Categories
Film Features Film/TV

Never Seen It: Steve Mulroy Watches Metropolis

Steve Mulroy is the Shelby County District Attorney. He is also a science fiction fan who founded the annual Shelby County Star Trek Day. In this edition of “Never Seen It,” we filled in a major gap in Mulroy’s sci fi movie viewing: Fritz Lang’s 1927 silent masterpiece Metropolis

Chris McCoy: Steve Mulroy, what do you know about Metropolis

Steve Mulroy: I know it is an old, black-and-white, silent classic by Fritz Lang. It’s a dystopian vision of the future, I think, of a city where the workers are exploited. I think this is the one that has the robots, Rossum’s Universal Robots?

CM: This was made after Rossum’s Universal Robots, which was a stage play, but it’s one of the first films to ever actually a feature a robot. 

SM: Got it.

CM: So, how this came about was, you texted me and asked, “Should I see Megalopolis or not?” And I was like, “Well, I don’t know …” And then I gave one of my typically too-complex film critic answers. Then, you were like, “Well, I wanted to see Metropolis first to prepare myself, because I’ve never seen it.” I was like, “Oh, you said the magic words!”

153 minutes later…

CM: Okay, Steve Mulroy, you are now a person who has seen Metropolis. What did you think? 

SM: I liked it! It was a little on the long side. 

CM: We said a couple of times, “I can see why they cut this.” 

SM: Yeah, definitely could use some editing, there. But no, I mean it was great. The plot was more convoluted than I expected. It wasn’t really simplistic, so it did keep my interest. I found it visually to be really impressive — not just for its time, but on its own merits. It was interesting, all the different architectural styles. You had some Gothic, you had some Art Deco, you had some Brutalist. Both of us were pointing out how it inspired things. I thought it was reminiscent of Modern Times in overall look.

Metropolis

CM: You definitely see visual echoes of it all over the place. Frederson, for example, looks like Moff Tarkin from Star Wars. And then the Thin Man is clearly the Darth Vader figure. Metropolis, the city itself, looks like Coruscant — or Coruscant looks like Metropolis, rather. And of course, the robot that becomes Maria, George Lucas basically said “For C3PO, I want something that looks like that!” All of Tim Burton’s movies comes from this. It was sort of the height of German Expressionism.

SM: You said earlier that this was the most expensive movie ever made up until this point. There were those huge sets! There were so many scenes where the screen just had thousands of people. 

CM: They tried to drown some children. 

SM: I know, right? And there are biplanes in the city of the future that looks very much like The Jetsons

CM: One of the things I love about looking at this now — and I’ve seen this movie a dozen times in various forms — it makes me realize that, when you’re trying to see what the future looks like, you can see it to a certain extent, but there’s stuff that you’re always going to be stuck with that’s in your reality, like biplanes. We’ve got flying cars, but they can’t have just one wing. There’s gotta be two wings! They couldn’t get past that. But there’s other parts that that they that they really nailed, like the video phone. I’m not sure television had even been conceived of, but I know there wasn’t actually a working television until a few years later. There was a lot of attention paid to information technology throughout. Fredersen, the head guy, is depicted as the one who’s at the center of this web of information. And then, when he wants to sow discord to disrupt the revolution that’s coming, he tries a deep fake, basically. Make the robot look like their leader, and tell them to do destructive things.  

SM: I was going to say the plot was more complicated than I thought, because I thought it was going to be simplistic: The workers are oppressed and the elite are exploitative, and then eventually there has to be some sort of revolution, or at least some resolution. It ends up being a little bit more convoluted than that. The industrialist tries to trick them into becoming violent so they’ll have an excuse to crack down on them. And then the twist is that the real bad guy, the inventor — it’s just nihilism, right? I mean, he just wants to burn everything. 

CM: He’s gonna destroy the whole city because he’s jealous of Fredersen. 

SM: So on the one hand, I give it credit for being a little bit more complicated and interesting than a simplistic plot. On the other hand, I could criticize it for being a cop-out, because the workers are sheep. They’re easily manipulated in one direction or another. Only the noble people who decide to lead them, kind of like a white savior thing, have any agency. 

CM: And you did point that out while it was going on. It was like, wow, the masses of the people are just changing their mind on a whim. 

SM: It just takes one demagogue, and not even a full speech! Just a couple of sentences into a demagogue of a speech, and they’re ready to turn.

