an abstract question of wide public significance. For similar reasons, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND This appeal involves a challenge to the constitutionality of Tennessee Code §§ 17-4-101 through 17-4-116, known commonly as the Tennessee Plan, which governs the way in which judges of the Tennessee appellate courts are initially selected and thereafter stand for election. By now, the Tennessee Plan is no stranger to legal challenge, both at the federal and state level. See, e.g., Johnson v. Bredesen, 356 Fed.Appx. 781 (6th Cir.2009) (affirming district court’s dismissal of a federal constitutional challenge to the Tennessee Plan as it related to the election of state supreme court justices); Hooker v. Haslam, No. M2012-01299-SC-R11-CV, 437 S.W.3d 409, 2014 WL 1010367 (Tenn. Mar. 17, 2014) (<HOLDING>). The Tennessee Plan provides that if a vacancy
holding that deprivation of personal property does not violate the constitution if there are adequate state remedies available holding that where it is alleged that state has violated rights conferred by constitution governmental immunity is not available in state court action but declining to infer a right to sue the state for damages on the basis of a violation of the michigan constitution recognizing exception under state constitution holding that the tennessee plan as it relates to state appellatecourt judges does not violate the state constitution recognizing that oath taken to honor state constitution makes it the justices duty to apply the state constitution when it does not conflict with the federal constitution