VOLuntarilyConservative

One could fill a book with the nuances of the redistricting plan put forth by GOP National Committeeman John Ryder and the Tennessee Republican Party - why lines were drawn here, how subtle differences impact voters there. It's chocked full of interesting decisions and - likely - more political favoritism and money than any of us will ever know.

The one decision which jumped out to me and a few others in the blogosphere is what is being done to Kerry Roberts. Roberts, a Tea Party favorite, persevered and eventually was elected to replace moderate Diane Black when Black moved on to the U.S. House. Now with redistricting, Kerry Roberts is being treated worse than any of the Democrats, basically ousted from the Senate by being drawn into another Republican's district that doesn't come up for election again until 2014. That means that Roberts' term will end when this session ends and, if he so chooses to run for the Senate again, he will have to do so in a contested GOP primary in 2014 against a sitting incumbent.

This sends a very dangerous message to the grassroots. Ken over at Blue Collar Muse is none too pleased, and the GOP needs to be clear with the Tennessee grassroots as to why this was done. I don't think I would want to disrespect the grassroots when, in all likelihood, the top of the ticket is going to be represented in 2012 by a candidate that the grassroots does not care for in Mitt Romney. And Ken might be the most important grassroots leader in Tennessee politics at this juncture, having worked over the past couple of years to strengthen the networking in the Volunteer State.

Lots of questions, and very few answers thus far...

Labels: 2012 Tennessee Races, General Assembly, Grassroots, Political Canibalism, Political Strategy, Redistricting

A.C. Kleinheider provides some excellent commentary on the loss of Jason Mumpower as he serves his last weeks in the Tennessee House. This is a wonderful piece of reflection; it's probably the best post I've read this year on any subject.

Labels: General Assembly, Political Strategy, TN GOP

Below is a copy of a letter sent to over twenty members of the General Assembly earlier this afternoon. I thought I probably should include it on the blog, since it's the most substantial thing I wrote today.

June 11, 2009

Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey
1 Legislative Plaza
Nashville, Tennessee 37243-0219

Dear Ron:

I greatly appreciate your meeting with me last week; I value your perspective and explanations on many issues important to all Tennesseans, including our method of nominating appellate judges. Given all that you currently have on your plate, I realize what a valuable commodity time has become and would like to express my gratitude for the hours spent with us in Knoxville last Friday.

I write today to articulate my concern over reported cuts in Governor Bredesen’s proposed budget to the Indigent Defense Fund. I believe my record of support for cuts in the Tennessee budget, a budget which has unfortunately ballooned under Governor Bredesen, has been well-documented, which I hope supports my claim that any cuts to the Indigent Defense Fund will almost certainly bring unintended consequences that could short-circuit our state judicial system and cost the State more in the long run.

The Indigent Defense Fund (IDF) is a necessary evil in Tennessee’s budget, but its importance grows as our national economy suffers. The constitutional rights enjoyed by our citizens include the right to counsel when they are threatened with deprivation of their liberty; when the State files charges of a criminal nature or threatens to incarcerate a father or mother for failing to pay child support, counsel is appointed by the trial court to represent that person’s interests. While the Public Defender’s offices of the various judicial districts represent a good deal of the criminal defendants in these cases – and they do an admirable job in the face of growing budgetary pressures – ethics requires that private counsel be appointed when cases involve co-defendants, when the victim of the crime is a former or current client of the Public Defender’s office, or when another conflict of interest arises that disqualifies the Public Defender’s office from representing that particular defendant. In addition, the IDF also pays for the Guardians ad Litem (GALs) and attorneys for indigent parents in juvenile court cases, furthering the State’s interest in protecting Tennessee children from abuse and neglect. While public perception may not recognize the importance of attorneys for indigent individuals in Tennessee, the need remains when constitutional issues – such as life, liberty, and the right to parent one’s child – are at stake.

I believe that many attorneys who do not take appointments by judges greatly appreciate the work of those of us who allow for our practices to be overloaded with appointed cases. I recently spoke with one particular trial judge who was a member of the defense bar prior to taking the bench many years ago. He reminded me that the hourly rate, which is about 1/6 of the hourly billable rate for most privately retained attorneys, has not changed since he was in practice. I respectfully do not write today to ask that this rate be changed, as it would not be prudent to do so during these trying economic times. I only ask that the General Assembly fund the IDF to the level where we can meet the needs of our fellow citizens, even if it means that we have to work the increased amount of hours to maintain our commitments to our firms, families, and loved ones.