CM: Let’s go! 

SM: So the solution is not workers asserting their rights. It’s some sort of, I don’t know, half-assed, let’s all learn to live together …

CM: It’s a centrist movie.

SM:  (laughs) Yeah, yeah, yeah. 

CM: But the background is, this is 1927 in Germany, right? It’s 10 years after their defeat at the end of World War I. On their eastern border is the [Russian] Communist revolution. At this point, Lenin was dead, and Stalin had cracked down, so that’s the bogeyman to them, you know? 

SM: That makes sense. If the message is anti-communist but pro-worker, I guess that makes a little more sense.

CM: I think the ultimate message is, you don’t have to go too far, because if you smash the whole society, then we’re all gonna die. The flood’s gonna come and we’re all gonna die. Which is what they were seeing next door to them. But it’s also very much an admission that the workers were in a bad spot.

SM: It was definitely sympathetic to the workers. And so the theme, which they hit over your head with multiple times, is that the heart has to be the mediator between the head and the hand. What exactly does that mean? Is it some sort of like, mixed economy message? I don’t know.

CM:  Are we asking for too much from this?

SM: Maybe. 

CM: I’m with you. I want the text to give me answers. But is that what it’s supposed to do? Maybe it isn’t what he set out to do? I don’t know. It’s a centrist movie. 

SM: Yeah, it is like, we don’t have to go that far.

CM: Freder, the son, he switches place places with a worker.

SM: It’s like The Prince and the Pauper

CM: He doesn’t even make it through a whole shift. He’s like, “Whoa, this is too much!” He can’t cut it down there. What does her [Maria’s] solution look like when they want to save the children at the end? You take them to the rich people’s place, to the Hall of the Sons. Evacuate to the pleasure palace. 

SM: I thought that was good, and it made sense. Then there was the whole Whore of Babylon thing, which was an interesting side note. It definitely trafficked in the Madonna/whore binary, which was probably a product of its time.But notice the evil effect that the robot Whore of Babylon has in the upper classes. It makes them more decadent and dissolute. In the lower classes, it makes them violent. I just found it sort of an interesting dichotomy.

CM: There’s also this whole biblical thing. There’s a digression into the recreation of the story of the Tower of Babel …

SM:  Slightly changed. 

CM: Yeah, because it becomes like a …

SM: … a class warfare thing.

CM: Which is not what that story is about!

SM: I have to say I am actually pretty impressed with how sophisticated at all is, visually and thematically. When I heard it was 1927, I was expecting something really primitive. 

CM: Some of those composite shots are incredible! I counted one, it had ten elements! The miniature work is incredible. too. 

SM: Every shot where they were using miniatures or whatever to show the city from different angles was elegant and beautiful, and kind of striking. It compares favorably to some stuff from many, many decades later.

CM: There’s a reason people have been ripping this movie off for a hundred years. 

CM: The actress who played Maria, Brigitte Helm, she’s incredible. I love watching actors do this in a movie, where they’re playing two different versions of the same person, and you can tell which one is which by the way they hold their shoulders. 

SM: She does it very good job of portraying the dichotomy between the two versions of Maria. I’m forgiving the overdramatic, of its time, big acting because you don’t have the addition of the sound. You don’t have the words, right? So you’ve got to just use facial expressions and gestures to convey everything. I get all that. What bothers me about it, though, is everything takes too long. A reaction that should be a couple of seconds is 10 seconds. I don’t know if it was just the style of the time or whether it was a technical thing that they couldn’t cut as nimbly.  

CM: I think part of that is stylistic and part of it is the people who are watching this originally did not have the visual vocabulary that’s been built up over the last hundred years that you and I do. There’s a trope that you see a lot in American films from the ’30s and ’40s, where, if they want to change locations, there’ll be an exterior shot, and you see the car drive up. We wouldn’t bother to do that. 

Brigitte Helm as Maria.

SM: I give it a lot of credit. It’s more intelligent than a lot of movies that are made nowadays. 

CM: God, yes!

SM: I’m not a purist. On the one hand, I do want to respect the director’s vision, so I can understand why people don’t want to colorize movies, or whatever. But I almost wish that there was floating around a more tightly edited version of this, just so that it would have a better chance of getting wider distribution among the general public. 

