The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Wednesday over Tennessee’s law banning gender-affirming care for transgender children, and the decision could have an impact far beyond the kids at the center of the case.

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority appeared supportive of Tennessee’s 2023 law, which banned gender-affirming care for minors. Chief Justice John Roberts, on multiple occasions, implied that he did not believe the Supreme Court should be getting involved in the issue and should instead leave it up to the states. 

“We might think that we can do just as good a job with respect to the evidence here as Tennessee or anybody else, but my understanding is that the Constitution leaves that question to the people’s representatives, rather than to nine people, none of whom is a doctor,” Roberts said. “It seems to me that this is something where we are extraordinarily bereft of experience.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch, who is the author of a 2020 decision banning workplace discrimination against trans and gay employees and is considered to be the plaintiffs’ best chance at flipping a conservative justice, stayed silent throughout the entire proceeding. 

Meanwhile, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito both seemed skeptical of the science behind providing gender-affirming care for the health and well-being of trans kids. Alito, at one point, posed the question of whether or not transgender people are an “immutable class,” a requirement to be subject to the stricter scrutiny of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

“I acknowledge Justice Alito that there is a lot of debate happening here and abroad about the proper model of delivery of this care and exactly when adolescents should receive it and how to identify the adolescents for whom it would be helpful,” U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said. “But I stand by that there is a consensus that these treatments can be medically necessary for some adolescents, and that’s true no matter what source you look at.”

Prelogar and ACLU attorney Chase Strangio contended that Tennessee’s law breaches the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating along the lines of sex.

One core argument is that by denying masculinizing treatments to children assigned female at birth but allowing those same treatments for children assigned male at birth and vice versa, Tennessee is discriminating based on sex. 

“The problem with Tennessee’s law here is not that it’s just a little bit over-inclusive or a little bit under-inclusive, but that it’s a sweeping, categorical ban where the legislature didn’t even take into account the significant health benefits that can come from providing gender-affirming care, including reduced suicidal ideation and suicide attempts,” Prelogar said.

She referenced a similar debate in West Virginia, where legislators opted to require an extra diagnosis of gender dysphoria rather than ban treatment outright.

One of the most notable moments came during Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s questioning of Tennessee Solicitor General Matt Rice. Rice’s stance largely revolved around the idea that Tennessee’s law was not based upon the sex of the person at all but upon the application of the treatments being used, meaning it would not be subject to the Equal Protection Clause. 

“Given your argument, you’re saying your state can block gender treatment for adults too,” Sotomayor said.

“Your Honor, we think that if we’re assuming a similarly-worded statute, that there still would not be a sex or a transgender-based classification,” Rice responded. 

Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson’s questioning of Strangio opened a different area of concern when she said that she worried that a ruling on this case could undermine precedents that were set by cases such as the one that allowed interracial marriage. In the landmark  Loving v. Virginia case, the state made a similar argument to the one posed by Roberts, that this is not a constitutional issue and, therefore, the Supreme Court should leave it up to the state. 

“If we’re just sort of doing what the state is encouraging here in [Loving v. Virginia] where you just sort of say, well, there are lots of good reasons for this policy, and who are we as the court to say otherwise, I’m worried that we’re undermining the foundations of some of our bedrock equal protection cases,” Brown said.

A ruling is expected sometime in the spring.

The post Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Tennessee’s Ban of Gender-Affirming Care for Minors appeared first on Nashville Banner.

A legal battle over the expansion of Murfreesboro-based Middle Point Landfill, which is expected to approach capacity by 2028, went before the Tennessee Court of Appeals for oral arguments on Tuesday. 

Operated by Republic Services, Middle Point landfill has served 37 Tennessee counties, including Davidson County, since it opened in 1988. But it is quickly filling up, and in recent years, Davidson County and Rutherford County have become the sole users of Middle Point, according to attorneys on Tuesday. But when BFI Waste System Services, Republic Services’ subsidiary, attempted to expand the landfill by 100 acres in 2021, the Murfreesboro Regional Planning Board denied the request. 

