Categories
Cover Feature News

Who’s Got the Power?

Tennessee Republicans cannot stand the federal government telling them what to do — especially when a Democrat’s in the White House — but they do love telling Tennessee’s biggest cities what to do.

Republicans cry “overreach,” in general, when the feds “impose” rules that “overrule the will of the people of Tennessee.” (All of those quoted words came from just one statement on abortion from Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, who yells “overreach!” the loudest.) But they call it “preemption” when they do it to Memphis and Nashville — their favorite targets — leaving big-city locals to bemoan that same overreach.

When punching up at the federal government, Tennessee conservatives send angry letters to the president lamenting rules they have to follow to get big “seductive” tax dollars. But they don’t often win much in this process.

When they punch down at cities, the power struggle really comes down to rural conservatives exerting whatever influence they have to temper (squash) the sometimes “woke” ideas of urban progressives. They have a lot of power to do this, as state law does, usually, preempt local law.

So, Republicans do what they want in the Tennessee General Assembly and say, “See you in court,” because cities don’t typically give up their authority without a legal fist fight. (This happens so much state Democrats say Republicans pass lawsuits, not laws.)

But cities lose these fights often. Some of that is thanks to the powerful state AG’s office, who gets in the ring for state conservatives. That office has even more punching power with a brand-new $2.25 million, 10-member unit. It force-feeds conservative priorities in Tennessee cities and blocks D.C.’s liberal agenda.

Here’s an example of this double-edged subversion: Skrmetti, the Republican AG, cried “overreach” when a 2022 USDA rule said LGTBQ kids had to have access to lunch at school. But when Memphis and Nashville tried to decriminalize cannabis in 2016, a state Republican said, “You just can’t have cities creating their own criminal code, willy-nilly.”

Same coin. Two sides. Yes, state law rules most times, but the premise of the argument is the same. State citizens and city locals know what’s best for them and pick their leaders accordingly. Then, an outsider who, maybe, doesn’t share their values, swoops in to make locals comply with theirs. It’s like, “Hi, you don’t know me but you’re doing it wrong and are going to do it my way.”

In this game, Memphis has been on the ropes at the legislature this year. State Republicans want to take away some of the power from the Shelby County district attorney. They want to remove a Memphis City Council decision on when Memphis Police Department (MPD) officers make traffic stops. They also wanted to dilute local control of the Memphis-Shelby County School (MSCS) board with members appointed by the governor. But they decided against it. Details on many of these and some from the past are below.

Meanwhile, some Republican lawmakers have looked up, wondering if they could really cut ties with the federal government. They took a serious, hard look at giving up $1 billion in federal education funding for state schools. They wanted to do it “the Tennessee way.” Left to guess what that meant, many concluded they hoped to eschew national discrimination protections for LGBTQ students.

This year, a state Republican hopes to establish state sovereignty. He wants to draw a clear line between state and fed powers and to install a committee to watch that line. It’s not a new idea, but it’s always had “don’t tread on me” vibes.

The road from Memphis City Hall, to the State Capitol, to Congress and the White House is littered with complaints (usually court papers) about political subversion. All the hollering and legal fights along the way have to leave voters wondering, who’s got the power?

Steve Mulroy (Photo: Steve Mulroy | Facebook)

District Attorney Power Battle

A legal battle over who has the power to decide on some death penalty cases has been waged since Republicans passed a bill here last year.

That bill stripped local control of post-conviction proceedings from local district attorneys and gave it to Skrmetti, the state AG. In Memphis, the bill seemed largely aimed at Shelby County District Attorney Steve Mulroy, with some concerned he may be lenient for those facing the death penalty.

“This sudden move appears to be a response to the choices of voters in both Davidson County and Shelby County, who elected prosecutors to support more restorative and less punitive policies,” Tennesseans for Alternatives to the Death Penalty said at the time.

Larry McKay, who received two death sentences for the murders of two store clerks in Shelby County in 1981, requested a court review of previously unexamined evidence in his case. Despite the new law, McKay’s attorney sought to disqualify Skremtti’s office from reviewing the case because he was not elected.

His attorney argued the new law infringes on the responsibilities of local district attorneys. The big changes made in the legislation also violated the state constitution, the attorney said.

Mulroy agreed.

“The newly enacted statute is an unconstitutional effort to divest and diminish the authority granted to Tennessee’s district attorneys general by the Tennessee Constitution,” Mulroy said at the time. “The new statute violates the voting rights of such voters because it strips material discretion from district attorneys, who are elected by the qualified voters of the judicial district.”

But state attorneys did not agree.

“The General Assembly was entitled to take that statuary power away from the district attorneys and give it to the Attorney General in capital cases,” reads the court document. “They have done just that and their mandate must be followed.”

But in July Shelby County Judge Paula Skahan ruled the Republican legislation did violate the state constitution. New arguments on the case were heard by the Tennessee Criminal Court of Appeals earlier this month. No ruling was issued as of press time. However, an appeal of that ruling seems inevitable, likely pushing the case to the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Pretextual Stops

State Republicans are actively trying to undermine a unanimous decision of the Memphis City Council to stop police from pulling over motorists for minor things like a broken taillight, a loose bumper, and more.

This council move came three months after MPD officers beat and killed Tyre Nichols, who was stopped for a minor traffic infraction. The local law is called the Driving Equality Act in Honor of Tyre Nichols.

