vibinc

Yesterday, the Commercial Appeal published an article about my decision to wade into the County redistricting issue.

The decision wasn’t a difficult one. Ultimately, this comes down to the way we are represented in our County government, and the inability of that County government to do something that is, at best, an administrative task.

To my way of thinking, this failure is indicative of other problems that we have faced for a very long time. It reflects a long pattern of inaction or worse, legislative insanity (doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result) which has played a larger role in the persistent problems we, as a community are facing.

My decision to seek to intervene in this suit reflects my personal frustration at the Commission for inaction on this and many other issues critical to the community.

Background

Every 10 years, every legislative body in the country that has specific districts is required to change the way the districts are drawn to reflect changes in population. These bodies are required to use Census data to ensure people have adequate representation in accordance with the concept of one man one vote.

This process, known as redistricting and reapportionment, is something the public rarely knows much about. In fact, in our state government, the plans that created the new State House, Senate, and US Congressional districts were so secret, all but a few legislators knew anything about the proposal before the start of session in January. From there, the plan was rammed through committee and the overall body with little discussion…for the most part.

For County and City governments, this must be accomplished by December 31, of the year the Census is released, or before the first election of the new decade.

The City Council reapportioned their districts just days before the filing deadline, to the consternation of many. The County Commission, by contrast, doesn’t have an election using the new districts until 2014. However, they are still required by state law to have the districts complete and approved by 12/31/11. Obviously, this did not happen, which led to a suit originally brought by Commissioners Bailey, Rtiz, and Roland…though the latter two have since withdrawn.

7 or 9, That Is the Question

State law plays a huge role in our County. Were it not for the state, Shelby County would not exist. We became a county in November of 1819 thanks to state action after the founding of Memphis on May 22, 1819. This relationship makes it clear that state law has supremacy over county law (not to mention all the bills passed in the state legislature over the past several years).

In addition to the 12/31/11 deadline imposed by state law on redistricting, there is also a provision that says a “majority vote” is the standard by which passage would be approved. 2J, pictured above, received at least 7 votes on all three readings of the ordinance (2nd reading it received 9).

However, our County charter requires 9 (or a super-majority) votes on third reading to pass any redistricting or tax change. This is where the conflict, from my perspective, gets interesting.

Because state law is “supreme” over county law, and because the County was in violation of state law when 2J received 7 votes on 3rd reading, I argue state law should remain “supreme” over county law. The result of this would be that 2J should become the new scenario for County Commission districts because it received the required number of votes while the County was in violation of state law.

Does that mean the County Charter is invalidated? No. Depending on how when the judge rules, it could mean 7 votes carries the day on redistricting, just like almost every other ordinance the County Commission passes.

Worries About The Charter

There are some who worry that if the state courts remove the super-majority standard for redistricting, other issues requiring a super-majority (namely tinkering with the tax rate) would somehow be impacted. I don’t really see how this is an issue.

First, the two couldn’t be more different. The tax rate is something that happens nearly every year through the budget process. Since 2004 the County Tax rate has remained consistent, even dropping a little in 2010. No one is challenging the 9 vote (super-majority) standard for changing the tax rate. Nor is anyone arguing that if one super-majority vote is made invalid, another must also be. Quite the contrary. State law says little about voting thresholds for County tax rates. Therefore, this shouldn’t impact that section of the charter at all.

Second, because the mention of a simple majority in state law only applies to the act of redistricting, it will be the only part of the charter to be impacted.

Desperately Seeking Nine

Last week, the County Commission heard the first of three readings on the redistricting ordinance again, this time brought by Terry Roland. Roland believes a ruling that seven is enough will somehow invalidate the charter and all super-majority provisions. That’s just not very likely for all the reasons stated above.

Last Monday the ordinance, which also seeks to enshrine map 2J, received 9 votes. There was talk of some special called meetings to speed the process along. The hope is to beat the judge to the ruling punch. So far, I haven’t seen any new meetings called, so I have little reason to believe they will. If they don’t then it will be at least 3 weeks from today before they get to a 3rd reading vote. Maybe the judge will wait that long, maybe not. Who knows?

Either way, it seems clear that 2J is the plan that will be adopted.

Why 2J?

To be perfectly honest, 2J is not my first or even second choice. So you’re probably asking yourself why I would go to the trouble to seek to intervene on a plan that I’m not even that big of a fan of?

The reason is actually simple. This is a representative democracy, not Burger King. I understand you can’t always have it your way. Majority rules, and the majority voted to approve 2J.

Technically, 2J meets all the requirements I had on an acceptable plan: it has single member districts, it reflects the racial diversity of our county, and it does so without splitting up too many neighborhoods.