CM: Well, there were! There’ve been a bunch of cuts of it over the years. We were watching the fully restored version. But that’s why some of it was lost for a long time, because it was cut way down for the American market. This version was pieced together out of several surviving negatives, one of which was found in Argentina. 

SM: The slimmed down version that was shown to the American market, did it have that missing sequence where the father and the inventor fight it out? 

CM: No. 

SM: So that was never shown? 

CM: No, that was never shown. That’s why it’s lost. 

SM: In those versions, did they have a title card that explained it? 

CM: No, they just cut it out. 

SM: That seems like a pretty essential scene to just not show. 

CM: Exactly. I think that was part of the reason why people didn’t understand it. You have a balance: this version is the completest version, and it is draggy in places, but you get the full sweep of the story. What was shown in America for a long time was butchered so badly that the plot hardly made any sense at all. There was a version that was released in the ’80s that was restored by Georgio Moroder, and it was colorized, but it was a really early colorization experiment. That’s the version that most people our age had seen. I think it’s like 90 minutes long, has songs by Freddy Mercury. It’s more like a giant music video. That’s when I was first introduced to it. I think probably on Night Flight, late night music video TV. A lot of people like to rescore it, too. One my favorite movie theater experiences of all time was an Indie Memphis screening where the Alloy Orchestra did a live score in front of an absolute packed house at The Paradiso, and it was amazing.

SM: I was just trying to think of all of the iconic sequences that this seems to have inspired. 

CM: King Kong carrying Faye Wray up to the top of the building.

SM: I think the machinery sort of inspired Modern Times

CM: Definitely Modern Times. Then Vertigo, the whole bit in the cathedral at the end. Hitchcock lifted the visuals on that, straight up. There’s so much more. People will use little riffs from it, too, because it’s taught in film schools. 

SM: Frankenstein, with the inventor’s labs. 

CM: Yeah, Freder hallucinates at the drop of a hat. Like, you need to chill, you know? I think it inspired Foundation, the city-planet of Trantor.  

SM: Even those party scenes look like Baz Luhrmann’s Great Gatsby

CM: I also noticed this time the machine man. That’s a whole Kraftwerk album.

SM: I thought it was odd that they called it the machine man since it was so obviously a woman. 

CM: Rotwang is just a a great villain. He’s got the mechanical hand, like Dr. Strangelove, which you pointed out.  

SM: He’s got the wild hair. He’s got scientist hair. 

Alfred Abel as Joh Fredersen, Rudolf Klein-Rogge as Rotwang, and Brigette Helm as The Machine Man in Metropolis.

CM: The boss Joh Fredersen, is like capital, right? The workers are like labor, right? And then there is the church, which is Maria, and then there’s an actual church, too, the cathedral. Rotwang is science. But Rotwang is the ultimate villain in the piece. It’s science fiction, but then there’s this anti-intellectual element to it, too.  

SM: Right. But it’s also anti-Luddite. 

CM: It is anti-Luddite, because it’s like, we have to have this progress. When they smash the machines, everybody dies. These are still debates that we’re having today, because we’ve never really gotten a good answer to them. Like you pointed out, the film doesn’t come to a satisfactory conclusion, either. They managed to lay out the problem, but they did not come to a satisfactory conclusion.

SM: Like you said, it’s probably unfair to expect a five-point plan at the end of it, but there was a through-line there. It was sympathy for the plight of the workers, but anti-Luddite, and anti-extremism. 

CM And anti-violence. Violence is not gonna solve these problems. What’s your bottom line? Would you recommend people out there in TV land watch Metropolis today? 

SM: If you are a cinephile you definitely need to see it, or if you’re really interested in history. I would recommend it for the average viewer, but I’d have to warn them that it’s a little patience taxing. I think maybe for the average viewer, I might recommend the slimmed down version. 

Categories
Politics Politics Feature

State vs. Local

Most people are familiar with an adage, often attributed to the late Speaker of the U.S. House Tip O’Neill, that “all politics is local.”

Until it isn’t. 

Tennesseans are becoming uncomfortably aware that state government is muscling into as many local government prerogatives as possible — in areas ranging from education to healthcare to social policy to, increasingly, law enforcement.

A number of current circumstances reflect what seems to be a war of attrition waged at the state level against the right of Memphis and Shelby County to pursue independent law-and-order initiatives.

Memphis City Council chairman JB Smiley spoke to the matter Sunday at the annual picnic of the Germantown Democratic Club at Cameron Brown Park.