At the chancery level, Chancellor Russell Perkins ruled that errors made by the board in following the correct procedure for rejecting the plan were “harmless,” denying BFI’s legal bid to overturn the board’s decision. The company argued in its appeal that while there could be valid reasons to deny the expansion of the landfill, errors in the procedure could not be overlooked. 

“The board and then the court erred in not properly applying the roles of a board of review for a landfill expansion and the Tennessee Department of Environment and Commerce — excuse me, Conservation — as to what its role is,” said attorney Bob Boston, who represents BFI. “It conflated the two, and it resulted in an adverse decision that should be reversed.”

Boston argued that in its decision, the board considered factors that were not under its jurisdiction, such as odor, pollution and the wishes of the residents. 

“‘Waste Management’s request to expand the southern landfill may be denied only if inconsistent with the board’s waste management plan,’” Boston said, reading an opinion from a similar case that appeared before the Court of Appeals in 2007. “It says ‘necessity, compatibility and desirability, notwithstanding.’ That’s what TDEC exists for, to handle those three things.”

But attorney John Rogers, on behalf of the board, argued that BFI was ignoring the fact that the board was upholding the region’s solid waste management plan, which had been submitted to and approved by TDEC.

“BFI never once addressed the board’s denial on the basis that expanding the Middle Point Landfill was inconsistent with the plan, and that the region plan indicates that the priorities for the region in the next five years are to increase recycling opportunities,” Rogers said. “BFI also never meaningfully addressed other bases for denial, such as the expansion itself is unnecessary, it’s not environmentally acceptable, and it’s not cost-effective.”

Judge Neal McBrayer was the most inquisitive of the three-judge panel, taking center stage as Judges Jeffrey Usman and Andy Bennett mostly stayed silent. But McBrayer did not seem to show a preference, and was instead critical of both sides. He seemed skeptical that the procedural mistakes made by the board were actually meaningful enough to overturn their decision. Concurrently, he also seemed unconvinced that the board had not inflated the meaning of the regional solid waste plan. 

“You’re reading more into this plan than is actually there,” McBrayer said. “The statute directs the board to match up the application to what is in the plan. I see where it’s encouraging disposal of waste in other ways than landfill, but it doesn’t exclude the possibility that landfill would continue to be a part of the process.”

The panel did not indicate when a decision could be made.

The post Battle Over the Murfreesboro Landfill, Home to Nashville’s Trash, Lands in Appeals Court appeared first on Nashville Banner.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case that will determine whether or not transgender children in Tennessee have access to healthcare. Here’s what to expect from both sides and how we got here. 

What’s at stake

L.W. v. Skrmetti arose out of a challenge to a 2023 Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for transgender minors. Not only does the law ban surgery intended to cure gender dysphoria — an extremely rare procedure — it also forbids the prescription of hormone blockers, a practice major health organizations have cited as crucial to the health and well-being of minors who experience gender dysphoria.

Twenty-six states currently have laws banning gender-affirming care. According to the Human Rights Campaign, about 39 percent of the country’s trans kids live in those states. Research shows that these prohibitions have a severe negative impact on the mental health of trans kids. 

The plaintiff’s argument

American Civil Liberties Union attorney Chase Strangio will argue on behalf of the plaintiffs in the case, three transgender adolescents, their families and a medical provider. The ACLU contends that Tennessee’s law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which requires that all people be treated equally.

“SB1 falls squarely within the heartland of sex-based classifications that arise from sex-based generalizations,” the ACLU’s brief reads. “It imposes differential treatment based on the sex an individual is assigned at birth.”

Under Tennessee Law, prescribing masculinizing treatments to a minor-assigned female at birth is prohibited, even though those same treatments can legally be prescribed to a minor-assigned male at birth. The ACLU argues this is discriminatory. 

“SB1 enforces this sex-based rule for the express purpose of imposing a government preference that minors conform to overbroad sex-based generalizations,” the brief reads. “That is a classic sex classification, and it triggers heightened scrutiny.”