The IDF was not fully funded for the past budgetary cycle. In late April, attorneys who routinely accept court appointments began receiving letters from the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) that served as notice that the IDF would be out of money by May 10, 2009. This basically meant that attorneys who work with our least fortunate of citizens were suddenly reconfiguring their finances with the prospect of not being paid for work already performed for over two months of the year (until the new fiscal year begins in July). Our firm was one of the lucky ones. We have built in reserve funds over the years to prepare us fiscally for just such an occurrence. We will survive until the next fiscal year and continue with our “legal ministry” as we try to help Tennessee’s citizens in the trial and juvenile courts. However, some of our colleagues were not as fortunate and have been forced to move on to more profitable pursuits. I know of one attorney who took hundreds of juvenile court cases who has been forced to declare bankruptcy.

This exodus from the appointed rolls is of great concern to me. With fewer attorneys taking appointed cases because of the threat of not being paid for their work by an insolvent IDF, those of us who remain will inherit even greater caseloads than what we currently carry. That in turn will lead to more continuances and more stress on a judicial system already pushed to the brink. Cases that take longer to resolve will result in defendants – most of whom cannot make bail – remaining in jail longer and further overcrowding our jails. With jails such as Blount County’s operating at nearly 150% capacity, judges will be forced to face the unenviable task to remedy the situation, and some will have to turn to the choice currently posited by Governor Schwarzenneger of California – jettisoning countless convicts into society prior to their debt to society having been fulfilled. Longer juvenile court cases will lead to children being in custody for more time than the system is accustomed, and that in turn will lead to greater expense for the Department of Children’s Services. Without going into too many details, I foresee the proposed cuts in the IDF as leading to more expenses for other lines of the budget that might outpace the initial “savings” to the State.

I understand that the State is in a difficult position with this year’s budget, and I applaud most of the cuts. I want to make sure that you know of our problems in Tennessee’s trial courts, as well. We have seen an increase in the number of cases in our courts since our nation’s economy ventured into recession. While we have experienced moderate increases on criminal dockets, where we have seen the highest volume of new cases is in regards to people falling behind on their child support obligations and with abusive situations involving children. (The child support problem is easily explained as more people lose their jobs and fall behind on their payments. Why more people physically, sexually, and emotionally abuse their children during down economic times is a mystery to me.) More overall cases means more demands on the IDF, which is certainly one reason that the IDF was insolvent only ten months into the twelve month fiscal year. Given our current national economy, I cannot foresee our recent problem being alleviated in the 2009-2010 fiscal year. If the proposed cuts are allowed to stand, I hasten to speculate in which month the IDF will be insolvent in 2010.

I worry that we rush to judgment on this issue in the trial courts, which is the level of the judiciary that bears the burden in dealing with the vast majority of Tennesseans. We have concentrated a great deal of time to an issue near and dear to the hearts of many political activists – both conservative and liberal – in the method of selection of our appellate judges during this session, but the truth is that most cases involving Tennesseans never see a courtroom above the circuit or chancery level. If the General Assembly wishes to make budget cuts involving the judicial system, I recommend looking into possible cuts in the appellate system, such as diminishing or eliminating the post-conviction relief system or somehow taxing attorneys fees for those indigent appellate litigants (such as in the appeals of termination of parental rights cases) to the parties themselves instead of having the IDF foot the bill. In short, I believe there are some ways to make cuts in the system that would only impact a few people but would leave the vast majority of litigants represented and their rights intact. Under an abundance of caution, however, I believe that these potential cuts need to be studied and deferred to a later budget, as we should not act in haste.

Thank you for your time in considering what I believe to be an issue of importance to all Tennesseans. As always, if you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Until I next have the pleasure of speaking with you, I remain


Truly Yours,



Robert L. Huddleston

Labels: Civil Liberties, Firm Life, General Assembly, Ron Ramsey

David Fowler of FACT thinks so.

Word leaked from the Legislature today (Monday) that key House and Senate leaders may seek to suspend the Rules in our State House of Representatives tonight to quickly move tomorrow a bill that would continue to prevent the people from voting for their state Supreme Court judges. This surprise maneuver would continue the current process by which Supreme Court judges are appointed by the Governor from a slate of three nominees submitted by a nominating committee composed of lawyers essentially selected by legal special interest groups. When no one can run against an incumbent judge and there is never a choice of judges, this is not an election as required by our state Constitution.

If what Fowler is alleging is true and there is a movement afoot to suspend the rules late on Monday for the judicial commission vote on Tuesday, then the Republicans do not deserve to be in power come 2010.

There has been quite a bit of discussion over whether Tennesseans are too stupid to be allowed to exercise their constitutional right to vote on the appellate judges of this state (the lefty trial lawyers obviously think they can't be trusted with such a responsibility), or whether lobbyists and kingmakers should be allowed to choose the appellate judges in the backrooms of state government. Some of that discussion was over an Attorney General's opinion issued last week. The AP wrote an erroneous report as to what that opinion contained. I read the opinion; it basically leaves the results of what happens to the Tennessee judiciary after the sunsetting of the "Tennessee Plan" at the feet of the Legislature. The AP report was wrong - period.