Council members said police time could be better spent, that the stops expose more people to the criminal justice system, and, as in the Nichols’ case, could be dangerous. The stops also disproportionately affect Black people, who make up about 64 percent of Memphis’ population but receive 74 percent of its traffic tickets, according to Decarcerate Memphis.

The council’s decision made national headlines. But it found no favor with Republican lawmakers.

Rep. John Gillespie (R-Bartlett) introduced a controversial bill this year that would end that practice and reestablish state control over local decisions on criminal justice.

“We’re simply saying a state law that’s been on the books for decades is what we’re going by here,” Gillespie told Tennessee Lookout earlier this month. “And if there are people that have problems with what state law is, then maybe they should change state law instead of enacting local ordinances that are in conflict with state law.”

He initially cooled on the matter, promising to pause his bill for further review after Nichols’ parents spoke at a press conference.

“I am just appalled by what Republicans are trying to do in this state,” Nichols’ father, Rodney Wells, said at the event.

Gillespie promised Nichols’ family he’d hold the bill but surprised many earlier this month when he brought it to the House floor for a vote, which it won. Some said Gillespie acted in bad faith. State Rep. Justin Pearson (D-Memphis) said he straight-up lied to Nichols’ family and subverted local power to boot.

“You, as a person who lives in Shelby County, seek to undo the will of the people of Memphis and Shelby County,” Pearson said on the House floor. “The Wells family spoke with him briefly; he told them this bill wouldn’t come up until probably next Thursday.”

The Senate approved the bill last Thursday. It now heads to Gov. Lee for signature.

Six school board members for Memphis-Shelby County Schools met with three state lawmakers representing Memphis on Feb. 14, 2024, at the state Capitol. Their agenda included pending legislation from Rep. Mark White and Sen. Brent Taylor, both Republicans, to authorize Gov. Bill Lee to appoint additional members to the board. (Photo: Courtesy Memphis-Shelby County Schools | Chalkbeat)

MSCS School Board

State Republicans want to control schools here, too.

Rep. Mark White (R-Memphis), chair of the House Education Committee, filed a bill earlier this year that would add six governor-appointed members (read: more Republican influence) to the MSCS board. When he filed the legislation, he said he was unimpressed with the slate of those vying for the district’s superintendent job and concerned about students falling behind state standards on reading and math.

“I’m very concerned about the district’s direction, and I just can’t sit back any longer,” White told Chalkbeat Tennessee. “I think we’re at a critical juncture.”

However, MSCS board chair Althea Greene said at the time that White’s proposal was unnecessary.

“We may have had some challenges, but more interference from the General Assembly is not warranted at this time,” she said. “We have to stop experimenting with our children.”

Since then, the MSCS board chose Marie Feagins as the district’s superintendent and she got to work early, before her contract was supposed to start. Also, White paused his bill earlier this month to give board members a chance to submit an improvement plan. White said the plan should show how they’ll improve on literacy, truancy, graduation rates, teacher recruitment, underutilized school buildings, and a backlog of building maintenance needs, among other things, according to Chalkbeat.

While it’s the newest move in state “overreach” into schools here, it’s hardly the first. State Republicans once seized dozens of schools in Memphis and Nashville as laboratories for what they called “Achievement School Districts.” After more than a decade, these schools only angered locals, showed abysmal student performance, and now seem to be on their way out.

Cannabis

For six weeks back in 2016, Memphis City Council members debated a move that would have decriminalized possession of small amounts of cannabis in the city.

Hundreds were (and are) arrested each year on simple possession charges, and most of those arrested were (and are) Black. Council members didn’t want cannabis legalization; they wanted to steer folks away from the criminal justice system. They hoped to keep them out of jail and avoid a criminal record, which could hurt their chances at housing, employment, and more.

The city council — even though some had reservations about it — said yes to this. So did the Nashville Metropolitan Council. State Republicans said no.

Upon their return to the Capitol in 2017, they got to work ensuring their control over local decisions on the matter. A bill to strip this control easily won support in the legislature and was signed by then-Gov. Bill Haslam, who said he acted on the will of state lawmakers.

“You just can’t have cities creating their own criminal code, willy-nilly,” Rep. William Lamberth (R-Cottontown), the bill’s House sponsor, told The Tennessean at the time.

Then-Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery issued an opinion that said, basically, cities can’t make laws that preempt state law. With that, Memphis resumed regular enforcement of cannabis laws.

Ranked Choice Voting

In two elections — 2008 and 2018 — Memphians chose how they wanted to pick their politicians, but they never got a chance to use it. State Republicans said no.

Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) would have allowed voters here to rank candidates on a ballot, doing away with the need for run-off elections that always see lower voter turnout. It was new and different but voters here “decided, over and over again, to give it a try,” reads a Commercial Appeal op-ed from 2022 by Mark Luttrell, former Shelby County mayor, and Erika Sugarmon, now a Shelby County commissioner.

However, state Republicans then-Sen. Brian Kelsey (R-Germantown) and Rep. Nathan Vaughan (R-Collierville) filed a bill to upend the voters’ decision for good with a bill to end RCV in Tennessee. Kelsey said it was about voter clarity. Opponents said it was about more.

“If the bill passes, it will disrespect Memphis voters, make a mockery of local control,” Luttrell and Sugarmon said in the op-ed.

In the end, the state won. The bill passed and RCV was banned, with added support and sponsorship of Memphis Democrats Rep. Joe Towns Jr. and the late Rep. Barbara Cooper.

