Categories
Politics Politics Feature

Naming Names

District Attorney-elect Steve Mulroy took the opportunity last week to name the members of his newly created transition team, to be chaired by outgoing County Commissioner and local NAACP head Van Turner.

Turner, who recently acknowledged that he would be a candidate for mayor in next year’s Memphis city election, promised “a thorough, top-to-bottom review of the operations, priorities, and staffing of the District Attorney’s Office.”

Other members of the transition team are: District 29 state Senator Raumesh Akbari (D); District 83 state Representative Mark White (R); Demetria Frank, associate dean for diversity and inclusion at the University of Memphis Law School; Richard Hall, chief of police, city of Germantown; Muriel Malone, executive director of the Tennessee Human Rights Commission and former Shelby County assistant DA; Kevin Rardin, retired member of the Public Defender’s Office and former Shelby County assistant DA; Mike Carpenter, director of marketing and development for My Cup of Tea; Yonée Gibson and Josh Spickler of Just City; and attorneys Jake Brown, Kamilah Turner, Brice Timmons, and Mike Working.

Paul Young (Photo: Jackson Baker)

Paul Young, the director of the Downtown Memphis Commission, gave members of the Kiwanis Club a comprehensive review of current and future projects for Downtown development on Wednesday of last week. One matter of public curiosity did not go unspoken to in the subsequent Q&A. Would he, someone asked, be a candidate for Memphis mayor next year as has been rumored?

Young’s reply: “Obviously, we’ve had a lot of conversations. And you know, it’s not time for any type of announcements or anything like that. I’m gonna continue to do the job at DMC to the best of my ability, regardless of when the season comes for the mayor’s race, but we definitely have had discussions.”

• Meanwhile, the Shelby County Republican Party, having been defeated for all countywide positions in the recent August 4th election, is doing its best to retain optimism. Looking ahead to the next go-round, the federal-state general election of November 8th, the local GOP held a fundraiser Friday at the South Memphis headquarters of the Rev. Frederick Tappan, who will oppose Democratic nominee (and recently appointed incumbent) London Lamar for the District 33 state Senate seat.

Imported for the occasion was state Senator Ken Yager of Kingston, the GOP’s Senate caucus chair, who assured local Republicans, for what it was worth, that “the Republican leadership are 100 percent committed to the election of Frederick Tappan.”

Tappan, pastor of Eureka TrueVine Baptist Church and founder of L.I.F.E. Changing Ministries, sounded his own note of commitment: “We can do this if we come together. We need one mind, have one mission, to become one Memphis. We don’t lean to the left, we don’t lean to the right.”

GOP chair Cary Vaughn, who would probably admit leaning somewhat to the right, said, “We took it on the chin a few weeks ago. But that was not the finish line. That was the starting line for November 8th, we’ve got a chance to redeem ourselves.” Vaughn mentioned several of the party’s legislative candidates, including state Senator Kevin Vaughan, state representatives Mark White and John Gillespie, and state Senate candidate Brent Taylor. “We have a chance to rectify the situation. And we have an opportunity, not just to finish, but to finish well.”

Categories
News Blog News Feature Politics Beat Blog Uncategorized

SCDP Gets Setback in Battle to Ban “Official Sample Ballots”

Once more, with for-profit sample ballots flooding the inner city on the eve of election, the Democratic Party cried “foul” and took what it regarded as the chief offender to court on Thursday..

Jake Brown represented the party, as he had back in February, 2021, when special judge William Acree of Jackson levied a permanent injunction against several  balloteers, prohibiting them from insinuating that their published for-profit publications had official connections to the Democratic Party, whether local, state, or federal. Brown was assisted on Thursday by John Marek, a lawyer and former candidate who had been a party to the Democrats’  prior action. 

In the earlier legal action, there had been several defendants. This time the plaintiffs named only one, veteran ballot entrepreneur Greg Grant.