The Knoxville Bar Association penned a column in the KNS this Sunday that defended the "Tennessee Plan." (I thought Richard Corsini's response was quite good.) I was not surprised, although quite disappointed. After all, I have paid to be a member of this overly political bar organization since I returned to Knoxville. There was no poll to see if the KBA should have ever ventured into this controversy. Nope, the "leadership" just went ahead and wrote their little column. And I wrote mine in the form of a letter of resignation from the Knoxville Bar Association.

I hope Fowler is incorrect and that nothing is in the works to push through a reauthorization of the "Tennessee Plan." It's hard to fathom why Tennessee Republicans would follow their national brethren and cast aside their respect for strict constitutional interpretation, particularly with an eye to where such actions have landed the national party.

The Tennessee Constitution states that the citizens of the state are to vote for the judges of the Tennessee Supreme Court. I urge the leadership - Lt. Gov. Ramsey, Reps. Mumpower and Casada - to think long and hard before they act on this important issue - and when they do act, to do so in the sunshine where all Tennesseans can see.

MORE:
Terry Frank
A.C. Kleinheider

Labels: General Assembly, Judiciary, Ron Ramsey, TN GOP

Ken over at the Blue Collar Muse posed that question to House Majority Leader Jason Mumpower today, and it apparently is garnering quite a bit of attention.

Ken's correct on principle. For those of us who stand to gain from having borrowed money - that is, money borrowed from our sons and daughters and their sons and daughters - given to us to deny such money because it is wrong and illegitimate is what must happen in order for the conservative movement to mean anything besides a brand name that is bandied about every couple of years around election time.

As Ken points out, South Carolina and Mississippi are looking at saying "Thanks, but no thanks" to Washington, too. Is a secessionist movement afoot? I doubt it, but it would be revolutionary for politicians to tell the federal government that its borrowed money won't spend in the South anymore.

Labels: Economy, General Assembly, The South

I'm 30 minutes from an afternoon bench trial, but I have had a chance to quickly look over the committee assignments for the Tennessee House. If I were a member of the Republican House Caucus, I would be pissed off. Speaker Williams gave the key assignments to Democrats, and he showed his anti-firearms stripes by apparently making sure that meaningful firearms will never reach the full House, much like what was done by his puppetmaster his predecessor.

I know I've been preaching slow and deliberate action by the Tennessee Republican Party regarding Williams' status as a Republican, but actions like what he pulled today (again, on a brief look by yours truly due to trial obligations) should sway many of those where sitting on the fence.

Labels: General Assembly, Kent Williams

I hadn't planned on making the trip to Nashville to witness the swearing-in of the new Tennessee General Assembly members and the voting for the Lt. Governor and Speaker positions. While I've worked on many, many House and Senate campaigns in the past and been invited to the Capitol for the festivities before, my time after the elections has either been spent recuperating from the previous campaign or getting geared up for the next one.

After receiving some correspondence from friends and colleagues this weekend, I experienced a quick change of mind and decided to make the drive Tuesday morning as a form of celebrating the hard work of 2008. Angela often says that I don't bother to smell the roses enough and enjoy the fruits of my labor, so I thought that this might be a way of enlightening my view of Tennessee politics.

The trip was going to be difficult, though, as my around-the-clock work on a lengthy trial last week had left me a physical wreck. My immune system was weakened enough to catch Leo's cold, which has been plaguing me since Saturday. After spending most of the night rocking and consoling him Monday night, I wasn't in much shape to travel. Angela urged me to go, though, because she knows how seeing my friends in the General Assembly raises my spirits. The snow that was falling in Crossville Tuesday morning didn't help, either, but it was of small consequence.

I arrived at the Capitol well over an hour before the sessions were to convene. The early arrival aided me in speaking to several State Executive Committee members, constitutional officer candidates, Senators, Representatives, Congressmen, grassroots activists, and staff members, so many that listing them here would be inviting disrespect when I leave someone off the list.

I should say at this point that I had no concerns about either election. Republicans with even the least likely chance of being persuaded to break ranks had been consulted over the past week by various parties. Kent Williams was viewed as by far the most likely problem, but multiple individuals had approached him in the 24 hours preceding the session, and he had assured them that his vote was solid.

I did not attempt to cram my sick corpse into the House gallery, instead opting for the cooler confines in the rotunda between the two chambers of the General Assembly. This enabled me to view proceedings of both chambers and mingle with friends and colleagues, some of whom I had lost contact with and hadn't spoken to in over a decade. The Senate started close to time and moved expeditiously. The House, on the other hand, was trouble from the start.