Personally, I don’t like that Midtown is effectively split in two…North and South of Poplar. I would have liked more of a “Midtown district”. But that’s not in the cards this time. Maybe next time.

Conclusion

This really comes down to duty. The County Commission has a duty to uphold, and a big part of that duty includes upholding state law. For reasons that only the dissenters know, this process has been dragging along since September. I think this, and many other recent events tells us something about the state of the County Commission. I don’t think it tells us something good either.

Redistricting is a political process. There are political interests that will come into play. Compromise is important. I think 2J represents a lot of compromise, quite honestly. Reasonable people must come together to pass a reasonable plan. I think there are many such plans that have been introduced, including 2J, which received a majority vote on three readings back in March…after the state deadline.

But no plan has received the County Charter required 9 votes on third reading…yet, even though 2J received 9 on second reading. I can’t explain why those two votes changed at the last second. Keeping 9 votes might have resolved the issue without a ruling, rendering the lawsuit largely moot.

Of course, that’s why they’re trying so hard to show 9 votes now.

It remains to be seen if the courts will make a decision before the Commission gets to a third read on this issue. At the last meeting, one of the attorneys for the Commission indicated the Judge was losing patience. We’ll just have to see if his patience holds for three weeks.

The ball is in his court.

Being Lt. Gov. of Tennessee must be a pretty confusing gig.

On the one hand, you’re the second in command, even though you have been elected by a tiny minority of Tennesseans, which would seem to call your “mandate” into question. But thanks to the easy compliance of a Governor who just won’t stand up to the legislature under any circumstances, you have free reign to do darn well anything you please.

On the other hand, you’ve got aspirations, and have made those aspirations pretty clear. Fulfilling those aspirations on a statewide level requires you to not be seen as too much of a wild eyed radical, despite your deeply held radical right-wing leanings.

So it must be even more difficult to get a handle on things when you simultaneously support and oppose a bill that allows individuals to store their guns in their cars on employers parking lots.

I’m sure its even more confusing when you and your House colleague have both declared the bill dead for the year as it moves its way through the committee process.

Dang. Can’t a confused Lt. Gov. get a break.

Add to that, the opposition of several industry groups and two of the state’s largest employers, FedEx and Volkswagen and you’ve got a both a political and policy conundrum. Do you stick with your NRA buddies and see this bill through, or do you focus on your reservations and make sure it never makes it out of the calendar committee?

It’s hard out there for a Lt. Gov.

But here’s something else to consider. Ron Ramsey is a business owner. His business includes land, and even a parking lot. Now, assuming that Ramsey owns that parking lot, he can choose whether or not he will allow his employees to bring firearms of whatever sort on to the property. It is his property after all, right?

But if this law passes, Ron Ramsey, property owner and businessman, suddenly loses the right to set certain rules as they pertain to gun possession on his property for his employees. While several people have touted the safety concerns and other issues, for Ron Ramsey, what this creates is essentially an additional restriction on his liberty to own his property in the way he sees fit.

Now, there are other property owners here too, of course. The employees, presumably, own their cars and the guns concealed in their cars. But cars move, land doesn’t (or at least it isn’t supposed to). It is a generally accepted idea that the land, which is immovable, takes a certain level of precedence over modes of transit in terms of who controls what. This is, after all, the idea behind the Guns in Bars law allowing establishments to choose if they will allow guns in their businesses.

This bill doesn’t allow such a choice, and as onerous as the Guns in Bars bill was, the lack of choice makes this bill even more onerous because it mandates what property owners and employers MUST do in regard to firearms on their property and in relation to their employees.

Sounds like that the kind of “Big Government” that Lt. Gov. Ramsey is always railing about.

There are also other concerns, like liability and insurance.

Insurers are in the business of managing risk to make a profit. When risks, real or perceived increase, so do premiums. While there may or may not be any real increase in risk to this law, don’t think for a minute that insurers are going to miss this opportunity to increase premiums. Its not just the employees they’ll be concerned about either, its the attractive nuisance that can come from a potentially not-so concealed weapon in a public space, in view of people who may not have the best interests of the public in the forefront of their minds, who then acquire that weapon for their personal interests…which may include the business the weapon was stolen from.

Then there’s the liability issue. Nothing in this bill says that the State of Tennessee, in passing this mandate, will assume liability for injuries and or deaths that may come from the passage of this law. As any property owner knows, when someone gets hurt on your property, your insurance may have to pay. If you don’t have adequate insurance, you may also get sued despite the Tort reforms of last year.

Is Lt. Gov. Ramsey worried about these issues? Maybe. He’s not really a details person, he’s more into hyperbole, but when he says he “has concerns”, well, this is where I’d start with those concerns.

