09/01/2026
LAWLESSNESS AND LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH
What follows is a documented record of lawlessness, institutional failure, and a judiciary that acknowledged the law and then refused to allow it to be enforced.
------
HOW THE LAW WAS BROKEN
The breakdown began with the illegal seizure of county property.
Former County Mayor Anthony Holt directed tenants out of the TRC building without a vote of the County Commission. He did not have that authority. The County Legislative Body never authorized the removal of those tenants. The result was immediate and measurable. Sumner County lost approximately $200,000 per year in rental revenue. That alone was unlawful. But it did not stop there.
The Sumner County Election Commission then moved itself into the TRC building without authorization from the County Commission, occupying space the Commission never designated for their use. No vote. No lease. No approval. Just occupation.
Under Tennessee law, that authority belongs to the County Legislative Body. Not the Election Commission. Not the County Mayor. Not a judge.
Yet the Election Commission proceeded anyway.
------
ESCALATION, NOT COMPLIANCE
Rather than comply with state law when directed to vacate, the Election Commission escalated. It sued the County Commission in an attempt to usurp legislative authority it does not possess.
An appointed body sued the elected legislative body of the county to retain control of property it was never authorized to occupy.
That lawsuit was not about elections. It was about power.
------
WHAT THE COURT ACTUALLY RULED
In Sumner County Election Commission v. Board of Commissioners of Sumner County, Chancellor Louis W. Oliver III ruled clearly and unambiguously:
“The County Commission has the overall power to designate which county departments or entities may occupy specific properties owned or controlled by Sumner County.”
That ruling affirmed exactly what Tennessee statutes say. Only the County Legislative Body controls county property.
The Court also rejected the County Mayor’s claim of authority and confirmed the legal distinction between custody and control. Custody belongs to the mayor. Control belongs to the Commission.
So far, the law was applied correctly.
------
WHERE THE JUDGE WENT OFF THE RAILS
After affirming the County Commission’s authority as a matter of law, the Court blocked the Commission from exercising that authority.
A Temporary Injunction was left in place that prevented enforcement of the Commission’s lawful directive. Not because the law was unclear. Not because the Commission lacked authority. But because the Court decided it did not like the timing.
That is not judicial restraint. That is legislating from the bench.
------
LAW DIRECTOR'S CONCLUSION
The Order correctly affirmed the County Commission’s statutory authority to control and direct county property. However, the continued injunction directly contradicts that ruling. It strips authority from the legislative body and places Chancellor Oliver in a legislative role. That exceeds the proper scope of judicial authority. For that reason, an appeal was recommended.
------
PATTERNS OF MISCONDUCT
This same Election Commission and its Administrator, Lori Atchley, have a documented record that includes:
- Illegal relocation and occupation of county property
- Ex*****on of contracts without County Commission approval
- Violations of the Tennessee Open Meetings Act
- False and misleading statements to the County Commission
- Malicious litigation against the legislative body
- Criminal charges for theft and domestic assault
- A last-minute pre-trial diversion approved by the District Attorney that prevented a jury trial and public accountability
At every stage, accountability was avoided. Authority was ignored. The law was bent or bypassed.
------
THE BOTTOM LINE
The 2022-2026 County Commission acted within the law. The statutes are clear. The Court acknowledged that fact.
And yet the law remains unenforced.
The Election Commission continues to occupy a building it was never authorized to use. The County Mayor continues to confuse custody with control. And a court acknowledged the law, then, in violation of the law, restrained its lawful enforcement.
This is not confusion. This is not a disagreement over interpretation. This is institutional lawlessness by a sitting Administrator of Elections and sitting Chancellor.
And the public deserves to know exactly who allowed it to happen.