And, while  Brown acknowledged that the crunch of time and the supposed singularity of Grant’s offenses were factors in limiting the party’s request for a temporary restraining order to Grant’s work, that act of singling-out damaged their hopes for immediate action

After some two hours of testimony from Brown, Marek, and Grant’s lawyer Julian Bolton, the judge — once again Acree —  declined to issue a T.R.O., evidently accepting Bolton’s argument that other ballot publishers had also, as Grant had, used variants of the word “Democrat” and “official,” but were omitted from the litigation.

Grant was named in the suit, Brown explained, because his artwork had featured a donkey, generally regarded as a Democratic symbol, along with the word “official,” under the auspices of Grant’s shell company, the “Greater Memphis Democratic Club,” as it was described on the ballot. “We didn’t like some of the other ballots, but his [Grant’s] is the one we’re objecting to,” said Brown.

Bolton was able to show that other, untargeted balloteers also used the word ‘Democratic” and/or “official” on their products.

All of the various entrepreneurs  sell spaces on their ballots to candidates, and that’s all the “endorsements” they get on the ballots, along with their mug shots, amounts to.

Thursday’s court session was held in Criminal Court, where special Judge Acree was hearing other cases, and he did set a date in June to arraign Grant on the charge of violating the injunction he issued last year. That would be criminal contempt, and it could involve jail time if Grant is convicted..

Meanwhile,with the May 3rd Democratic primary slated to come and go in in the  interim, there is evidently nothing to stop Grant or the other balloteers from continuing to mail out or hand out — and profit from — their versions of a sample ballot.

Categories
Politics Politics Beat Blog

Memphis Lawyers Hit GOP Effort to Oust Judge Who Expanded Mail-in Voting

Chancellor Lyle

One of the more significant acts of jurisprudence in Tennessee in 2020 was a decision by Nashville chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle to strike down barriers in state law to mail-in voting.

Ruling last June on suits brought by a group of Memphis petitioners and the ACLU, Lyle declared she was suspending, for the duration of the pandemic, restrictions on absentee-voting for all eligible Tennessee voters.

In so doing, she rejected arguments from Tennessee Secretary of State officials that expanding mail-in voting on that scale would overwhelm state election offices and that fear of COVID-19 was not sufficient grounds for avoiding in-person voting.

The state dragged its heels on complying and appealed, resulting in new orders from Lyle, followed by a hearing by the state Supreme Court, which by a one-vote margin vacated part of Lyle’s ruling but allowed a right to vote absentee due to “underlying medical conditions” that could be affected by COVID.

Now Republican members of the state House of Representatives are trying to get Judge Lyle removed for her efforts. A House ouster resolution, sponsored by 64 Republican members, maintains that Lyle “committed serious ethical violations and abused her authority by pursuing a personal and partisan agenda” in substituting her judgment for the restrictions on eligibility to vote absentee embedded in state law.

The resolution would create a 10-member committee, composed of five members each from the House and Senate, to make recommendations regarding Lyle’s status. Should the group recommend removal, a two-thirds vote in both chambers to do so would result in Lyle’s ouster from the bench.

Reaction came Friday from University of Memphis law professor Steve Mulroy, who argued the case for mail-in expansion last year before both Lyle and the state Supreme Court on behalf of the Memphis petitioners, members of Up the Vote 901. Said Mulroy: “Judge Lyle’s rulings were thoroughly based on the law and the factual record. The election relief she ordered was consistent with how almost every state reacted to the pandemic.

“The Tennessee Supreme Court ended up directing the state to do the bulk of that relief. Nothing she did was remotely ‘unethical,’ or approached the legal ‘for cause’ standard of misconduct required under the law for removal.

“If the legislature can remove a judge every time they don’t like a single decision, you can kiss judicial independence goodbye.”

Memphis lawyer Jake Brown, who also represented Up the Vote 901, added: “Chancellor Lyle is a dispassionate, serious-minded jurist. An attack on her is an attack on competence and the very notion of an independent judiciary. The language of this resolution is sophomoric in tone and plainly partisan in purpose.