First, Speaker Naifeh filed in late with a smile on his face. It wasn't a cordial smile, either. It was Naifeh's usual smirk that makes you think he has something up his sleeve (if not for younger eyes here, I would use the slang form of an "excrement-dining smile"). I looked over at Vance Cheek when Naifeh went by, both of us having witnessed Naifeh's strut and both of us exhibiting looks of concern. Democratic Rep. Gary Odom moved immediately to recess for a couple of minutes. Rep. Mumpower paid Odom's motion short shrift, but Odom surprisingly won the motion by one vote.

As the recess began, I grabbed the first friendly face I could find exiting the House doors. It was Rep. Stacey Campfield, who assured me that freshman Rep. Terri Lynn Weaver had misunderstood the question on the floor and had accidentally voted to grant the motion instead of table it. (I confirmed this with multiple other GOP Representatives at the time.) During the break, I spoke with a group of conservative GOP activists, at which time I stated that if a "miracle" were to happen and the Democrats would hang on to power, that they would point to the recess as the necessary element in their conquest, the key to their superior tactics. (And, voila, my predictive powers were vindicated on that count, even though the Democrats didn't all meet together during the break, which kind of spoils that version of what happened.)

When Kent Williams' name was put forth through nominations, the word that seemed to echo through the rotunda was "bait." However, I wasn't concerned. After all, Kent Williams had told colleagues and activists alike that very morning that he was still loyal to the Republican caucus' choice.

Because of Williams' name being at the end of the Republican party manifest, he cast the last vote. And when he did, all hell broke lose. People booed. Mouths hit the floor. Calls of "traitor" and "villain." Curses from Republicans and Democrats alike could be heard. As the new Speaker was being sworn in, I left (along with many of the Senators and their families). It was obvious to me (with a memory of 2001 in my head) that this situation was ripe for confrontation. Given this report, it appears that the Speaker thought so, too. As one of the Senator's wives said, "I hope that they have security set up for the new Speaker, because he might not get out of here unharmed when people who have devoted blood, sweat, and tears to this cause leave the gallery and accost him face-to-face." Knowing that I have a tendency to speak my mind, I thought it best that I leave, too.

I attended a luncheon with several of my friends thereafter, including Senator Mike Faulk and members of his family, Congressman Bill Jenkins, Tennessee Federation of Republican Women do-everythings Jennifer Little and Dagmar Schoenhoff, GOP campaign manager Darrin Kirkus, and several others. We continued to get text message updates from those still at the Capitol, including news of Williams sealing his fate by voting for Rep. DeBerry for Speaker Pro Tempore.

After eating a fantastic meal, I drove back to Knoxville, stopping once in Cookeville to change clothes for the UT/UK basketball game. And we all know how that turned out. A perfect ending to a perfect day.

A Democratic operative that I call my friend who was not part of this plot described the move as "a kick in the nuts." I told him that I didn't think that was completely accurate, because we had to see what the reaction was. If the Tennessee GOP is more fragile than I imagine and falls to its knees, then the description of a blow to the groin is on point. However, as I pointed out to him, as an individual, I am not bowed; I stand still. If anything, I am more determined than ever. At a time when I was unsure what my next move was (leave politics? cash in my chips and become a bureaucrat? join a 2010 campaign? run for State Chairman if Robin Smith runs for Congress?), this occurrence strengthens my resolve. It has not killed me; it will make me stronger. And the Tennessee Republican Party needs to react in the same manner.

Keeping in mind that I give a great deal of the credit for Republicans being in the majority to our State Party and its bold behavior, I believe immediate talk of stripping Kent Williams of his bona fide status is a bit premature. Yes, Williams is dead meat if the State Executive Committee brings the matter of his status to a vote. The by-laws were strengthened in 2008 to make sure that the rules had teeth to them, and Williams can be kicked out of the party at any time. But that is my point - rash decisions could be detrimental in the future. Let's be more than novice chess players and see four or five moves down the road like a Grand Master before we start doing things that cannot be undone. If Williams' behavior warrants removal from the party - and I think it will after seeing his behavior towards Rep. Kelsey and others today - then we can deal with that shortly. But let's do it on our terms and within our duly recognized rules.

So what do we know?

1) Kent Williams is a liar. That much is certain. He told everyone that he approached the Democrats to hatch this plan. I have been told that is 100% not true. I suppose that Williams is trying to make himself to be brighter than the puppet that he really is through this tall tale (which may be in the face of many in the grassroots and lobbying community who don't exactly reference Williams as the sharpest tool in the shed).

2) Tennessee has a problem. At a time when leadership and legislative responses will be crucial due to a global economy that is in crisis, I expect very little worthwhile legislation to pass out of the House over the next two years. Forget Williams' inability to lead for a minute. The problem here is that Naifeh, Odom, and Williams have raised the stakes of partisanship to a level we are unaccustomed to seeing out of Nashville. It is unrealistic for people to say, "Well, you lied, deceived, and embarrassed us at a crucial moment in the history of the state, but let's see how we can work together in a trusting relationship to move the state forward." That action lies outside of the norms of human nature; perhaps people in mental institutions or a man that believes he was fairly elected U.S. Senator from Minnesota would believe it.

