Term limits adopted by Shelby County voters for certain elected local officials are legal and constitutional, the Tennessee Supreme Court said in a unanimous decision filed Wednesday.

Under the Supreme Court ruling, plaintiffs in the case who have served two terms on the Shelby County Board of Commissioners will not be eligible to run in upcoming primary and general elections. Walter Bailey, Julian Bolton and Cleo Kirk filed a legal challenge to the term limit charter provision claiming it is not authorized under state law and is invalid under the state constitution.

Each of the plaintiffs was elected to the Shelby County Board of Commissioners in 1998 and again in 2002.

The court's expedited opinion, written by Chief Justice William M. Barker, overturned a state Court of Appeals decision which had reversed a Chancery Court ruling upholding the 1994 charter provision. While concluding that state law allows voters to adopt term limits, a majority of the Court of Appeals said the charter provision resulted from an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority.

The Supreme Court agreed to review the Court of Appeals decision and heard oral arguments in the case March 21 in Nashville.

In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs said a section of state law authorizing chartered counties, such as Shelby County, to establish qualifications for holding office does not include the authority to impose term limits.

They argued that term limits are not a "qualification for holding office" as used in the statute dealing with chartered counties.

The plaintiffs also contended that Article VII, section I of Tennessee's constitution prohibits limiting the number of terms a county legislative official may serve. A majority of voters in Shelby County amended the charter to limit terms for county mayor and members of the County Board of Commissioners.

"The plaintiffs reason that because Article VII provides that members of county legislative bodies shall be elected for 'terms of four years,' any limitation on the number of terms is invalid," Chief Justice Barker wrote. "Thus, the plaintiffs construe Article VII as establishing terms of four years with no limit. We disagree with the plaintiffs' interpretation of Article VII."

The court recognized that the Article VII provides for voters to establish an alternate form of government, as was done in Shelby County, and concluded that state statutes authorized the imposition of term limits.

Chief Justice Barker cited another section of the state constitution Article I, section I providing that the people have an "unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper."

"The constitution is the truest expression of the will of the people," Chief Justice Barker wrote. "Accepting the plaintiffs' position in this case would require us to ignore the fundamental principle of self-government embodied in Article I, section I. This we are not willing to do."

In its decision, the Supreme Court also denied a request by defendants in the case, including county election officials, for an order delaying the election process. The primary election is May 2 in Shelby County and the general election will be Aug. 3.

The court remanded the case to Shelby County Chancery Court for reinstatement of the lower court's judgment upholding the term limits provision and collection of costs, which are to be paid by Bailey, Bolton and Kirk.