“The Chancellor’s opinions in the absentee-ballot case were reserved and closely reasoned. Therefore, the only persons guilty of ethical violations here would be any members of the state bar who are also legislators that sign on to this frivolous pronouncement. “

No Tennessee state judge has been removed from office by the General Assembly since Chancellor David Lanier of Dyersburg was ousted after his conviction on seven federal charges of sexual assault in 1993.

Categories
Politics Politics Beat Blog

Bogus-Ballot Entrepreneurs Get (Suspended) Jail Time

If either M. Latroy Wiilliams or Greg Grant had been harboring any plans to put out a version of their candidate tout sheets (a.k.a. “bogus ballots”) in time for the November election, they were advised Friday that it could cost their their freedom, in the form of 10 days in jail.

Judge Acree

That was the sentence meted out by special judge Bill Acree in the contempt case brought against the two habitual purveyors of such pay-for-play ballots by attorneys Jake Brown and Bruce Kramer, who represented variants of the Democratic Party.

Both Grant and Williams had been enjoined by Judge Acree to cease and desist from publishing and distributing tout sheets in prior elections that all too closely resembled recommendations made by the Democratic Party or its official offshoots.

One of the ballots not only seemed to falsify a party origin, it actually bore a headline streamer that misrepresented a previous judicial finding and even misspelled the name of the candidate (Williams) it was meant to boost: “JUDGE ORDERED M. LATORY [sic] ALEXANDRIA-WILLIAMS ON BALLOT AS DEMOCRAT NO ‘JIM CROW’”.

Brown and Kramer renewed a legal action against Grant and Williams after both offenders had openly flouted Acree’s previous injunction against their attempting to invoke the Democratic Party’s credibility in previous pay-for-play ballots — on which the “recommended” candidates had paid for the privilege of having their names included.

Categories
Politics Politics Feature

How the Votes are Breaking: Flyer Arranges for a Statistical Breakdown; Last-Minute Legal Shenanigans.

Shelby County Election Administrator Linda Phillips drew some heated comments this week for her failure to provide category-by-category breakdowns of the statistics for early voting to this point in the county general election and federal-state primaries that culminate on August 6th.

But Bennie Smith, one of three Democratic members of the Shelby County Election Commission and a data analyst for FedEx by trade, has done his own homework on the raw numbers (which is all Phillips provided) and emerged with the demographic specifics of the voting.

Analyzing the election data, Smith found that, as of July 25th, roughly 35,900 eligible voters had cast ballots, with approximately 23,100 of them being Democrats and 12,500 being Republicans. Females outnumbered males among the voters, 22,100 to 13,900. Voters’ ages skewed heavily to those over 50, whose numbers totaled 28,800. This tendency included all voting groups, regardless of party, gender, or ethnic category.

The racial breakdown of those voting was 15,600 African-American, 12,200 white, and 8,100 “others.” Among the early-voting sites skewing most heavily Democratic were Anointed Temple of Praise (94.83 percent Democratic); Abundant Grace (97.51 percent); Greater Middle Baptist Church (94.30 percent); Mt. Zion Baptist Church (97.64 percent); and Solomon Temple Church (6.55 percent).

Sites with proportionately greater Republican voting included Harmony Church of Bartlett (75.17 percent); Collierville Church of Christ (81.62 percent); The Refuge Church (79.17 percent); Compassion Church (70.53 percent); and Arlington Safe Room (74.37 percent). (Stay tuned to memphisflyer.com for updates and additional data.)

We have made a point, these last few election seasons, of using the term “bogus ballot” to denote a species of advertisement sheets and/or four-page mail-outs that contain the names and pictures of political candidates who have paid some local entrepreneur for the privilege of appearing on them — often in overtly devious ways that suggest, falsely, that the Democratic Party is behind the endorsements.