3) Someone needs to take the reigns of leadership of the Republican Caucus. The two most likely people are Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey or Tennessee GOP Chairman Robin Smith. However, both are rumored to be interested in other jobs (Ramsey for Governor, Smith for the 3rd District Congressional seat) in 2010. Ramsey's demonstrated ability to raise funds certainly makes him the most obvious choice, as, assuming a Williams ouster from the party, Ramsey could assist in fundraising for the GOP nominee. Carter County is in Ramsey's neck of the woods, too, so his leadership could prove influential in this area. Which leads us to...

4) Kent Williams has committed political suicide. Several Democratic commentators who have probably never walked across the Covered Bridge in Elizabethton, fished in the Doe River, or spent a relaxing day on Watauga Lake are saying that Kent Williams doesn't need a "R" by his name to win in 2010. They don't know Carter County at all. I'll say this - Mike Williams had a much, much greater chance of retaining his seat in the independent-minded 4th Senate District than Kent Williams or anyone else has of winning Carter County without the backing of the Republican Party. Surely even Williams had to have known this. Which begs the question - is the acquisition of short-term power and an extra $60,000 worth the remainder of your political career?

5) Republicans will never be able to match Democrats when it comes to treachery. It's interesting, but this was something I have been pondering for some time now. For those of you who (like me) are fans of the show, the Republicans' struggle greatly ties in with the hit television show, "24." In order to stop the Democrats, who, like the terrorists play by their own set of rules, the Republicans need a rule breaker themselves - their own personal Jack Bauer, if you will. But that isn't going to happen. The Republicans I know at the state level want maximum sunlight on their processes, want to follow the rules and by-laws set for their actions, and want an end to the backroom deals made in smokey rooms on Capitol Hill. They need Jack Bauer, but all they have are the FBI agents that can't stop the terrorists because of their belief in interrogation without torture, deference to the rule of law, and following agency protocol.

But the Republicans shouldn't try to beat the Democrats at their own game. As Bruce Springsteen concluded in "Trapped:"

Labels: 2010 General Assembly Campaigns, General Assembly, Ron Ramsey, TN GOP

Senator Tim Burchett - who has supported Democrats with competency issues in the past - had the following to say this afternoon:

“The only other thing I can figure is that no one wants to come to their
boring chicken dinner, so they did this to try and stir up some interest.”

"Their?" Excuse me, Senator, but isn't this "boring chicken dinner" going to benefit the Tennessee Republican Party? The Republican Party that has supported you in the past and is at least in some fashion responsible for your current position? Talk about biting the hand that feeds you...

The only way that I can take this quote is to surmise that you are no longer a member of the Republican Party.

I guess Tim Burchett has switched party allegiances and has embraced the party that survives on failure and disaster. That should be appropriate, since any Democrat running for Mayor of Knox County (as Timmy B. has been rumored to be an emerging candidate) would see their campaign met with failure and disaster.

Of course, he could join the Independent Caucus. Anyone have any idea which NASCAR driver Tim Burchett could impersonate?

I may not agree with the decision to close the doors to the media at the Statesman's Dinner, but, then again, I didn't shoot my mouth off about it, either. You can disagree with the TN GOP's decision, but you don't have to be a jerk about it.

Labels: General Assembly, TN GOP

Good catch by the Tennessee Firearms Association (of which I am a member) and the Tennessee Republican Party for exposing House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh as the liar that he is. The irony is that it was over a firearms issue, which are always the target of Naifeh's notorious parliamentary maneuvers.

Read more over at A.C.'s domain.

Maybe Doug Overbey and rest of the Republicans that continue to vote for Jimmy Naifeh to remain as House Speaker can come up with a gaggle of excuses to manipulate Naifeh out of this snare.

Labels: General Assembly, Second Amendment, TFA, TN GOP

Terry Frank has been all over this issue, and it is an important one.

First, some background for the uninitiated - despite what it says in the Tennessee Constitution (as pointed out by Rep. Stacey Campfield), we don't really vote on our appellate judges here in Tennessee. When I refer to appellate judges, I am referring to judges who sit on the Tennessee Court of Appeals, the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, and the Tennessee Supreme Court. These judges are appointed by our governor after he receives a panel of three candidates from the Tennessee Judicial Selection Commission. Every 8 years we are allowed to cast a retention vote on these judges (only former Supreme Court Justice Penny White has ever been voted off the bench through one of these retention votes), but that's not exactly the same as an actual election, now is it?

