U.S. Sen. Tommy Tuberville gives an acceptance speech after winning the Republican nomination for Alabama's governor at his primary election victory tailgate at the Vulcan Park in Birmingham, Alabama, on May 19, 2026. A lawsuit challenging Tuberville's ability to run for governor was dismissed by a lower court earlier this month, but has been appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court. (Anna Barrett/Alabama Reflector)
The Alabama Supreme Court is about to face a test.
It’s not about Tommy Tuberville’s eligibility to run for governor. At least, not yet.
The question for justices: Can a court even determine whether a candidate for public office can serve in it?
This should be easy. It says quite a bit about the state — and Alabama’s high court — that it isn’t.
But we deserve a hearing on the issue. Yes, Montgomery Circuit Judge Brooke Reid dismissed a lawsuit earlier this month alleging that the Republican gubernatorial nominee did not meet the seven-year state residency requirement to be governor.
This wasn’t a win for Tuberville, exactly. Reid said she lacked the authority to consider the merits of the case. But, she added, that didn’t mean the case lacked merit.
The plaintiffs argue that Tuberville does not meet residency requirements and has therefore “usurped” his office — in this case, the Republican nominee for governor.
Tuberville’s attorneys — who insist he is constitutionally eligible to run for governor — argue that the Alabama Republican Party must determine its nominees. If there is a legitimate question about a candidate’s residency after nomination, they say, the Legislature may make that determination should the candidate win election.
This may work with the letter of the law. But it’s obviously in conflict with the spirit. It’s also impractical. A Republican-controlled Legislature — all but certain to be the outcome in November — is not going to dump its party’s choice for governor. Tuberville could probably deliver his inaugural address on tape delay from Santa Rosa Beach, Florida.
The central question is whether the legal path pursued by the plaintiffs challenging Tuberville’s residency, known as quo warranto, can apply to a party nominee. A quo warranto suit argues that an official does not have the right to hold an office or exercise a power because they lack the legal authority to do so.
Because there was “no Alabama case directly on point” on the matter, Reid dismissed the lawsuit. But the judge also noted that the law recognizes party nominees as “quasi-officials,” and wrote that there was a “very strong argument” that quo warranto could apply to those seeking an office.
This is an issue for a higher court. And it’s an important one.
Tuberville has faced questions about his residency for years. And it hasn’t helped that he’s been largely evasive in answering them. There’s plenty of evidence (unearthed by Lagniappe in Mobile) to suggest Tuberville spent much of his time as Alabama’s U.S. senator in Florida, whether it’s holding a Florida driver’s license or flying frequently to the Sunshine State. At a minimum, the senator has been sloppy about putting down roots.
Now, sloppiness is not in itself conclusive. Tuberville has argued that his time as Auburn’s head coach should count toward residency, as should his purchase of an Auburn home in 2018 (though his name was not on the deed until 2024). This defies common sense but, perhaps, not the law.
These questions can’t be answered in a quick, Sunday afternoon rush job. Nor does upholding the dismissal without explanation seem wise. Do that, and you’ll open the door to candidates running for Alabama office from Florida or (heaven forbid) New York, so long as their party controls the Legislature and the courts.
Yet it’s easy to envision the Alabama Supreme Court taking that tack. The justices have shown a disturbing tendency to ignore the law when a powerful entity (particularly one run by or connected to Republicans) ends up at a defendant’s table.
This is a body that said in 2013, in clear violation of the state constitution, that the Legislature did not have to conduct meetings in public. It was hard to ignore that the ruling helped uphold the shady passage of the Republican-backed Alabama Accountability Act earlier that year.
In 2020, the justices deployed a comically labored reading of the word “meeting” to justify the Public Service Commission kicking out a person recording a hearing on Alabama Power’s ludicrous rooftop solar panel charges.
Maybe the all-Republican Supreme Court fears being primaried. Perhaps they believe Republicans can act with impunity.
But simply announcing that a quo warranto suit doesn’t apply to political nominees will undermine the Alabama Constitution. It will justify a kind of absentee officialdom, so long as one party calls the shots. And the deep disconnect between Alabama leaders and Alabama politicians will grow still wider.
So here’s the test for the court: Consider the practical reality of a decision that would let out-of-state politicians run for office unimpeded. If you still think the case can be dismissed — because of oversight or fuzzy language — spell out your reasons and suggest a remedy. But above all, don’t rein in the law the moment it touches a powerful person.
It’s not that much of a challenge. But it’s one we’ve seen the Alabama Supreme Court consistently fail.
From Alabama Reflector Post Url: Visit
Author: Brian Lyman