State Sovereignty

“So, you hoe in your little garden and stay out of our garden,” said Rep. Bud Hulsey (R-Kingsport).

He was explaining to the House Public Service Committee last year how the country’s founders designed the separation of powers between the state and the federal governments, how it was supposed to work, anyway.

But federal government agencies — not elected officials — issue rules pushed on to “we, the people,” he said. They tear families apart. They split marriages. They end lifelong friendships, he said. They bring bankruptcy and suicide. He gave no more details than that. But he was sick of it and said the bill he brought would fix it.

When some Republicans here aren’t busy in committee or court, rending control from local governments, they like to think about state sovereignty. They want to defend Tennessee from the feds, especially when a Democrat is in the White House. They want to know what the exact rules are and to tell D.C. “don’t tread on me.”

Since at least 1995, bills like these have been filed here and there in the state legislature. There’s a new one pending now. In them, “sovereignty” sometimes sounds like a preamble to “secession.”

Hulsey’s bill didn’t go that far. He really wanted to set out a way to nullify D.C. rules he didn’t like. Lee’s office was against it, though. Senate Republicans were, too. The idea failed to even get a review in the Republican-packed Senate State and Local Government Committee. Conservatives worried “nullification” could also nullify big federal tax dollars.

That 1995 bill demanded, “The federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers.” Another Republican sovereignty bill later would have voided the powers of any representative of the United Nations once they entered the state.

One in 2014 (that was signed by the governor) simply expressed the state’s sovereignty to set educational standards. A 2016 bill said the feds “seduce” states to go along with their new rules with federal funds they treat as grants, not as tax funds for the state. Another in 2013 would have formed a committee to see what financial and legal troubles could be in store for Tennessee if it scaled back or quit the “state’s participation in the various federal programs.”

Ten years later, this idea is back. The “Tennessee State Sovereignty Act of 2024” would form a 10-person committee to watch and see if any federal rule violates the Tennessee State Constitution. If it does, “it is the duty of both the residents of this state and the General Assembly to resist.”

Now, if that don’t say “don’t tread on me” …

In the Senate, the bill was deferred until near the end of session (usually meaning they’ll get to it if they can). A House review of the idea was slated for this week, after press time.

Education Funding

Sovereignty bills rarely go anywhere but in talking points for reelection campaigns.

However, last year high-ranking Republicans took state sovereignty a step beyond rattling a saber. They announced a bold plan to have a serious look at if and how Tennessee could cut ties with the feds and their $1 billion in education funding. If it did, Tennessee would have been the first state in history to decline such funds.

“We as a state can lead the nation once again in telling the federal government that they can keep their money and we’ll just do things the Tennessee way,” House Speaker Rep. Cameron Sexton said at an event in February last year.

He didn’t outline what the “Tennessee way” entailed, though he complained about testing mandates and strings attached to funding. Many said the big federal string Republicans wanted to cut was the one attached to Title IX mandates. Title IX prohibits discrimination based on sex in education programs and activities that get federal money. The Biden administration has promised an update to these that could strengthen protections for LGTBQ students.

Tennessee has passed more anti-LGBTQ laws than any other state, according to the Human Rights Campaign. The week of March 4th alone, 18 such bills were before state lawmakers and targeted diversity, equity, and inclusion programs; made it easier to ban books; and attempted to legalize discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

State Republicans have passed bills to mandate transgender students only play on sports teams that match their gender at birth. They have mandated which bathrooms trans people have to use (a decision struck down by a federal judge). They’ve allowed teachers to go unpunished if they refuse to use pronouns that students identify with. They’ve wanted certain books with LGBTQ themes banned at school. They’ve wanted LGBTQ, especially gender identity, issues banned from discussion in sex-ed classes. This list goes on and on.

However, the precise motive for looking into cutting those federal education dollars was never stated. Some said it was always good to review the relationship between nation and state. In the end, Republicans spent a lot of time and money to research the idea but set it aside. They took the federal money and the strings attached anyway. But taking it so seriously was maybe that “don’t tread on me snake” just shaking its rattle.

“Deep in my Soul”

Separation of powers is a doubled-edge sword. It’s that cartoon drawing of a big fish eating a small fish that is getting eaten by the even bigger fish. It’s a “layer cake” form of federalism.

Call it what you will, but it’s clear locals want to make their own decisions. For Hulsey, the Republican talking about who tends whose garden, the idea runs deep.

“I stood up on that House floor over there a few weeks ago and we raised our hand, and we swore to 7 million people in this state, we swore not that we would rake in all the federal money we could get,” Hulsey told committee members. “We swore that we would always defend the inalienable rights of Tennessee people by defending and upholding the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Tennessee.

“We should not be for sale. I want to tell you that deep in my soul, I have a conviction that is deep-seated. I believe that if state legislatures in this country do not stand up and hold the federal government to obey the Constitution of the United States, we could very easily lose this republic.”

Categories
Politics Politics Feature

A Practical Case for IRV

Van Turner, the two-term holder of the District 12 seat on the Shelby County Commission, a former commission chair, and one of the body’s most influential members, is term-limited and thus ineligible to run for re-election. Turner, who is also president of the Memphis chapter of the NAACP, has declared himself to be a likely candidate for mayor of Memphis in 2023 and, in the judgment of many observers, is a probable front-runner in the race to succeed Mayor Jim Strickland, who is himself term-limited.