If these are the concerns of the Lt. Gov., this is one of those rare times when I agree with him. Its concerning on many levels, but most importantly, on the level of slowly eroding the rights of property owners to determine what is or isn’t permissible on their property.

The idea of personal control of property goes all the way back to British Common Law that our nation’s laws are based on. It strikes at the very foundation of our ideas of property.

Remember, it was John Locke who penned “Life, Liberty, and Property”, long before Thomas Jefferson moderated it to “Pursuit of Happiness”, which is a nice euphemism for property as well as other things, in the 1776 Declaration of Independence.

Considering this precedent, does the TN Legislature, and by extension Ron Ramsey, want to put a largely Conservative US Supreme Court in the position of either overturning a law backed by a conservative group, or overturning a precedent that is at the foundation of our nation’s identity?

I don’t think so, but I also don’t think the folks that have been pushing this bill have thought too deeply about the irony of their position.

We’ll just have to see how strong the Lt. Gov.’s resolve is. If it gets scheduled on the floor, then I guess we’ll all know he caved, which will put he and Governor Haslam in the same boat…in terms of caving to bad ideas on some level. If it doesn’t make it to the floor there are other, less obvious considerations. But I’ll leave that to the Lt. Gov. to add to his already full “thinking cap” load.

Its been widely reported, to the dismay of Science instructors statewide that yesterday TN Gov. Bill Haslam allowed HB 368 to become law without his signature.

The bill, which pushes a “Teach the Controversy” agenda, preferred by groups like the Discovery Institute and the folks at the Creationism Museum seeks to push the notion that evolution is a theory in crisis, questioned by scientists and lay people alike.

Unfortunately, aside from the folks who are actually pushing creationism, in the form of Intelligent Design or whatever marketing phrase they’ve come up with this week, there is no controversy.

Evolution is accepted by scientists and many communities of faith, including the Catholic Church, though they believe evolution is guided by the hand of God. Which is fine actually, and pretty close to what I believe myself. (So do Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and even Nazarenes)

What’s more, the idea of “Teaching the Controversy” has been struck down in court after court, starting with the Supreme Court in 1987, and continuing on with Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District and Selman v. Cobb County School District.

The only controversy that exists is with people who stubbornly hold that there is a controversy, something that even the good Governor, apparently, doesn’t believe.

Its pretty striking that Haslam allowed the bill to become law, and it says a lot about both the powers of the executive and the political willingness to exercise those powers in the current administration. In short, there is little.

There’s no question that a veto from the Haslam administration would have been overturned by the legislature. The bill passed soundly, and with the support of 11 Democrats:

House: Eddie Bass – Prospect, Charles Curtiss – Sparta, John DeBerry – Memphis, Mike Kernell – Memphis, Mary Pruitt – Nashville and Harry Tindell – Knoxville.

Senate: Charlotte Burks – Monterey, Lowe Finney – Jackson, Douglas Henry – Nashville, Eric Stewart – Winchester, and Reginald Tate – Memphis

That said, it would have been a stand-up gesture nonetheless.

I understand the politics of this from Haslam’s perspective. By not signing it, he doesn’t endorse the bill. By not vetoing it, he doesn’t appear to lose to the legislative branch. Win-win right?

Well, probably not. See appeasement which has been a “synonym for weakness and even cowardice since the 1930s” isn’t a good strategy for leaders. Just ask Neville Chamberlain, or maybe even the Blue Dog Coalition, which practiced a brand of appeasement to try to hold on to power.

As it turns out, taking a stand is something people seem to expect from their leaders. And while Haslam may not have run afoul of social conservatives in Tennessee, or their buddies in the General Assembly, he has shown a willingness to contort himself to stay out of conflict, for his own personal gain, which will eventually work against him.

Take the report from last week where the Governor expressed his frustration with the media for covering the “craziest” bills coming out of the legislature. Cara Kumari, reporter for WSMV in Nashville, responded to his charge thusly:

“Crazy” is in the eye of the beholder. And not everyone in the governor’s party agrees with his assessment of “crazy”. I’ve covered the governor’s domestic violence proposal, the food tax reduction, and issues surrounding synthetic drugs and prescription drug abuse. I’ve spent a lot of time covering the NCLB waiver and done stories about the switch to common core standards. However, we cover what’s happening. A lot of time in the legislature is being spent on these other issues. These issues have constituencies who feel passionately about them. In the end, blaming the media does nothing except get me to write a long blog about it.

I agree with the Governor that many of these issues are indeed “crazy”. But equating “crazy” with “lazy media” is a stretch. If the good Governor doesn’t like these issues. If he thinks they’re hurting the state, then I encourage him to sit down with Speaker Harwell and Lt. Gov. Ramsey and tell them to knock it off. That’s what a leader would do.