Said Smiley: “You know, recently, I’ve been, against my will, going back and forth with someone in the statehouse who doesn’t care for Shelby County called Cameron Sexton. Yeah, he doesn’t believe that Shelby County has the right to exercise its voice.“

Sexton, of course, is the Republican speaker of the state House of Representatives who recently threatened to withhold from Memphis its share of some vital state revenues in retaliation for the city’s inclusion on the November 5th ballot of a referendum package soliciting citizens’ views on possible future firearms curbs.

The package lists three initiatives — a reinstatement of gun-carry permits, a ban on the sale of assault rifles, and the right of judges to impose “red-flag” laws against the possession of weapons by demonstrably risky individuals.

All the initiatives are in the form of “trigger laws,” which would be activated only if and when state policy might allow the local options. As Smiley noted, “That’s what the state did when they disagreed with the federal government when it came to abortion rights. As soon as the law changed in the country, [their] law became full and effective. That’s what we’re going to do in the city of Memphis.” 

Simultaneous with this ongoing showdown between city and state has been a determined effort by Republican state Senator Brent Taylor and others to pass state laws restricting the prerogatives of local Criminal Court judges and Shelby County District Attorney Steve Mulroy.

One piece of Taylor-sponsored legislation, passed last year, would transfer authority over capital punishment appeals from the DA to the state attorney general. Litigation against the law pursued by Mulroy and an affected defendant resulted in the measure’s being declared unconstitutional in trial court.

But the state Appeals Court reversed that judgment last week, seemingly revalidating the law and causing Taylor to crow in a social media post over what he deemed a personal victory over Mulroy, whom he accused of wanting to “let criminals off of death row” and whose ouster he has vowed to pursue in the legislature.

The fact is, however, that there will be one more review of the measure, by the state Supreme Court, before its ultimate status is made clear. 

Some of the immediate media coverage of the matter tended to play up Taylor’s declaration of victory over Mulroy, ignoring the ongoing aspects of the litigation and overlooking obvious nuances. 

One TV outlet erroneously reported the Appeals Court as having found Mulroy guilty of “inappropriate” conduct when the court had merely speculated on the legalistic point of whether the DA had appropriate standing as a plaintiff (a point that was conceded, incidentally, by the state Attorney General).

Mulroy’s reaction to the Appeals Court finding focused on the issue as having to do with governance: “The Tennessee Constitution says local voters get to elect a local resident DA to represent them in court. This law transfers power over the most serious cases, death penalty cases, from locally elected DAs across the state to one unelected state official half a state away. This should concern anyone, regardless of party, who cares about local control and state overreach.”

Categories
News News Blog News Feature

Investigation Urged on State Sen. Brent Taylor’s Online Posts

A West Tennessee prosecutor has requested a state investigation into a Memphis senator for allegedly breaking state law by posting documents online containing a defendant’s personal information, possibly after obtaining it from the Gibson County Sheriff’s Office.

District Attorney General Fred Agee confirmed to the Tennessee Lookout he filed a complaint with the Comptroller’s Office and Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, asking them to investigate whether Sen. Brent Taylor (R-Memphis) put information on X showing a man’s birth date and Social Security number, which would be a Class B misdemeanor accompanied by nearly six months in jail.

Agee, a Republican whose prosecutorial district covers Crockett, Haywood, and Gibson counties, requested the appointment of a pro tem prosecutor to look into the matter. He said the items were posted online for at least 10 hours.

“With all the identity theft that goes on daily, I felt I had a duty to report it and to also ask for a special prosecutor since [Taylor’s] social media post was directed toward me,” Agee told the Lookout.

Taylor responded to questions by text message Tuesday, saying he posted the public record “for the benefit” of constituents and West Tennesseans to show an example of “outrageous plea deals” Agee reaches. He reiterated his claim that Agee and Mulroy are “soft on crime.”

“When I discovered one of the dozens of documents, that have been passed around more than a joint at a Willie Nelson concert, may have possibly contained a Social Security number, I quickly replaced them with newly redacted documents out of an abundance of caution,” Taylor said.

As part of the investigation request, Agee said he asked the state’s investigative agencies to see whether the Gibson County Sheriff’s Office gave the information to Taylor. Separately, Gibson County Sheriff Paul Thomas has been indicted in connection with directing inmate labor to an outside company he owned as part of a $1.4 million scheme.