Meanwhile, four candidates have successfully filed for election to the District 12 (southeast Memphis) commission seat, and all of them, at one point or another, had asked Turner for his support — and why shouldn’t they want the backing of the current, much-respected seat-holder?

Erika Sugarmon (Photo: Courtesy Erika Sugarmon)

At least two of them have been publicly rumored to have gained Turner’s support — a fact clearly demanding of some clarification. Which of the two — the Rev. Reginald Boyce, the well-regarded pastor of Riverside Missionary Baptist Church, or Erika Sugarmon, a teacher and voting-rights activist — actually has Turner’s endorsement?

The fact is, they both do. Early on, Boyce asked for, and got, a pledge of support from Turner, who offered him both verbal and financial backing. Then Sugarmon, member of a family renowned for its role in local civil rights history, filed closer to the deadline and reminded Turner of a tentative commitment he had made to her some months earlier.

It was a predicament familiar to many of those Shelby County citizens — in business and civil life in general, as well as in politics — who are asked to underwrite the electoral efforts of others and whose support, in races as close as the one in District 12 is said to be, can be all-important.

Turner decided that he couldn’t renounce the support he’d already offered Boyce, nor could he see himself turning Sugarmon away.

He determined that both candidates were equally deserving and is at present underwriting both their campaigns, verbally and financially. Moreover, he has kind words as well for the other two candidates in the race — David Walker, a former high school classmate of his, and James Bacchus, a retired principal who served at both Whitehaven High School and Hamilton High School. A fifth possible candidate, who ended up not filing, was Ronald Pope, with whom Turner also had good relations.

“It’s difficult when my friends end up running against each other,” says Turner, and his dilemma is, after all, similar to the one we all have when we look at a candidate list and have a hard time deciding which way to go with it. The fact is, the election roster of 2022 offers several such conundrums — races in which more than one candidate has impressive enough credentials to warrant a vote.

(And, yes, of course, there may be one or two races in which nobody seems to measure up.)

In any case, somebody has to win, and everybody can’t.

There are ways of mitigating the perplexities of choice, and one of them — ranked-choice voting — allows for ranking one’s preferences so as to acknowledge the ambiguities of choosing between alternatives and, collectively, to help resolve them. Our betters in the Tennessee General Assembly have just banned that process, though, taking away a tool that we voters of Shelby County had twice approved at the ballot box without much head-scratching at all.

Categories
Politics Politics Beat Blog

Kelsey Bill Would Ban Ranked Choice Voting

Say this for Brian Kelsey: The State Senator from Germantown is not letting the burden of a felony  indictment (for campaign finance violations) inhibit his legislative activity. In that regard the Germantown Republican is like State Senator Katrina Robinson (D-Memphis) who also continued working legislatively in the face of a felony indictment (since resulting in conviction that has put Robinson on the brink of expulsion from the Senate).

Kelsey’s latest project is Senate Bill 1820 (companion measure: 1868 HB, by Rep. Nathan Vaughn, a Collierville Republican), which would prohibit the use anywhere in Tennessee of ranked choice voting (a.k.a. instant runoff voting), a mode of elections that has been twice approved by Memphis voters in referenda but has been prevented by the City Council and by the state Election Coordinator from taking place.

Introducing his bill in the Senate’s State and Local Government committee on Tuesday, Kelsey noted that his legislation had both Republican and Democratic co-sponsors and said, “It’s not a partisan issue. It’s really an issue about voter clarity.”

He went on to give an explanation of the ranked choice process that he himself might not regard as a model of clarity: “Instead of voting for a name, you would rank candidates, for example, one through seven. And then if for all those people who voted for the seventh place receiving vote person, those, then your first choice would be thrown out, and then you come back and they go to see okay, well, now how who did you vote for it for your second choice, and then you got to reallocate those votes that way, and then you got to go back and recount them. So you can see, this can take many rounds, and can be very confusing.”

A shorter but more informative explanation might characterize the process as one designed to prevent minority vote-getters from triumphing in winner-take-all elections. All candidates would be ranked by voters, and — absent an immediate majority winner — runner-up votes would be successively applied in subsequent rounds until a majority winner emerged.

Said Kelsey: “I do think that it’s a very confusing and complex way of doing elections, and one that does not create voter confidence in the counting system and the outcomes, and one that would not be helpful for Tennessee.”

State Senator Jeff Yarbro (D-Nashville) intervened to point out that the process had been approved in Shelby County twice. He went on to suggest that it would be helpful if someone involved in the Memphis effort would address the committee and shed some light on the issue. Kelsey suggested that Beth Henry Robertson of the State Election Coordinator’s office, which, via Coordinator Mark Goins, has previously expressed doubts about ranked choice could offer some clarification.

State Senator Sara Kyle (D-Memphis) confirmed for the committee that, “In Memphis, we have had referendums, one I think past 63 percent. One 70 percent … I am just asking if the sponsor would consider moving this to a study committee this summer so that we can have people to come in and testify.”

Kelsey objected: “I first heard about a request to testify yesterday and I said, bring them on, you know, that’s great, please, it’s three hour drive. From Memphis. No one chose to make that drive this morning.”

There was discussion back and forth, with Sen. Kenneth Yager (R-Kingston) expressing agreement with the need to hear witnesses and committee chair Richard Briggs (R-Knoxville) agreeing and ultimately making a motion to roll the bill for a week and perhaps further if need be to allow witnesses to testify.

