.
Knowing and willful mishandling of public funds and failure to make required reports — Estep v. Peters.
Perjury by a county commissioner — Wolfenbarger v. Moore.
Official misconduct involving a Nashville mayor — State ex rel. Timothy v. Howse.
The University of Tennessee’s County Technical Assistance Service identifies these cases as successful Tennessee ouster cases.
THE STANDARD IS HIGH
The existence of the Ouster Act should not be interpreted as giving citizens a simple shortcut around elections or ordinary political disagreements.
Tennessee courts have repeatedly described ouster as a serious remedy.
A petitioner must establish conduct falling within the statutory grounds. Tennessee decisions require a heightened evidentiary showing, and courts have cautioned that ordinary mistakes in judgment are not enough.
The Court of Appeals summarized the governing principle in State v. Carney ex rel. Crosby, explaining that ouster proceedings should not be brought unless there is a clear case of official dereliction.
That limitation is critical.
A public official generally cannot be ousted simply because citizens believe the official:
- made a bad policy decision;
- voted the wrong way;
- was politically unpopular;
- exercised questionable judgment;
- made an ordinary administrative mistake; or
- disagreed with constituents.
The conduct must fit the statutory grounds and satisfy the applicable evidentiary standard.
THE OUSTER PROCESS IS A COURT CASE
An ouster petition begins a judicial proceeding.
The petition is filed in the name of the State. The statute establishes requirements concerning the allegations, verification, service and subsequent proceedings.
The court can consider whether an accused official should be temporarily suspended, and ultimately whether the statutory grounds for removal have been proven.
Either side may appeal. Tennessee’s court system describes ouster as a civil proceeding rather than a criminal prosecution.
The final judgment is therefore not a political vote by the ten relators.
It is a judicial determination.
A POWERFUL BUT NARROW ACCOUNTABILITY TOOL
The Tennessee Ouster Act occupies an unusual place in Tennessee government.
Elections provide the principal political mechanism for removing elected officials.
Impeachment applies to officials subject to Tennessee’s constitutional impeachment process.
Criminal prosecutions address criminal conduct.
But the Ouster Act provides a separate civil mechanism for removing certain public officers when their conduct meets the statutory requirements.
And Tennessee law expressly allows ten or more qualifying citizens and freeholders to initiate that process without the concurrence of the government attorneys ordinarily authorized to bring an ouster case.
That does not make the process easy.
It does, however, give citizens a direct path to the courthouse when they believe a public official has crossed the legal line from poor judgment or political disagreement into conduct that the Tennessee Ouster Act recognizes as grounds for removal.
THE BOTTOM LINE
The “Power of Ten” is real—but it is a power to initiate a judicial proceeding, not a power to remove an official by citizen vote.
Tennessee’s statutes allow ten or more qualifying citizens and freeholders to bring an ouster proceeding without the concurrence of the appropriate government attorney.
And Tennessee’s appellate history establishes that ouster is not merely theoretical.
Tennessee courts have actually removed public officials, including a Nashville mayor, a Shelby County commissioner, a county road superintendent, a county school superintendent and a county commissioner.
The cases also demonstrate why the Ouster Act should be approached carefully.
It is a powerful remedy, but Tennessee courts have required substantial proof of serious official dereliction. The objective is not to punish an unpopular politician. It is to protect the public from an official whose conduct falls within the statutory grounds for forfeiture of office.
For Tennessee citizens who believe that line has been crossed, the law provides something more than a complaint to a government office.
Under T.C.A. § 8-47-110, the courthouse door can be opened by ten or more citizens and freeholders—provided they meet the statute’s requirements and can prove their case.
Tennessee Truth will continue examining Tennessee’s Ouster Act, the officials subject to it, the procedural requirements for citizen-initiated actions, and the Tennessee cases that establish when courts have actually removed public officials from office.
A local example is closer than you may think. Stay tuned to Tennessee Truth.