The Tennessee Constitution (Article II, Section 26) prohibits "any person in this state" from holding "more than one lucrative office at the same time." The Tennessee courts have held that this prohibition applies only to holding two state offices, not to holding a state office and a local government office or two local government offices (see Boswell v. Powell, 43 S.W.2d 495 (1931)). For that reason, a municipal officer may serve in the General Assembly or another local government seat unless otherwise prohibited by law. Some municipal charters forbid dual office holding of various kinds. Such charter provisions generally have been upheld. The General Assembly and a municipal governing body could properly adopt statutes and ordinances for purpose of preventing an individual from holding public offices which would create a conflict of interest.

However, the answer to whether dual-office holding is prohibited depends on whether the offices in question are incompatible. The holding of incompatible offices is prohibited under the common law. The Tennessee Supreme Court in State v. Thompson, 246 S.W.2d 59 (Tenn. 1952) provides:

‘The rule at common law is that, where one accepts a second office incompatible with one already held by him, the office first held is thereby ipso facto terminated without judicial proceedings of any kind’. State ex rel. Little v. Slagle, 341, 89 S.W. 326, 327 (Tenn. 1905).

The Tennessee Attorney General has explained incompatible offices as follows:

The common law prohibition against a public officer holding two incompatible offices at the same time generally applies when an individual occupies two inherently inconsistent offices. 63C Am.Jur.2d Public Officers and Employees § 62 (2007). The question of incompatibility of necessity depends on the circumstances of the individual case, and the issue is whether the occupancy of both offices by the same person is detrimental to the public interest, or whether performance of the duties of one interferes with the performance of those of the other. 67 C.J.S. Officers § 38 (2007).

Incompatibility, therefore, arises from the nature of the duties of the offices, when there is an inconsistency in the functions of the two, where the functions of the two are inherently inconsistent or repugnant, as where antagonism would result in the attempt by one person to discharge the duties of both offices, or where the nature and duties of the two offices are such as to render it improper from considerations of public policy for one person to retain both. The true test is whether the two offices are incompatible in their natures, in the rights, duties or obligations connected with or flowing from them. 3 McQuillin Mun. Corp., § 12.67 (3rd ed.).

Tenn. Op. Att'y Gen. No. 07-145 (Oct. 12, 2007). Whether offices are incompatible must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis:

“The question of incompatibility depends on the circumstances of each individual case, and the issue is whether the occupancy of both offices by the same person is detrimental to the public interest, or whether the performance of the duties of one interferes with the performance of those of the other.”

Tenn. Op. Att'y Gen. No. 99-160 (Aug. 19, 1999) (citing 67 C.J.S. Officers § 27 at 279-80 (1978)). In State v. Thompson, 246 S.W.2d 59 (Tenn. 1952), the Tennessee Supreme Court held that the positions of city manager and city commissioner were incompatible due to the charter requirement of the Board of Commissioners to appoint and fix the salary of the city manager. The Tennessee Attorney General stated, “an inherent inconsistency exists where one office is subject to the supervision or control of the other.” Tenn. Op. Att'y Gen. No. 99-160 (Aug. 19, 1999).