Asked his view ot today’s discussion, University of Memphis law professor Steve Mulroy, who has been the major advocate of ranked choice voting locally, pointed out that the Tennessee legislature is majority Republican and that it was both likely and desirable that Republican advocates for the process would make themselves available for testimony for it in Nashville.

Categories
Politics Politics Feature

Momentum for IRV

Last week’s administrative hearing in Nashville was the first step in enabling ranked-choice voting in Memphis.

The long-pending matter of ranked-choice voting — aka instant runoff voting (IRV) — may be resolved in time for the next Memphis city elections, set for October 2023. That was the word from well-known IRV advocate Steve Mulroy, one of several participants in an administrative hearing on the subject held in Nashville last week.

On Thursday, August 5th, state Elections Coordinator Mark Goins presided over the hearing in the state capitol. In his official capacity, Goins had previously determined that IRV was illegal under Tennessee election law and prevented its implementation in Memphis, despite three separate local voter referenda approving the process. Goins, who, ironically and unusually, took part in the procedure both as an adverse party and the final decision-maker at the administrative level, was represented by the state attorney general’s office.

Petitioners, including former and future City Council candidates Erika Sugarmon, Sam Goff, and John Marek, participated as challengers to Goins’ original decision and in the current determinative process. They were represented by Taylor Cates and William Irvine of the Burch, Porter & Johnson Memphis law firm, assisted by attorneys from the international Hogan Lovells law firm. University of Memphis law professor Mulroy represented additional intervenors, including former and future City Council candidate Britney Thornton and the Ranked Choice Tennessee organization (a pro-IRV advocacy group).

Yet another participant was attorney Allan Wade, representing the Memphis City Council, which has joined the state in seeking to block IRV implementation.

The administrative hearing is a necessary step before the matter can be appealed to the Davidson County Chancery Court. An administrative decision from last week’s process is expected within a few months, with a more definitive Chancery Court ruling expected a few months after that.

At last Thursday’s hearing, pro-IRV expert testimony was provided by George Gilbert, a former elections administrator in North Carolina and current associate of the Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center, a nationwide clearinghouse for Ranked Choice Voting, which allows voters to rank candidates on a ballot in order of preference, successively sampling these choices until a majority-winning candidate can be selected. (Ranked-choice voting was the method recently used by New York City in its primaries to elect a new mayor.)

Gilbert explained that it was technically feasible to implement IRV in Memphis, using either current Shelby County equipment, hand-marked paper ballots, or any other equipment Shelby County might obtain in the future. He also insisted that, under a proper administrative interpretation of the state’s election statutes and regulations, there was nothing illegal about doing IRV in Memphis.

Memphis voters approved IRV overwhelmingly by referendum in 2008, amending the Memphis City Charter to that effect. Currently, it applies to all City Council districts but not to citywide races like mayor or city court clerk. But IRV was not immediately implemented at least partly because the then Shelby County Election Administrator Richard Holden opined that the county’s voting machines could not handle IRV. His successor, current Election Administrator Linda Phillips, stated in 2017 that this opinion was incorrect and that the county’s extant machines could indeed handle IRV.

Phillips was set to implement it for the 2019 City Council election when Coordinator Goins instructed her not to, claiming that IRV violated state law. Incumbents on the Memphis City Council placed two different IRV repeal referenda on the November 2018 ballot. Memphis voters rejected both repeal efforts, indicating once again a willingness to see IRV elections in Memphis.

Petitioners and intervenors disputing Goins’ legal interpretation also protest the involvement of the Memphis City Council in the litigation. In their view, the anti-IRV perspective is adequately represented by the state. “The City Council should respect the will of the voters and stop trying to block something that Memphis voters voted for three times,” said Mulroy.

Categories
Editorial Opinion

Thing One, Thing Two

On November 14th, the citizens of two Memphis City Council districts will have an opportunity to finish up with the business of selecting their representatives to serve on the council. As grateful as we are that the current electoral system allows this opportunity to perfect the people’s will, we’ll say again, as we’ve said in the past, this is a lousy way to do it.

By the time that runoff election date rolls around, the always chancey Memphis weather will have had ample opportunity to turn sour on us, discouraging turnout, and it’s already a given that runoff elections are notoriously poorly attended even in the best of conditions.

We have no reason to expect otherwise for what amounts to judgment day for council Districts 1 and 7 — and an important judgment day at that. Depending on the outcome, there could be two council incumbents returned, with a disposition to continue the governing pattern of the past, or two new faces, those of candidates whose campaign rhetoric at least obliges them to consider serious change in the way city government does its business.

An even split between these prospects is also possible. Our concern does not necessarily lie with a commitment to either point of view or to any of the four candidates. What we worry about is the fact that the honest will of the people may not factor into the truncated totals of a runoff election — one in which the outcome could be decided by the weather or by the electorate’s lapsed attention, or, even in the best-case scenario, by the superiority of one campaign organization or another in forcing their cadres to the polls.

The solution to the runoff dilemma is no secret: It is the election process known alternately as Ranked Choice Voting or Instant Runoff Voting. This process has twice been approved by a large majority of Memphis voters — in a 2008 referendum and in another one in 2018. The process has so far been sabotaged by holdover council members who refuse to authorize the county Election Coordinator to employ it, and by state election authorities, who have intervened against its use. Come to think of it, that’s another good argument in favor of the new faces on the runoff ballot.