Two of the entrepreneurs — Greg Grant and M. LaTroy Williams — are at it again this election season, even after being enjoined by a court last year to cease and desist, and have  been freshly warned by special judge Bill Acree that they proceed at their own peril.

Jake Brown and Bruce Kramer, the attorneys for the plaintiffs who during the 2019 city election sought and got the injunction against the balloteers, have taken the pay-for-play mischief-makers to court once again. At a status conference on Monday, presiding Judge Bill Acree, who is on loan from the Jackson circuit, advised the principals that he intended to set a date for a post-election hearing on the matter and let it be known that criminal penalties were an option for continued violation of his original injunction.

Nothing suggests the excesses of these two proprietors so clearly as does the streamer line that Williams appended to the top of his most recent “ballot.” It says, in bold capital letters: “JUDGE ORDERED M. LATORY [sic] ALEXANDRIA-WILLIAMS ON BALLOT AS DEMOCRAT NO ‘JIM CROW.’”

Not only is that claim wholly untrue regarding the congressional office Williams (or Alexandria-Williams as he now signs himself) was seeking until an April meeting of the state Democratic executive committee declared him invalid. It is a uniquely skewed falsehood in that the man manages to misspell his own name, which is “LaTroy,” not “LaTory.”

Anyone who cares to confirm that Williams’ name is not on the August 6th Democratic primary ballot for any office at all need only consult the website of the Shelby County Election Commission (shelbyvote.com). Yet on his own self-published “ballot” (more properly regarded, perhaps, as an advertisement sheet for the favored — or paying — candidates) there is a mugshot of Williams as a candidate for Congress alongside a mug of his son Marion Alexandria-Williams Jr., an actual candidate for the Democratic nomination for state Senate District 30.

The Williams ballot is labeled as the product of the “Shelby County Democratic Club” — with the first three of those words displayed prominently on the sheet and the climactic word “club” in relatively small letters underneath. The effect is to suggest the status of an official organ of the Shelby County Democratic Party — the very kind of claim that led the actual Shelby County Democratic Party, along with the Shelby County Young Democrats and John Marek, a 2019 candidate for the City Council, to file suit last year against Williams, his “club,” and his ballot.

In a sad and ironic twist, no sitting Shelby County judge was willing to hear the case. They had all either paid at some point to be listed on such a ballot, or they had no wish to embarrass their judicial colleagues. Or, in many cases, for both reasons.

Ultimately, a hearing was conducted before Judge Acree. A day or so before the election, Acree issued a temporary injunction against further distribution of “endorsement” ballots proceed by both Williams and Grant. The time-span of the injunction was indefinite and is still in effect, according to attorneys Brown and Kramer —  a point repeated by Acree on Monday.

In the interval between last year’s injunction and the release of new “ballots” by Grant and Williams, Brown and Kramer had moved — for reasons “unrelated to the case,” says Brown —  to withdraw from involvement. It was then, he says, that both Grant and Williams, “evidently deciding that all bets were off,” acted independently of each other and moved to issue new ballots for the current election, both ballots still implying a fictitious relationship with the official Democratic Party — Williams on behalf of the aforementioned Shelby County Democratic Club; Grant via the “Greater Memphis Democratic Club.”

Both are shell organizations, says Brown. Grant’s ballot at least had a disclaimer in fine print “that the ‘Greater Memphis Democratic Club’ operates ‘independently of the Shelby County Democratic Party and its affiliates.’” Grant’s chief coup, if one wants to call it that, was to secure the inclusion on his ballot as an “endorsee” of former Shelby County Democratic chairman Corey Strong,  now a candidate in the Democratic primary for the 9th District congressional seat. A mere two years ago, in 2018, Strong, in his chairman’s role, had attacked that year’s Grant ballot for implying official Democratic connections and said it was “nothing more than a paid advertisement.”