This current method of judicial selection - often referred to as the "Tennessee Plan" - sunsets this year. After a year of winding down, we will most likely see some sort of popular election for appellate court judges here in Tennessee absent some sort of rescue operation for the Tennessee Plan.

And such an effort has been ongoing for several months now. A current judge on the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals gave a heartfelt plea to a local bar a few months back, trying to drum up support for saving the Tennessee Plan. This particular judge, whom I have practiced before on many an occasion, was elevated to his current position by Governor Bredesen and has been an excellent judge for many years. However, he is probably a bit worried that a Democrat like himself would have little chance of winning popular election in East Tennessee - an election that he would have to take part in to keep his current job.

Liberal lawyers like Knoxville's Wanda Sobieski and members of the Tennessee Trial Lawyers Association (I refuse to address them by their new, more politically correct name because I've always known them as the TTLA) have also been trying to drum up support from their colleagues, asking that State Senators be contacted. (I mention Sobieski because I received an e-mail from her earlier today, but others have also been active on this front.) Others, like Kay Brooks, have been lobbying to let the citizens of Tennessee vote on their judiciary.

As a practical matter, I have been of two-minds on the sunsetting of the "Tennessee Plan." (As an ideological matter, I am for letting the people vote on all things that effect them at all times, not just when it fits my cause (compare here and here from the same author, for a counterexample).) Practically, though, having statewide elections with the mind-boggling fundraising needed - as they do in Texas, Illinois, and Alabama - raises ethical issues. However, at least that is aboveboard, for the public to view. Appointed judges make for backroom deals and the dirty side of politics. That certainly isn't an ideal way of going about things.

The practical issues aside, my ideology wins out on this one. The Tennessee Plan should go. Instrumental in my understanding and ultimate conclusion on this matter was a report provided to me by The Federalist Society. That report, authored by Vanderbilt Law Professor Brian Fitzpatrick, is an excellent resource for anyone with questions as to why the Tennessee Plan should go the way of the dodo.

As of 2:43 P.M. today, I was informed by staff for Senator Jamie Woodson that the matter had not made it to the floor of the Senate, as planned by former Lt. Governor Wilder. (The videos of Wilder begging to support for the Tennessee Plan are sad - how can this man manage to gain re-election?!?!) In fact, I was told that it was doubtful that the matter would be brought to the floor prior to adjournment. This would certainly be surprising - and welcome.

There's my two-cents...

Labels: Firm Life, General Assembly, Judiciary

Family Action Council of Tennessee issued a statement, a bit of which is included below, that commends those Tennessee State Representatives that supported life here in the Volunteer State through the form of SJR 127:

Rep. Dunn is to be commended for his extraordinary effort by a very creative means to get SJR 127 to the floor for an up or down vote. A lesser person without Rep. Dunn's commitment to this cause could have been intimidated by the powerful forces that control the House. All Republicans, but for one, voted in support of Rep. Dunn on every motion designed to thwart his effort and they, too, should be commended.

And a special commendation should be accorded to the Democratic Representatives who also voted in support of Rep. Dunn's effort every time. They are, alphabetically, Eddie Bass, Curt Cobb, Charles Curtiss, Nathan Vaughn and John Mark Windle. They showed that their convictions on the issue of life were more important than the partisan overtones that had surrounded this Resolution and more important than gaining the approval of fellow party members who opposed the effort.

Labels: Abortion, General Assembly

My representative in the General Assembly, Bill Dunn, took part in a very interesting procedural maneuver today in an attempt to move SJR 127, which would eliminate the judicial activism of the Tennessee Supreme Court a few years back that read a right to an abortion into the Tennessee Constitution, to the floor for a roll call vote.

A.C. and Ken Whitehouse have the story, which, for wonks like myself, is fascinating. I only wish that I could have been there to help out. (For all of those e-mailers who have asked Angela and I to stay in Knox County, I can say this - having Bill Dunn representing me in the State House is one heck of a perk in favor of Knox County).

So, fine folks, why did the Democrats not want SJR 127 to arrive at the floor for a vote? While it is likely that a majority of the House would vote in favor of the measure, it is unlikely that 2/3 of the House would give it the thumbs up, and that is what is needed to move the bill on. Democrats undoubtedly will cry "wedge issue" and "election year politics." But, as Boss Hogg himself would say, that's "hogwash." After all, if the majority of voters in your district agree with how you vote on any issue, how could it hurt an incumbent in an election? Only if the representative is voting against the interests of a majority of his or her constituents does a problem arise, and then justly so. A representative voting against his or her constituents' interests is in violation of the trust put to him or her by the voters he or she represents.

The Democrats (and I paint with a wide brush here - some Democrats like Nathan Vaughn are more pro-life than many of the Republicans) don't want any part of SJR 127 because they know that the majority of Tennesseans are pro-life and would vote for a constitutional amendment if given the chance. However, like the Knox County Commission, the Democrats in the General Assembly don't want to give Tennesseans a chance to vote their mind at the ballot box.