Regardless of what happens on November 14th, an event scheduled for the previous day, Wednesday, November 13th, also will have serious import for Memphis’ political future. On that date, retired Circuit Court Judge William B. Acree of Jackson convenes a hearing in Memphis to decide on the ultimate fate of bogus sample ballots that falsely claim to represent the endorsement choices of local political parties. For several election cycles, local entrepreneurs have been in the habit of fobbing off these travesties to local voters at election time.

The scandal is that an outside judge had to be called in to hear the case, since the judges of Shelby County have been as guilty as any other candidates in paying their way onto these fraudulent ballots and thus had to recuse themselves. It is for their sake and ours that we hope Judge Acree will see fit to decree an end to this fraud against democracy.

Categories
Memphis Gaydar News

Tennessee Equality Project: Titans and Ranked Choice Voting

Want to watch a Tennessee Titans home game and support the LGBTQ community? Well, now you can.

This year, the Titans will give $10 of each ticket sold on select home games to the Tennessee Equality Project (TEP). But there is a bit of work you have to do first.

When you’re buying your tickets, visit the Titans’ fundraiser site first. Select your game (Patriots and Steelers in the pre-season!) and enter the code “TEP” at checkout.

Actor Jennifer Lawrence in a 2018 ad in support of ranked choice voting in Tennessee.

TEP will also host a discussion in Memphis about Ranked Choice Voting.

Voters approved the voting method in 2008 but it was not implemented. Voters approved the method, again, in 2018. But its implementation is stymied by state officials and a pending lawsuit. Officials don’t believe the issue will be resolved in time for the citywide elections here in October.

The TEP event will feature a ranked-choice-voting ballot demonstration from Aaron Fowles of Ranked Choice Voting Tennessee. Basically, Fowles will show attendees just how a ballot would look (and how you’d use it) if ranked choice voting were approved here.

Categories
Politics Politics Beat Blog

Done Deal! 2019 People’s Convention Makes New History

Stare Rep. London Lamar presents a citation (from Tenn. House Speaker Glen Casada, no less) honoring 1991 Peple’s Convention vets Shep Wilbun and state Rep. Barbar Cooper as Rev. Earle Fisher looks on

How did the People’s Convention of 2019, held at the Paradise Entertainment Center on Saturday, compare with the seminal People’s Convention of 1991 that launched the successful campaign of Willie Herenton, Memphis’ first elected black mayor? As an apple to an orange, though both were undertaken with the aim of expressing the will of what one of this year’s convention participants called a “marginalized” population.

The 1991 event drew roughly 2,000 participants to Cook Convention Center; this new one drew a smaller number. Estimates range from 200 to 600, depending on the extent of the estimator’s involvement with the event. The actual number of attendees at Paradise probably closer to the low end, but Internet logs of the event, which was streamed online, suggest a far larger cybernetic audience, maybe in the thousands.

Under the umbrella of the ad hoc group, Up the Vote 901, numerous organizations associated themselves with the 2019 event: AFSCME, Black Lives Matter, MiCAH, etc., an extensive land impressive list, and preliminary statements by spokespersons for these groups took up almost two hours of the five hours-plus that the event lasted. Shelby County Mayor Lee Harris was there to add his exhortation as was Mayor Frank Scott Jr. of Little Rock.

There was something of a collective organizing group, though two of the major figures were the Rev. Earle Fisher and Sijuwola Crawford. Unmistakably, Shelby County Commissioner Tami Sawyer was a booster of the convention and was boosted by it in return, to the point that other major candidates — notably Mayor Jim Strickland and former Mayor Herenton — kept their distance.

To note the more sectarian and limited nature of the 2019 convention, as compared to the 1991 original, which arguably spoke to Memphis’ aspiring black population per se, is not to downgrade it, however. This year’s convention drew inspiration and cadres from such earlier grassroots expressions as the Bridge confrontation of 2016 and the Take “em Down 901 campaign against the city’s Confederate statuaries.

The agenda for the People’s Convention of 2019 included attention to a diverse set of issues — including housing, education, public health job creation, justice reform, and voting equity — but its overtly political aims were to endorse candidates willing to “align” themselves with those aims.  Candidate response was somewhat uneven and it remains to be seen how well those who responded to the convention call do in October, and what sort of groundswell can be generated between now and then.

Municipal Court Judge Jayne Chandler, the one candidate present who was enjoined by the Judicial Canon of Ethics to avoid overtly political statements, managed to circumvent that prohibition with some appropriately forceful — and clearly permissible — rally cries:

“‘Wait’ almost always translates to Never!” “They used to feed you chicken and watermelon. Now they feed you crawfish!” (That was a reference to the crawfish fest held by opponent David Pool on the previous weekend.) “I’m not going in reverse anymore.” (That was a reference to Chandler’s response for circumventing a transmission issue, and it made a nifty metaphor.)

The judge was the second of several candidates who appeared as the only participating representatives from their particular election contest (or who, in the jargon of the event, were there to “align” their candidacies with the convention agenda). And she was the first to be acknowledged as a “consensus” choice of those voting.

At that stage of things, the number of people voting electronically (including those present as well as those streaming the event online) had to reach a ceiling of 200 to achieve viability for the outcome. Chandler made the cut, whereas the first hopeful appearing solo, city court clerk candidate Demeatree Givens, had apparently not.

It was hard to tell whether Givens had been adjudged to have fallen short of approval or had been victimized by gremlins in the electronics of voting, carried out via the prescribed website, Menti.com. In any case, the threshold of 200 votes cast was adhered to through the first several candidate rounds but was allowed to dip to 120 by the end of the event, which was in its sixth hour by the time of a culminating vote for a mayoral candidate.