The situation stems, in part, from an op-ed Agee wrote Aug. 6 for The Daily Memphian supporting Shelby County District Attorney General Steve Mulroy, a Democrat accused of being soft on crime and threatened with an ouster by Taylor and House Speaker Cameron Sexton (R-Crossville). Taylor has said he will file legislation to have Mulroy removed from office during next year’s legislative session.

Taylor posted documents within the last two weeks to paint Agee as a liberal prosecutor by detailing a plea agreement Agee’s office made with Brewston Lamonte Cole, who has been convicted of multiple DUIs, drug possession, firearms possession, violation of the sex offender registry, and violation of probation. Cole was sentenced to 10 years in prison, but that was suspended for probation or supervision by Community Corrections. He had served nearly four months in jail already after having his bond revoked and will receive a harsher sentence if he doesn’t comply with probation requirements.

As part of that post, Taylor put up three Google Drive links containing the plea agreement document that listed Cole’s birthday and Social Security number. The Lookout has obtained screenshots of Taylor posts and those links, which have since been removed, and the documents reposted without the personal information.

The state Comptroller’s Office declined to confirm it has been requested to investigate the matter.

Tennessee Lookout is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Tennessee Lookout maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Holly McCall for questions: info@tennesseelookout.com. Follow Tennessee Lookout on Facebook and X.

Categories
News News Blog News Feature

Friends of George’s to Appeal Lawsuit Dismissal

Friends of George’s, the LGBTQ theater company and nonprofit organization, has promised to appeal the 6th Circuit Court of the United States’ ruling on their recent lawsuit regarding Tennessee’s drag ban.

Last week the court reversed the U.S. District Court of the Western District’s decision to halt the enforcement of the controversial law. According to the organization the court decided in a 2-to-1 ruling that they lacked standing, which led to the lawsuit being dismissed.

Melissa Stewart, attorney for the organization, said they strongly disagree with the ruling, and the court failed to address the constitutionality of the law.

“Instead, it decided this case on procedural grounds, holding that Friends of George’s does not have standing to bring this case,” Stewart said in a statement. “As Judge [Andre] Mathis’ dissent makes clear, this decision is contrary to the 6th Circuit and Supreme Court case law.”

Judge Mathis wrote in his dissent that part of Tennessee’s Adult Entertainment Act (AEA) is an “unconstitutional content-based restriction on speech.”

“The freedom to convey one’s ideas — no matter how unpopular — was seen as inalienable to the human experience, and the Framers of our Federal Constitution believed such freedom was ‘essential if vigorous enlightenment was ever to triumph over slothful ignorance,’”  Mathis said.

Mathis went on to analyze the language of the Adult Entertainment Act which makes performing “adult cabaret entertainment” on public property or in a place that a child can view it a crime. These performances are defined as those that feature “topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers, male or female impersonators, or similar entertainers.”

The dissent went on to say that Friends of George’s has the right to sue since the law could stop them from doing their shows. The Tennessee Attorney General’s office argued that the company hasn’t been harmed by the law and can’t sue. However, Mathis argued they don’t have to be in trouble to challenge the law.

Friends of George’s was required to show that they planned to continue performances and that these productions were protected by the First Amendment. The company showed videos of their past shows which included satire of The View where performers “describ[ed] sexual acts including intercourse and masturbation,” and another video showed a group of actors satirizing a song by Meatloaf while portraying sexual acts.

While the First Amendment protects both words and actions, the “expressive conduct” must convey a clear message and be understood by the audience, which Friends of George’s productions do.

Though the district court ruled that the Adult Entertainment Act was unconstitutional as it limited free speech, Mathis argued they made a mistake by saying that Mulroy couldn’t enforce the public property clause, as the theater group could not challenge that part.

“The district court erred in enjoining Mulroy from enforcing the public-property provision of the AEA because FOG lacked standing to challenge that provision,” he said. “But the district court did not err in enjoining Mulroy from enforcing Tenn. Code Ann. § 7-51-1407(c)(1)(B) because that provision is a content-based restriction on speech that fails strict scrutiny. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion by prohibiting Mulroy from enforcing that unconstitutional law in Shelby County.”

As the decision leaves the law in limbo, Friends of George’s said this leaves “thousands of drag performers as well as transgender and nonbinary people across Tennessee [to] face terrifying uncertainty about the legal ramifications they could face outside the confines of 18+ or 21+ performance venues.”