And that is why those who support "Boss Hogg" Naifeh need to be shown the door this election cycle - be they Democrat (Karen Camper) or Republican (Doug Overbey).

Labels: 2008 Tennessee General Assembly Campaigns, Abortion, Democrats, General Assembly

On the same day that a theory was floated that would have him as Knox County Mayor in 2010, Senator Tim Burchett was admitted to a Nashville hospital complaining of chest pains.

Our prayers go out to Tim and his new fiance as he recovers.

(Tips of the Hat: A.C. Kleinheider, Michael Silence)

Labels: General Assembly

Read why below, courtesy of Family Action Council of Tennessee:

Last week the House Health and Human Resources Committee considered a bill that would allow those who have had a sex change operation to change their birth certificate to reflect their "new" sex. Of course, adding and removing body parts does not change genetics and chromosomes - women still have two "x" chromosomes and men still have an "x" chromosome and a "y" chromosome . And, no doubt that is why Rep. Jason Mumpower (R-Bristol) made a motion to amend the bill to require that the new birth certificate reflect the existence of a sex change.

It was then, right there in a public meeting where government policy is being made, that Rep. Jean Richardson (D-Memphis) conveniently vaulted over the "wall of separation of church and state" constructed and revered by liberals and dropped the "J-word." Yes, that's right, she brought up "Jesus." Rep. Richardson, in response to Rep. Mumpower's physiologically correct amendment, chided him for his lack of compassion with a bizarre question to support her position, "What would Jesus do?"

Rep. Mumpower gave a fine response, but the extreme irony of her question is found in the fact that several weeks ago she voted against SJR 127, the resolution that would amend our state constitution and pave the way for partial-birth abortion being banned in Tennessee.

Yes, you read correctly. There is no enforceable ban on partial-birth abortion in Tennessee! And there won't be one without the passage of SJR 127. In what is nothing short of a political bomb shell, our state Attorney General recently stated that even the same ban on partial-birth abortion the United States Supreme Court upheld would not be enforceable under Tennessee's Constitution. (In Tennessee, an Attorney General opinion nearly carries the weight of law, particularly among legislators and the governor's administration). According to our state Supreme Court, even partial-birth abortion is a constitutional right in Tennessee. That is, unless we amend our Constitution to say otherwise.

We wonder what Jesus would do about birth certificates for those who have changed their physical appearance, but we don't ask that question when it comes to protecting unborn children in the third trimester from having their skulls pierced or crushed and their brains removed. Call me crude and insensitive, but those are the words the U.S. Supreme Court used when it said that partial-birth abortion could be banned. When we use these "nice" but sanitized descriptions for abortion procedures, too many do not know what we are really talking about. People need to know the cruelty of the procedure that was protected by Rep. Richardson's vote against SJR 127. Protecting partial-birth abortion is not very compassionate.

Which raises another point. Jesus was never asked about birth certificates. So he never spoke to the issue directly. But he did say that whoever would cause one of these "little ones to stumble," it "would be better for that man to have a millstone tied around his neck and that he be cast in the sea." When the House of Representatives sits by and makes it possible for even one partial-birth abortion to be performed and a whole state does not rise up to demand their elected officials act to change this, you have to wonder if there are enough millstones in Tennessee to go around.

Lastly, the press, as best we can tell, did not jump all over Rep. Richardson for bringing religion into the consideration of public policy, let alone the fact that it was Christianity. I have no doubt that had I asked that same question of my fellow legislators when I was sponsoring SJR 127, I would have been crucified by the press and political liberals. Maybe I should have asked and suffered the consequences. After all, we know what Jesus would do when it comes to being crucified for doing the right thing.

Labels: Abortion, General Assembly, Homosexuality

Senate Bill 23, authored by State Senator Doug Jackson (D-25), will be heard by the full Senate today.

SB23 allows a person who has a valid Right-to-Carry permit to carry a firearm in a place where alcohol is served, as long as the permit holder is not consuming alcohol or is not otherwise prohibited by posting provisions.

Of course, I suppose the vote matters little since Naifeh will - as is typical - make sure that it never gets to a vote in the House. It is a serious failure on the part of pro-firearm groups that Jimmy Naifeh hasn't been politically removed from the Speaker's chair.

Labels: General Assembly, Second Amendment

Much is being said - from Bill Hobbs to Volunteer Voters - about the diversion that Rep. Rob Briley received for his multiple offenses (which, through the wonders of YouTube, we all witnessed).

One of the points of contention is that Briley's attorney commented to the press that the State had no choice but to grant Briley a diversion.