In any event, several candidates would meanwhile get the convention nod — two of whom, Orange Mound activist Britney Thornton for the District 4 seat; Theryn Bond in District 6 — were the sole candidates appearing, but both of whom gave good accounts of themselves.

There were actual contests for successive positions. The District 7 contest would see several aspirants on stage: Michahalyn Easter Thomas, Thurston Smith, Will “the Underdog” Richardson, and Larry Springfield. This was a spirited colloquy, with Thomas and Smith sounding notes of populism and Smith boasting his entrepreneurial know-how and Springfield stressing his personality. Thomas would get the nod.

At this point, heading into the consideration of candidates for super-district city council seats and mayoral hopefuls, time was made for a segment honoring two veterans of the original People’s Convention of 1991, the one that would nominate Willie Herenton as the consensus black candidate for mayor.

As it happens, Herenton, who went on to defeat then-incumbent Dick Hackett and serve 17 years as the city’s chief executive, is once again a candidate for mayor, but he was conspicuously absent from this year’s event. His name was invoked, however, by former Councilman, County Commissioner, and Juvenile Court Clerk Shep Wilbun, one of the two first Peoples’ Convention vets being honored. Besides being one of the original organizers of the 1991 event, Wilbun had been an aspirant for the mayoral role himself back then, and he would cite Herenton’s victory at that convention as proof of the objectivity of that event and as a precedent for that of the current one, which, as Wilbun knew, had been widely rumored to be a “setup” for mayoral candidate Tami Sawyer.

The other honoree from 1991, 90-year-old state Representative Barbara Cooper, recalled for the audience her lifetime of “40 years of segregation and 40 years of integration” and drew implicit parallels between the two conventions. In one particular, though, Cooper was at variance with the spirit of the current convention.

Several convention participants, including members of collaborating organizations and some of the candidates for office, had made a point of extolling Ranked Choice Voting (also known as Instant Runoff Voting), a method of balloting that allowed voters to rank candidates for office in order of preference, creating thereby a means for re-assigning the secondary preferences to reach a majority verdict in cases where, on first balloting, none had existed.

RCV has been approved by Shelby County voters twice but has been resisted by incumbents on the current city council, who, along with state election officials, have been able to delay its planned implementation in the forthcoming city election.The method was implicitly regarded as akin to the other progressive elements of the 2019 People’s Convention agenda and in addition to the other testifiers, a figure in the RCV movement, Aaron Fowles, had been included in the original lineup of co-sponsors allowed to address the convention.

But Cooper, in her somewhat rambling remarks to the crowd, made it clear that she had bought into a contrary theory advanced by RCV opponents that the method would run averse to the interests of the city’s current black voting majority. “IRV may be good for a minority but I’m not a minority,” Cooper said.

It was a break in the texture of things — a generational one, as clear and obvious as was Herenton’s absence from this would-be re-do of his 1991 triumph, and a deviation from populist idealism in the direction of imagined self-interest — whether a confirmation or rejection of Wilbun’s claim that the two conventions shared “the same agenda,” it was hard to say.

This moment for the elders was followed by a trio of contenders for the Super-District 8, Position 1 seat — educator Nicole Clayburn, lawyer J.B. Smiley, and Whitehaven activist Pearl Eva Walker, the ultimate endorsee. Each was asked to opine on RCV, and each responded without ambiguity: The people had spoken for the process in two referenda, and it — and they — needed to be heeded.

The convention was back on message and would stay that way — through effective solo presentations by Frank Johnson, candidate for Super District 8, Position 2, and Erika Sugarmon, candidate for Super District 9, Position 1.

The stage was set for the two mayoral candidates present — the aforementioned Sawyer and LeMichael Wilson, an unsung but hard-working mayoral entry who in his turn would cover the waterfront of social issues and inner-city concerns.

But it was Sawyer’s day, though she had to wait for hours to claim her moment before a somewhat diminished crowd. In the five minutes allotted to her, Sawyer noted that in the 200 years of its history, Memphis had never had a woman as mayor. Sensing that she was well enough known to avoid having to recount all her activist deeds of the last few years, notably including her spearheading of community efforts to dispose of Memphis’ Confederate monuments, she talked about the need to redistribute the city’s resources “to all neighborhoods” and scorned Strickland for what she said were inadequate efforts on behalf of the whole Memphis population.

She promised to do something concrete about the “school-to-prison pipeline” and to up the percentage of blacks and women benefited by the city’s ongoing MWBE (Minority and Women’s Business Enterprise) efforts.

As expected, Sawyer was named the consensus nominee for mayor by the convention, and by Sunday morning, an icon announcing her as the “winner” was a posted link on Facebook.

There is no disputing Sawyer’s determination, but neither is there any gainsaying the enormity of the task before her — a far greater one than confronted Herenton in 1991. The odds of her accomplishing the miracle of election in 2019 are beyond enormous, but at the very least she has established a head start in community consciousness that could pay dividends in 2023, when Strickland would be term-limited and such other likely candidates as current Shelby County Commission Chairman Van Turner will be making their move.

Categories
Politics Politics Beat Blog

Cohen, Lowery Hit Council Anti-IRV Ad Campaign as “Deceptive”

Lowery (l), Cohen

Two public officials backing the local opposition to Memphis City Council-backed referenda on the election ballot have charged that “the ‘public education’ campaign” endowed by the city council with $40,000 in taxpayer funds “is actually a one-sided advocacy campaign designed to influence rather than educate.”