Friends of George’s is preparing to host their latest production Death Drop at Hotel Le’George on August 2nd; however, they will only allow people ages 18 and up to enter.

Categories
Politics Politics Feature

Mulroy Responds

Some six days after District Attorney Steve Mulroy was verbally eviscerated at the Shelby County Republican Party’s annual Lincoln Day banquet, Mulroy had the opportunity, before a Democratic audience, to be celebrated instead and to respond to GOP calls for his official ouster.

Mulroy had arrived as an attendee at last Wednesday night’s monthly meeting of the Germantown Democratic Club at Coletta’s on Appling when the event’s designated speaker, state Senator Sara Kyle, temporarily ceased speaking and invited him to come to the front of the room and address the large crowd on hand.

He began by thanking the audience for an extended round of applause — “It stiffens my soul” — and acknowledging his current predicament — “These are trying times right now.”

Even before the events of the last few weeks, he said, “Strangers come up to me all the time. And they say, ‘Man, I wouldn’t have your job.’ I get it. There’s no lack of stress in the job. But, you know, obviously, things have ratcheted up lately.” 

He pronounced a vow by Republican state Senator Brent Taylor to launch an ouster mechanism in the next General Assembly as “pure partisan politics” and continued, “It’s unprecedented in Tennessee history to remove somebody over what are essentially policy differences. It’s never been done. Under what we call the ‘for-cause standard,’ you have to identify specific acts or omissions that are official misconduct, or wholesale dereliction of duty.

“You know, the triggering event” — a tentative proposal to offer official diversion to nonviolent felons caught with illegal firearms — “was a program which I’ve now withdrawn. So as far as I’m concerned, there’s no need to talk about it anymore. But if anybody wants me to explain it, either now or one-on-one, I will, but the main takeaway is, don’t get caught up in arguments about these discrete little issues here and there. There’s a lot of misinformation out there. But the overarching theme is there’s no official misconduct.”

Mulroy professed to be “offended on behalf of my staff … because I happen to have 230 hardworking staff in those courtrooms every day, doing the best they can to keep Shelby County safe.”

“But, you know,” he said, “nothing’s going to happen for another six months. Six months is a long time. A lot can happen in that time. What I would ask you to do is spread the word. There’s going to be a lot of BS on social media. Over the next six months, I’d like to deputize you all to be my social media warriors, as it were, and counter the BS because at the end of the day, either Shelby County’s district attorney is chosen by the voters of Shelby County or is chosen by politicians in Nashville.” 

The governing politicians of the Republican supermajority came in for criticism as well from Kyle, a candidate for re-election this year, when she resumed her remarks. She condemned a variety of alleged GOP misprisions, including corporate tax rebates granted at the expense of maternal healthcare, inaction on gun safety bills, and Governor Bill Lee’s push for student vouchers.

Although she didn’t address the matter in her speech, the senator is devoting significant time these days to caring for her husband, Chancellor Jim Kyle, who is afflicted with CIDP (chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy) and has had to suspend his judicial caseload. More on this anon. 

Categories
Politics Politics Beat Blog

Sen. Taylor Reveals Plan for Ousting DA Mulroy

State Senator Brent Taylor confided to the Memphis Flyer on Sunday the basic outlines of the procedure he intends to set in motion to remove Shelby County District Attorney Steve Mulroy  from office. 

The plan, as the senator indicated,  will depend on legislative action in a coming session of the General Assembly, either a regular session or a specially called one. 

Taylor, a persistent  critic of Mulroy for what the senator considers laxity in local law enforcement, says his plan is based on Article VI, Section 6, of the state constitution and would call for a removal  resolution to be passed by both chambers of the legislature, to be followed by gubernatorial action to appoint a successor as Shelby  DA.

State House Speaker Cameron Sexton has also acknowledged discussing the idea of ousting Mulroy with state Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti. Taylor promised to elaborate on details of his thinking and Sexton’s at a press conference at 2 p.m. Monday at the headquarters of the Memphis Police Association on Jefferson Avenue.

Both Taylor and Sexton fired off condemnations last week of Mulroy’s announcement of a diversionary program for non-violent previous offenders charged with illegal possession of firearms.

Categories
Politics Politics Feature

The Last Straw?

Push is coming to shove in the public outrage stemming from the shooting death last week of MPD Officer Joseph McKinney. And the shoving, on behalf of stouter crackdowns on local crime, is coming from more sources than ever before.