As someone who has been instrumental in at least a half dozen diversions being handed out in December alone, I can say with 100% certainty that Briley's attorney, Frank Lannom, is incorrect in his assertions. Diversion is not automatic. Usually, the State and the Defense can come to an agreement where diversion is granted, but there are cases where the State, for whatever reason, believes diversion to be inappropriate. In that case, the Defendant's attorney can complete more paperwork and take the matter to the trial judge for argument. That judge then can elicit testimony from both sides and weigh several statutory factors in choosing whether or not to grant the diversion.

That being said, in many cases, the judge, who probably has his suspicions as to why the State is fighting the diversion application, usually errs on the side of caution and denies the diversion request. At least, that is how I see it through my experience in the courtroom.

Was this a slam dunk diversion? Not from my perspective, given the amount of media coverage, the egregious behaviors exhibited by Rep. Briley, and the fact that people's lives were endangered by the actions of the Defendant. It's that last one that tends to be the ace in the hole for the State, and I believe that it would have been reason enough for Briley to have been denied diversion in this situation.

Labels: General Assembly, Law

Thanks for A.C. over at Volunteer Voters for posting the videos of the sobriety tests and subsequent arrest of Rep. Rob Briley (D - Nashville) on YouTube. The videos are below.





I've seen my share of these police cruiser videos, and here are a few of my thoughts on the videos in no particular order.

1) Before we convict Briley, it should be noted that these videos don't show his handling of the vehicle prior to the field sobriety tests. I note that because Briley's defense attorney is going to have to rely on an argument that the officers did not have probable cause to stop Briley. That got a bit easier under the Tennessee Supreme Court's decision in State v. Binette, a case from a few months ago that has effectively made it a bit easier to get videos suppressed of weaving cars as a pretext for DUI stops. Of course, as has been pointed out over the past few days, Briley likely bungled into a defense - that his actions were caused by medications. You might be able to sell that to a jury, but I sure wouldn't want a judge to hear it.

2) Briley's behavior, language, and emotional outbursts are quite exceptional. This is not really your average DUI tape in that regard. It might be more along the lines of evidence offered in a mental commitment hearing, but not your normal criminal case.

3) As I commented yesterday over at Volunteer Voters, Briley's big problem legally isn't the DUI or the obvious violation of the Implied Consent law. The punishments for those are quite light. Where Briley really messed up was with the destruction of the police cruiser window. Depending on how much damage the prosecution can prove was done to the cruiser (between $500 to $1,000 or damage greater than $1,000), Briley is looking at either a Class E felony (which carries between 1 to 2 years in jail and a $3,000 fine) or a Class D felony (which carries between 2 to 4 years in jail and a $5,000 fine). With the DUI, you're talking about a number of hours in jail. With the vandalism charge, we're talking years. Any defense attorney worth his salt should be able to strike a deal for probation or diversion instead of jail time in regards to the vandalism charge, but the time Briley would be on probation is substantial.

4) With the above, I noted that this is dealing with Briley's legal problems. Briley's political and personal problems are a whole other matter. His political career is in ruins. I hope that the same can't be said for his personal life.

5) Since I am a fan of full disclosure, I have to say thank goodness for YouTube. In the past, Jimmy Naifeh would have made sure this was swept under the rug. That isn't the case in this age of technology.

6) Finally, the time of day may influence the prosecutors in this case and how hard they decide to push the case. In my experience, it is one thing to be caught drunk on a deserted country road at 3 A.M. It's a whole other thing to be caught driving impaired at rush hour in the city.

Just a few thoughts and gut reactions. Why I despise what Rob Briley has done as a legislator to limit the rights of Tennesseans to defend themselves, that does not mean that I am not sympathetic to the circumstances that get one to the point we see in the videos. It's sad, really.

Labels: General Assembly, Law

As I predicted, Jimmy Naifeh would never allow Tennesseans the right of protecting themselves on state grounds.

I'm disappointed, but I'm not surprised.

Labels: General Assembly, Second Amendment

I've always wondered where the Independent caucus stood on taxes. I guess now we know.

Of course, maybe independents are really not for hiking taxes during a time of economic prosperity and they'll kick Senator Mike Williams out of their club. Well, maybe not...

I've always said that a legislative member without a "D" out from his or her name that votes for a tax increase is looking for an excuse not to run for re-election next time around.

Mike Williams already has one reason not to run. Explaining to the good people of Tennessee's 4th Senate District why he chose to raise their taxes - which is significant even with a voluntary act like smoking given the large number of tobacco farmers in Claiborne, Grainger, Hancock, Hawkins, Jefferson, and Union counties - is just another reason to retire.

If you ask me, I think Williams sees the writing on the wall, and I do not believe that he will run for re-election in 2008.

Labels: General Assembly, Taxes

One word reaction - despicable.

Labels: General Assembly