In a press release, U.S. Representative Steve Cohen of the Memphis-based 9th Congressional district and former council chair Myron Lowery joined with the Save IRV Memphis campaign to contend that a series of ads advocating the repeal of Instant Runoff Voting (also known as Ranked Choice Voting) purport to be originated by a private PAC but are actually the products of the Carter Malone Group, a local advertising and PR agency the council has contracted with.

“They shouldn’t be using our tax dollars to fund a Vote Yes campaign in the first place, but if they do, they should disclose on every ad, email, and piece of literature that tax dollars are paying for it,” said Congressman Steve Cohen. “And they certainly shouldn’t imply that it’s all coming from a private group.”

The ads — in both audio and video format — are embedded in an email sent out from “bmalone@cmgpr.com,” the Carter Malone Group’s email address, and, as the press release notes, “explicitly push a ‘Vote yes’ message in clear advocacy, without neutral public education.” Deidre Malone, who heads the Carter Malone agency, recently confirmed that the council had asked her to handle the council’s paid publicity campaign on behalf of three ballot referenda, including the one that would repeal IRV.

In the wake of Chancellor Jim Kyle’s decision last week not to issue an injunction against the use of public funding for a one-sided advocacy campaign, Council Attorney Allan Wade used the terms “influence” and “educate” interchangeably in discussing the Council’s plans with reporters.

In the required disclaimer as to the source of their funding, the ads list “Diversity PAC,” a private political action committee — a contention that Cohen, Lowery, and the Save IRV Campaign Memphis committee all insist is purposely misleading. “The voters deserve to know when they’re being lobbied by their own money,” Lowery said. “Anything less than full disclosure is downright deceptive.”

Categories
Politics Politics Beat Blog

Kyle Passes On Issue of Council Funding of Public Funds for Referenda Campaign

JB

Kyle listening to arguments in case

After a four-day hesitation, during which time a palpable optimism flared among opponents of the three city council-supported referenda, Chancellor Jim Kyle reverted to form on Monday, ruling, as he had on an earlier request to excise the referenda from the ballot, that, as he said both times, the issue of the council’s use of public funds (estimated in the range of $30,000 to $40,000) to “educate” voters was not “ripe” for judgment.

Although Kyle acknowledged that the plaintiffs — three individuals and the Save IRV organization — had standing (a point that attorneys for city had contested), he suggested again, as he had on October 11th, that the rights or wrongs of the matter could best be adjudicated in the wake of an actual election, or at least at a time when specific consequences, as against potential ones (“mays” and “maybes,” he called them), could be alleged.

Plaintiffs Erika Sugarmon, John Marek, and Sam Goff had all presented themselves as past candidates for political office who intended to run in the city election of 2019 and would face improper obstacles favoring incumbent opponents should Ranked Choice Voting (aka Instant Runoff Voting) not be instituted, as provisionally planned by the Election Commission but as opposed in a council-sponsored referendum.

Kyle was not impressed by the plaintiffs’ argument, suggesting that he had no intention of granting either side what he referred to ironically as “a fair advantage.”

City council attorney Allan Wade, referring to Ranked Choice Voting as “a failed experiment,” expressed satisfaction with the ruling and claimed to reporters, as he had in the hearing, that the council had the right to use taxpayer funds to “influence” or “educate” voters (he used both verbs at different times) and that Mayor Jim Strickland was legally bound as city administrator to assist in executing the strategy, which opponents had likened to the council’s putting “a thumb on the scale.”

Bryce Ashby, attorney for the plaintiffs, said his side still maintained hope that the mayor could exercise independent authority by declining to sign papers that would put into action a public-information campaign as envisioned by the council. Deidre Malone, of Malone Advertising and Media Group, has confirmed that she has been approached by the council about assisting in an organized media campaign in favor of the anti-IRV referenda and two others on the ballot.

Strickland has made no public statement on the controversy.

Categories
Politics Politics Beat Blog

DNC Head Talks Up Ranked Choice Voting in Memphis

DNC chair Tom Perez at the National Civil Rights Museum on Saturday.

Tom Perez, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, paid a stop in Memphis on Saturday, at the National Civil Rights Museum for an installment of the DNC’s “Seat at the Table” tour, designed to galvanize the involvement of African-American women in the party.

In his farewell message to attendees, Perez took note of one of the major issues on the November 6th ballot — the referendum for Memphis voters on repeal of Ranked Choice Voting, a method for determining winners, sans runoffs, in multi-candidate races in which no candidate has a majority.

“I’ve spent a lot of time on that issue,” said Perez, after giving a hat-tip to Steve Mulroy, the University of Memphis law professor and former county commissioner who has been a major proponent of RCV (aka Instant Runoff Voting), scheduled to be employed in the 2019 city election, unless repealed.

Perez suggested that “the Republicans” were “trying to take it away,” though in fact it was incumbents of the nonpartisan Memphis City Council who implanted the repeal referendum on the ballot.

“If I were living here, I’d vote no on that referendum, because you’ve already voted for it,” said Perez, who referred to a previous referendum, in 2008, when Memphis voters approved the process by a 70 percent majority. “It forces candidates to talk to everyone, instead of just that one base. It fosters civility because you can’t ignore 70 percent of the people.

Perez went on: “Talk to them! What a radical concept. That’s why y’all voted for it, and that’s why they don’t want it.”