Mayor Paul Young, who has arguably been somewhat slow on the draw in fleshing out his crime program, cruising along with an interim police chief and nobody yet to fill his ballyhooed position of public safety director, is suddenly all cries and alarms.

Sounding almost like some of the more active Republican critics of Memphis crime in the legislature, Young released a statement including these words: “Together, let’s petition our judges and the DA for stronger, swifter sentencing for violent offenses. If you are part of the judicial system, hear my voice first. We need to work together to do better for our community.”

DA Steve Mulroy himself expressed anger that a $150,000 bond that he’d previously set for previous crimes committed by the youth suspected in the death of Officer McKinney had been somehow amended by a judicial commissioner to allow the youth back on the streets through his own recognizance.

And Shelby County Commissioner Mick Wright, a leading critic of the current crime wave, was warning, on behalf of his commission mates, “We are not finished. … You’re going to see some judges get exited stage left if I have anything to say about it.”

It was a definite irony that, scarcely a week after the MPD had announced the 100th homicide in Memphis this year, Young scheduled this week’s public celebration of his first 100 days in office at Mt. Vernon Baptist Church.

Perhaps the mayor will use that occasion to outline further his and the city council’s plan for a new nonprofit organization to reverse the crime trend.

• Former Shelby County Democratic chair Gabby Salinas, who in recent years ran two close races against established Republican office-holders, has a different situation on her hands this year.

She’s running for the state House District 96 seat being vacated by Democratic incumbent Dwayne Thompson. Not a Republican contestant in sight so far, but Salinas has four Democratic rivals — Eric Dunn, Telisa Franklin, Orrden Williams Jr., and David Winston. She remains the favorite.

• As mentioned in this space of late, Democrats are seriously contesting the state House District 97 seat now held by Republican John Gillespie. Mindful of the potential perils of procrastination, they brought out some heavy artillery last week.

At a fundraiser for party candidate Jesse Huseth at the home of attorney Robert Donati last week, an important attendee was 9th District U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen, the county’s senior Democratic office-holder, who formally bestowed his endorsement on Huseth and was critical of Gillespie for legislative actions intended to shift various aspects of law-enforcement authority from the city to the state.

Cohen noted that the 97th, which was redistricted by the legislature last year, would now seem to be tilted demographically to Democrats in this election year — “up three points for Huseth and up five points for Biden.”

As Huseth himself put it, the East Memphis-based district had lost “four solid-red precincts and picked up two light-blue precincts and two light-red precincts.”

The point of the redistricting, which was carried out by the General Assembly’s GOP supermajority, remains something of a mystery, although it is said that Gillespie signed off on it, thinking it gave him more potential access to‚ and opportunity to serve, the business community.

• No doubt emboldened by the local unpopularity of Governor Bill Lee’s school-voucher program, which was formally opposed by the Memphis-Shelby County School Board and by the boards of the six municipal school districts as well, Democrats are taking another crack at the state House District 83 seat held by Mark White, House education chair and a champion of vouchers.

At least one Democrat is: political newcomer Noah Nordstrom, an MSCS Spanish teacher.

Categories
News News Blog News Feature Uncategorized

DA Sought Higher Bond for Man Killed in Police Shootout

Shelby County District Attorney General Steve Mulroy said his office ”strongly argued against lowering the bond” on Jaylen Lobley, a suspect who died in a police shoot-out Friday morning that also claimed the life of a police officer, ”citing the defendant’s danger to the community.”

The statement from Mulroy runs counter to growing anger online that lays the blame for Lobley’s release from a March crime at the feet of the DA’s office.  

“This bond was granted by a Shelby County Judicial Commissioner following a hearing where our office strongly argued against lowering the bond, citing the defendant’s danger to the community. Despite our arguments, the commissioner approved the (release on recognizance)  bond,” Mulroy said in a statement Friday afternoon. ”My office was actively prioritizing the Lobley case, identifying him as a high-risk offender and reviewing his file as part of our Project Safe Neighborhoods state-federal partnership. 

“Even though Lobley was a first-time offender, his case had been accepted for federal prosecution. This is consistent with my firm belief, made a part of our “V11” violent crime initiative, that individuals found with stolen cars and guns, or found with Glock switches, can pose a danger and must be dealt with accordingly.”