At any rate, lawyers Brown and Kramer discarded their withdrawal motions (Brown: “We were frankly pissed off”) and re-involved themselves, asking Judge Acree to impose both civil and criminal sanctions against the two ballot entrepreneurs for “willful disregard” of the judge’s injunction. Monday’s status conference on the matter, held electronically, was the immediate result. And clearly more efforts to redress the matter lie in the future.

Rarely, in fact, have legal remedies played so large a role in the conduct and oversight of an election as they have this year. It will be recalled that it required another suit on behalf of a group of Memphians  in the Up with the Vote 901 organization as well as the ACLU to enable universal eligibility for absentee mail-in voting in this year of a coronavirus pandemic.

University of Memphis law professor and former County Commissioner Steve Mulroy, assisted by Brown and with parallel efforts from ACLU attorneys, easily persuaded Nashville Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle back in June to issue her order on behalf of universal mail-in eligibility.

In her ruling, Chancellor Lyle not only discounted objections from the Secretary of State’s office but noted that the Tennessee constitution is “more explicit than the federal Constitution” in guaranteeing the right to vote and that the state’s “restrictive interpretation and application of Tennessee’s voting by mail law” constituted “an unreasonable burden on the fundamental right to vote.”

Lyle has periodically had to issue new directives enforcing her order as either state government or local election offices (including the Shelby County administrator’s) have tried to delay or sandbag it.

Recently Secretary of State Tre Hargett testified remotely to the U.S. Senate Rules and Administration Committee on the state’s attitude on the matter. Hargett was asked why the state has fought efforts to loosen absentee voting requirements amid the COVID-19  pandemic.

“Under Tennessee law, fear of contracting the coronavirus is not an excuse [to vote by mail],”  Hargett replied.

“Well, that’s pitiful,” said Senator Angus King (Ind-Maine).

And, as indicated earlier, the office of Shelby Election Administrator Phillips has faced accusations of going slow in response to the mail-in order.

At a recent meeting of the Shelby County Commission, lawyer Mulroy was among those noting that Phillips had allowed a pile-up of mail-in ballot requests by treating state Election Coordinator Mark Goins’ ultimate demand for immediate compliance with mail-in ballot requests as merely “advisory.” He had earlier pointed out that notices mailed by Phillips’ office to Shelby County voters omitted the required reference to COVID-19 as an acceptable reason for absentee voting.

The result was a new consent order from Lyle reinforcing the mandate to be explicit in that regard.

Categories
Politics Politics Beat Blog

Status Conference on Monday for “Bogus Ballot” Offenders

We use the term “bogus ballot” to denote a species of advertisement sheets and/or four-page mailouts which contain the names and pictures of political candidates who have paid some local entrepreneur for the privilege of appearing on them — often in overtly devious ways that suggest, falsely, that the Democratic Party is behind the endorsements.

the new M. LaTroy Wiliams ballot in which he misspells his own name; note streamer line across top

Two of the entrepreneurs — Greg Grant and M. LaTroy Williams — are at it again this election season, though they have been enjoined by a court to cease and desist. Meanwhile, attorneys for the plaintiffs, who in 2019 sought and got an injunction against the balloteers, are taking the pay-for-play mischief-makers to court.

More of that anon: A brief time-out here to proclaim our astonishment at the streamer line that Williams appended to the top of his most recent “ballot.” It says, in bold capital letters: “JUDGE ORDERED M. LATORY [sic] ALEXANDRIA-WILLIAMS ON BALLOT AS DEMOCRAT NO ‘JIM CROW’”.

Not only is that claim wholly untrue regarding the congressional office Williams (or Alexandria-Williams as he now signs himself) was seeking until an April meeting of the state Democratic executive committee declared him invalid. It is a uniquely skewed falsehood in that the man manages to misspell his own name, which is “LaTroy,” not “LaTory.”