But that’s not what Haslam is doing. He’s a hostage in his own castle, and his policy of appeasement to these “crazy” issues is partially to blame.

There’s no question that due to the low veto override threshold (a simple majority in both houses does it) that the legislative branch has exponentially more power to enact law than the governor has to prevent law from being enacted. There’s also no question that the Governor is probably more interested in getting his budget through the legislature. Considering they haven’t even really started on that in earnest, and are planning to end this session in the next week or so, I can sympathize, on some level, with the political problem he has on his hands in terms of stepping up, only to be knocked down on not only this fight, but another bigger battle…the budget.

That said, if the General Assembly really wants to get out quick so they can get to raising money for the Fall, they’re going to ram it through like they have so many other things. So there’s that.

The governor has a task to attend to: governing. That task isn’t always fun or easy and it means he carries a lot of the blame for what does or doesn’t happen, whether its right or not. Most folks barely know who their state legislators are…but they know who the Governor is, and that’s who they blame when things go wrong.

If Haslam thinks he can inoculate himself from the goings on of the General Assembly by not exercising his executive authority and blaming the media…when he’s been complicit with all the “crazy” bills that come out of the body, he’s got another thing coming. While he may not carry the blame for crafting these “crazy” bills, he does carry the blame of complicity, which is just as bad.

I think on some level, Gov. Haslam believes that by not staking any claim to a position he can somehow save himself from a challenge from the extreme right of his party. He’s wrong about this. That challenge is coming, though it will likely be unsuccessful. By not asserting himself, he’s also weakening his position, which is just fine by me.

In the end, what the first year and a half of the Haslam administration has shown us is that he is happy to bend to the pressure of extremists on his side, if only to give the perception that there are no fractures between his agenda and the agenda of the legislature. In doing so, he is executing a marketing strategy not a governing strategy.

The people of Tennessee elected a governor not a marketer in chief. Its time for Governor Haslam to start showing some backbone and get to the work of governing.

–
See Also:
Tennessee’s top scientists oppose “monkey bills”
Vanderbilt Professor and 3,200 Tennesseans Urge Haslam to Veto Science Education Bill
Southern Beale
Nashville Scene

There are few maxims in the western tradition that are more misunderstood than this one:

“First, do no harm”

I say misunderstood because it is often difficult for people, in their haste or excitement, to see the impact of their actions beyond the immediate thrill.

It is, of course, most prevalent in the “gotcha” politics of today, where everyone’s a hypocrite.

There are ways to make a point, beyond the most blatantly obvious.

There are ways to make a stand without making it look like a purely political device.

There are ways to bring change without needing to take full credit for it.

In politics, more than half of message is the messenger. When the messenger is more interested in self-interest than public interest, the message will turn against him.

There’s an arrogance in wanting to get credit for certain things. An arrogance and a lack of recognition of other people’s realities.

That’s where the harm, now two-fold, is committed…upon yourself, and your victim’s victim.

And through that harm, so too is lost the opportunity to make a larger point, that would have served the public good rather than your short-term self-interest.

One of the more onerous bills that passed out of last year’s session was HB0600 dubbed the “Equal Access to Intrastate Commerce Act”.

Sponsored by Glen Casada (R) of Franklin, the bill sought to remove the ability of a local government to set certain ground rules in contracts.

That’s shorthand for enacting non-discrimination ordinances.

Here’s Minority Leader Craig Fitzhugh (D) Ripley from last year laying out one of the critical flaws of HB600.

You can watch other video from the debate here and the whole video here.

Almost a year since the passage and nullification of Nashville’s CANDO ordinance, Sen. Jim Kyle (D) Memphis is leading a push, sponsored by Metro Nashville and Shelby County government to repeal the repeal.

Here’s his opening statement:

A member of the Nashville Metro Council also spoke in favor of the bill, but what is more interesting to me are some of the questions for the sponsor. Here’s an exchange from Sen. Mike Faulk – (R) Church Hill:

You’ll notice that at the end of the clip, Sen. Faulk seems to get it. I don’t know if he agrees or disagrees, but he gets it.

Even Sen. Majority Leader Mark Norris (R) Collierville seems to be somewhat swayed, despite past efforts to overrule local control of government.

Of course, some were just trying to get a few specific words. In this case Sen. Stacey “Don’t Say Gay” Campfield – (R) Knoxville tries and fails to extract the words “discriminating against religion” out of the sponsor and supporters. Watch if you dare:

You can see video of the whole discussion here.

At the end of the day, we have to decide if we’re going to let local government…you know…govern. In the wake of the passage of HB 600, that’s a lot harder.

I’m not sure if the bill has a chance in hell, but I’m glad Sen. Kyle is pursuing it and I hope his colleagues on both sides of the aisle will too.