Mulroy said once he heard of the shooting, he promptly called the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation to handle the case. 

“I’m outraged and deeply saddened by Officer Joseph McKinney’s passing and extend my heartfelt condolences to his family, loved ones, and colleagues at MPD,” Mulroy said. 

On Friday afternoon, Memphis Mayor Paul Young called for “tough love” in criminal sentencing. 

“Together, let’s petition our judges and the DA for stronger, swifter sentencing for violent offenses,” he said in his weekly email address to citizens. “If you are part of the judicial system, hear my voice first. We need to work together to do better for our community.

“Enough is enough. We simply must do more to hold violent offenders accountable, even when they are teenagers. We must do more to protect our community — our entire community. 

“We must demand tougher gun laws. We must demand sentencing that mirrors our love for our community. Sometimes, that love needs to be tough love.”

“Officer Joseph McKinney chose to wear the Memphis Police Department uniform. He chose to serve his city. On his behalf, and in honor of the choices made by every man and woman who wears the uniform, I ask you to join me in action. Let’s make certain that Officer Joseph McKinney’s brave choices stand for something greater.”

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

Super Notes (& Feedback)

As various MAGA spokespersons made clear, the partisans of former president Donald Trump have nursed dark suspicions that the highly public romance between songstress Taylor Swift and Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce is but a cover for coming propaganda in favor of Democratic president Joe Biden, whom Swift is reliably known to favor.

Those conspiracy-mongers should have been at a local Super Bowl party hosted by Criminal Court clerk aide Barry Ford, a Democrat, and attended by several other prominent Democrats, including DA Steve Mulroy, Shelby County diversity official Shep Wilbun (a veritable encyclopedia of NFL history), and state Representative Joe Towns.

Ford, a diehard fan of the San Francisco 49ers, had decked out his house with 49er paraphernalia and, joined by several others present, arguably a majority, made his 49er partisanship obvious.

Alternatingly, he kept up a running lament that Biden, whom he enthusiastically supports, hasn’t been making enough public appearances to maximize his reelection chances.

For Ford, anyhow, what Biden does clearly loomed larger than whether Swift and Kelce say “I do” or don’t.

And, like most Americans, he has no trouble keeping his politics and his sports fandom separate.

Perhaps, too, those concerned Trump partisans should just have some patience. Taylor Swift’s song litany largely consists of spirited “gotcha last” rebukes of her erstwhile and subsequently discarded boyfriends.

• Meanwhile, two matters dealt with in this space last week drew clarifying responses. First was a pair of statements from City Hall regarding our disclosure of prospects that Memphis native Maura Black Sullivan might be in line to become the city’s chief operating officer. (These responses arrived in time to be posted in the online version of our report but not in time for the print edition.)

“I can confirm that we had early talks with Maura Sullivan about a different position with the Young administration, not the COO/CAO position. We have a strong leader currently acting in the COO role who has my full faith and confidence.” — Mayor Paul Young

“The role we initially discussed was a high level position on the Mayor’s cabinet. And while talks about that position haven’t continued, we do have an ongoing dialogue with her and many others who we consider allies in the work of creating a stronger Memphis.” — Chief Communications Officer Penelope Huston.

One is left to wonder: What other “high level” position has been the subject of discussions with Sullivan, who is currently employed as COO of Metro Nashville Public Schools and who had previously served as COO for Chattanooga Mayor Andy Berke and, before that, as deputy COO for former Memphis Mayor AC Wharton?

But so be it. It is certainly to be hoped that Mayor Young, who has had his problems so far squaring things with the city council, ultimately succeeds in getting the staff he wants.

• Also in our mailbag this week is the following clarifying statement from DA Steve Mulroy concerning the County Commission’s passage, reported here last week, of a measure desired by the DA that equalizes the pay scale for county and state employees on his staff.

“I’m a state employee, so I’ve always been at the top. So parity was never a concern for me.

“Using county dollars, the county gave a salary supplement to supervisors of all stripes, even state employees who were supervisors. I took those supplements away from the state supervisors, on the rationale that county money shouldn’t be going to state employees who were already getting paid way more than comparably experienced county counterparts.

“Out of fairness, I included myself in that, and took away my county-funded supplement, forswearing all county funds, and relying only on my state salary.

“A TV reporter the other day asked me if I was going to restore that supplement to myself, now that the County Commission has acted. I said, no, my pay cut stands.”