Anyone who cares to confirm that Williams’ name is not on the August 6th Democratic primary ballot for any office at all need only consult the website of the Shelby County Election Commission (shelbyvote.com). Yet on his own self-published “ballot” (more properly regarded, perhaps, as an advertisement sheet for the favored — or paying — candidates) there is a mugshot of Williams as a candidate for Congress alongside a mug of his son Marion Alexandria-Williams Jr., an actual candidate for the Democratic nomination for state Senate District 30.

The Williams ballot is labeled as the product of the “Shelby County Democratic Club” — with the first three of those words displayed prominently on the sheet and the climactic word “club” in relatively small letters underneath. The effect is to suggest the status of an official organ of the Shelby County Democratic Party — the very kind of claim that led the actual Shelby County Democratic Party, along with the Shelby County Young Democrats and John Marek, a 2019 candidate for the City Council, to file suit last year against Williams, his “club,” and his ballot.

In a sad and ironic twist, no sitting Shelby County judge was willing to hear the case. They had all either paid at some point to be listed on such a ballot, or they had no wish to embarrass their judicial colleagues. Or, in many cases, for both reasons.

Ultimately, a hearing was conducted before Judge Bill Acree, a retired Circuit Court jurist from Jackson sitting in as a special judge. A day or so before the election, Acree issued a temporary injunction against further distribution against “endorsement” ballots proceed by both Williams and Grant. The time-span of the injunction was indefinite and is still in effect, according to Jake Brown, who with Bruce Kramer represented the plaintiffs legally.

With things apparently setted, at least for the moment, Brown and Kramer had since moved to withdraw from involvement — for reasons “unrelated to the case,” says Brown. It was then, he says, that both Grant and Wiliams, “evidently deciding that all bets were off,” acted independently of each other and moved to issue new ballots for the current election, both ballots still implying a fictitious relationship with the official Democratic Party — Williams on behalf of the aforementioned Shelby County Democratic Club; Grant via the “Greater Memphis Democratic Club.”

Both are shell organizations, says Brown. Grant’s ballot at least had a disclaimer in fine print “that the ‘Greater Memphis Democratic Club’ operates ‘independently of the Shelby County Democratic Party and its affiliates.’”

At any rate, lawyers Brown and Kramer discarded their withdrawal motions (Brown: “We were frankly pissed off”) and re-involved themselves, asking Judge Acree to impose both civil and criminal sanctions against the two ballot entrepreneurs for “willful disregard” of the judge’s injunction. A status conference on the matter is set for Monday at 1:00 p.m., with financial penalties and possible (though limited) imprisonment at stake for the accused offenders.

Categories
Politics Politics Feature

The Virus and the Vote

Tennessee has come in for criticism for its responses to the coronavirus pandemic, but at least one organization, having surveyed 50 states, rates the Volunteer State as not having done all that shabby. The personal finance website WalletHub ranks Tennessee fourth-best overall in how well its health infrastructure was prepared going into the pandemic.

In specific areas, WalletHub rates Tennessee as follows:

• 20th – Public Healthcare Spending per Capita

• 14th – Number of Hospital Beds per Capita

• 30th – Epidemiology Workforce per Capita

• 11th – Emergency Centers and Services per Capita

• 2nd – Intensive Care Unit (ICU) Beds per Capita

That’s the (relatively) good news. A pair of ongoing lawsuits, each of which was scheduled for a key moment in court this week, suggests that other issues are not nearly so salutary.

A preliminary hearing was set for this Wednesday in the courtroom of federal District Judge Sheryl Lipman on a new suit filed against the office of the Shelby County sheriff, seeking emergency action on behalf of inmates currently infected or under threat of “severe injury or death” as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak.

Filed last week jointly by the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee; the American Civil Liberties Union; Just City; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind; Wharton & Garrison LLP; and attorneys Brice Timmons and Steve Mulroy, the suit is a federal class action that seeks the release of those prisoners deemed non-dangerous.

The suit “asks for identification of medically vulnerable individuals held at the jail and the immediate release of vulnerable people, most immediately those who are detained solely on the basis of their inability to satisfy a financial condition of pretrial release, or solely on the basis of a technical violation of probation or parole unless the county demonstrates that an individual poses a flight or safety risk.”

The suit alleges that, “as of April 30, 192 people at the jail had tested positive for COVID-19, and one jail employee had died.” It further notes that “[s]tatewide, the greatest number of deaths from the virus have occurred in Shelby County” and that, according to the latest reports, “86 percent of inmates at the Shelby County Jail were there pretrial.”

Alleging that the sheriff’s office is violating the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, the suit cautions that “an outbreak at the jail would spread widely in the community, draining the Memphis area of limited resources to fight the pandemic.” 

G.A. Hardaway

See Viewpoint at memphisflyer.com by State Representative G.A. Hardaway (D-Memphis), chair of the Tennessee Caucus of Black Legislators, for more perspective on the jail as a “petri dish” for the COVID virus.

• The coronavirus outbreak is the main reason also for another suit, due for a hearing Thursday in the court of Chancellor Ellen Lyle in Nashville. This one, filed recently by Memphis lawyers Steve Mulroy and Jake Brown for the ad hoc group Up the Vote 901, cites the pandemic as a reason to extend the right of absentee voting to all registered Tennessee voters — a request so far denied by state officials. A parallel suit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee may, at Judge Lyle’s discretion, be folded into the original suit, and yet a third suit to the same end has been filed by the NAACP in another jurisdiction.

In a brief presented to the Court, State Attorney General Herb Slatery made several arguments against the proposed action, citing “numerous barriers” to rapid implementation of statewide absentee voting, including alleged costs of millions of dollars and “opportunities for error” indicated in the experiences of other states.

Tennessee is not the only arena where the right to vote by mail is at stake. After Michigan and Nevada sent applications for absentee voting to all registered voters, President Trump threatened those states with the loss of federal funding. The president claims the process of widespread voting by mail invites open fraud, though he himself recently voted absentee in Florida, and Republican states like Ohio have conducted elections by mail without incident. In any case, evidence of such fraud through absentee voting has proved hard to come by.

In the face of the pandemic, 11 of the 16 states that limit who can vote by absentee ballot have eased their election rules this year to permit expanded absentee voting in upcoming elections.

Categories
Politics Politics Beat Blog

Suit Filed to Extend Tennessee Citizens’ Right to Vote by Mail

An important suit has been filed in Chancery Court in Nashville, seeking, in the words of its title page, “to expand access to vote-by-mail procedures to all registered Tennessee voters who wish to vote absentee during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Steve Mulroy

The suit is filed on behalf of plaintiffs Hunter Dempster, Rev. Earle J. Fisher, Julia Hiltonsmith, Ginger Bullard, Jeff Bullard, and Allison Donald, “all currently registered Tennessee voters, including both Democrats and Republicans,” with the defendants being Governor Bill Lee, Secretary of State Tre Hargett, state Director of Elections Mark Goins, and state Attorney General Herbert Slatery III.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs are Steve Mulroy and Jake Brown.

The suit seeks to transcend both the narrow definitions of who may seek to vote absentee (currently restricted by such factors as hospitalization, school residence, and absence from one’s home base) and the time frame for filing for such status, expressed this way in current state law: “A voter who desires to vote absentee shall request an absentee ballot not more than ninety (90) and not later than seven (7) days before the election.”

In the language of the suit:

“Plaintiffs contend that, in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis and the uncertain but growing population distribution of the novel coronavirus (the “Virus”), restricting Tennesseans’ vote-by-mail access to voters over sixty years of age, or who otherwise meet one of the other absentee-ballot qualifications enumerated under Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-6-201, would impose impermissibly burdensome conditions on the Individual Plaintiffs and others’ right to vote under the Tennessee Constitution … .

“[E]ach of the Individual Plaintiffs has an objectively reasonable fear that voting in person in the 2020 Tennessee elections would endanger his or her personal health and the health of those sharing these voters’ households, by exposure to the Virus. Each is also concerned about the extent to which his or her appearance at a crowded polling location may contribute to the community spread of the Virus. They sue on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated Tennessee voters who are currently ineligible to vote by mail.”

Several states already extend universal rights to vote by mail to their citizens, including Ohio, whose Republican government has recently successfully concluded a statewide election under those conditions.

Categories
News News Blog

Former Employee in Federal Suit Against Playhouse on the Square

leannakeyes.com

Keyes

The curtain is about to rise on another act in the legal drama surrounding Playhouse on the Square (POTS) during the heyday of its since-retired founder and executive producer, Jackie Nichols.

Leanna Keyes, a former production manager at POTS, has filed suit in federal court, charging the company with “retaliatory” termination of her services following her role in addressing “allegations of sexual assault” against Nichols.

Amid accusations by several women of past sexual improprieties, Nichols, who is generally credited with having been of seminal importance in the general culture and development of drama in Memphis, took voluntary leave of absence in January, 2018, and in March of the same year formally resigned his position.

The resignation occurred following the completion by the law firm of Burch, Porter & Johnson of an investigation of the charges against Nichols. The investigation, whose results were never made public, was requested by the executive board of POTS.

The Playhouse, under its assumed name of Circuit Playhouse, Inc., is defendant in the current suit by Keyes, who asserts that she was dismissed after “a perfunctory review because she did not fit in the ‘family culture’ of the theatre company, which ‘family culture’ was to tolerate unlawful employment practices and protect predatory sexual assaults.”

Keyes seeks “that a jury be empaneled to hear and decide all issues set forth or fairly raised herein and requests a judgment granting the following relief against the defendant: compensatory damages in the amount of not less than $750,000.00; pre- and post- judgment interest; punitive or exemplary damages in the amount commensurate with defendant’s ability to pay and to deter future misconduct; litigation costs and attorneys’ fees to the extent allowable by law; and any and all other legal and equitable relief that this court may deem just and proper under the circumstances.”

In her first month of employment after being hired by the Playhouse in November 2017, Keyes was “touched inappropriately by a senior staff member,” the suit says, and was “warned … of Jackie Nichols’ predatory behavior and told … specifically not to be alone with him.” Later, she learned of specific public accusations of sexual improprieties against Nichols and, along with “another newly hired staff member, Mr. William Gibbons-Brown, undertook an informal investigation with [POTS] interns and staff.”

Keyes would later prepare a series of demands and goals pertaining to the work environment at POTS and presented them to the Playhouse board on behalf of some 30 interns and staff members. Subsequently, according to the suit, “Whitney Jo and Mike Detroit called an all-staff meeting where they announced that Jackie Nichols had taken a voluntary leave of absence and advised all staff members of the Handbook’s prohibition on any discussion of Playhouse business.”

Though she was never subject to negative evaluations or disciplinary action, the suit alleges that Keyes “noticed that Mike Detroit and Whitney Jo began ignoring and marginalizing her within the workplace.” In February 2018, in the wake of her three-month evaluation period and after completing work on the production Once, Keyes was given a “perfunctory” review and was told “that she did not fit ‘family culture’ of POTS and was presented with her termination letter.”

Keyes went on to file a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on February 27, 2018 and was issued a “right to sue letter” by the EEOC.

Her suit alleges that “as a result of Defendant’s conduct in terminating Ms. Keyes’ employment, Ms. Keyes has suffered — and will continue to suffer — lost income, lost fringe benefits, damage to her reputation, humiliation, loss of economic advantage and has incurred expenses in searching for replacement employment.”

One count of the suit alleges that Keyes was subjected to a “hostile work environment.” A second count attests to an “unlawful retaliatory discharge.”

Keyes is represented in her action by Bruce Kramer, Jake Brown, and Melody Dernocoeur of the Apperson Crump legal firm.