The state’s argument

Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti’s office argues that the state has a right to make laws regulating medical practices. 

“It is not unconstitutional discrimination to say that drugs can be prescribed for one reason but not another,” their brief reads. “Weighing risks and benefits, states (and the federal government) draw age and use-based distinctions for drugs all the time.”

The AG’s arguments largely depend on denying scientific evidence that gender-affirming care is necessary for the health and safety of trans children. 

History in Court

In June 2023, U.S. District Court Judge Eli Richardson, a Donald Trump appointee, blocked Tennessee’s law. However, the next month, a three-judge panel in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned his ruling, becoming the first federal court to allow a ban on gender-affirming care. The Supreme Court granted the case a hearing in June.  

Following Tuesday’s arguments, a decision from the majority-conservative Supreme Court will be expected in the spring.

The post Supreme Court to Hear Arguments in Trans Care Ban appeared first on Nashville Banner.

Former District 28 Metro Councilmember Tanaka Vercher is suing Tennessee State University, alleging the school fired her from her role as director of financial aid for refusing to participate in illegal activities. 

According to a complaint filed in Davidson County Chancery Court on Monday, Vercher worked in TSU’s administration for 21 years. In her position, she performed a “reconciliation” process where she confirmed that students who had applied for federal financial aid were eligible for that aid, a necessary step before the government can distribute funds. But she alleges that in August, amid the school’s economic troubles, consultants and school leadership attempted to pressure her into requesting the distribution of federal financial aid before the reconciliation process was complete. 

The suit alleges the issue came to a climax on Aug. 27, when Vercher met with then-TSU Chief of Staff Curtis Johnson, Barbara Tharpe, who now works in Vercher’s former role, consultant Beau Briggs and other top administrators, including members of the president’s office. 

“During this meeting, Ms. Vercher estimated that more than twenty percent of TSU students had been admitted without proof of a high school diploma or its equivalent,” reads the suit. A high school diploma is required for a student to be eligible for financial aid. “Her refusal to request funds for these students meant a loss of approximately $7,000,000 in available cash to TSU. Mr. Briggs repeated that TSU could not wait until the reconciliation process was complete in October for distribution of these funds.”

On Aug. 28, Vercher received an email from TSU informing her that she had been fired. 

“She had previously received highly favorable performance reviews and had just been given a raise in July, one month earlier,” reads the suit. “No reasonable explanation exists for Ms. Vercher’s termination. The only explanation is that TSU was retaliating against her for her refusal to request government funds for TSU, to which she knew TSU was not entitled. The action that TSU was requesting Ms. Vercher take was illegal and a violation of important public policy.”

Vercher, who is represented by Elizabeth Hart of the Franklin-based Swafford Law Firm, is asking for back pay, front pay and damages. 

The suit is yet another bump in the road for TSU during ongoing issues. On Nov. 22, the school’s board unanimously voted to fire the school’s top lawyer and cease payments to former president Glenda Glover, who was set to be paid $1.7 million over the next four years.

Update, 2 p.m.: A day later, TSU emailed the following statement:

“Tennessee State University has been made aware of the lawsuit filed yesterday and does not comment on pending litigation. We are committed to upholding the highest standards of integrity and will address the matter appropriately as it progresses. All further questions should be directed to the State Attorney General’s Office.”

The post Former Metro Councilmember Alleges TSU Fired Her Because She Wouldn’t Break Federal Rules appeared first on Nashville Banner.

On a recent afternoon, Textile Fabrics is bustling with activity. 

A Belmont design student at one end of the cutting counter has laid out a dress pattern she designed. Veteran employee Vicki Long helps her select the right fabrics, as she’s done for countless others over her 28 years here.

At the other end of the cutting counter, employee Charles Brown is working on repurposing three thrifted blazers, sorting through laces and silks in hopes of saving the jackets from an untimely end. 

The peaceful, focused energy of the store is interrupted by a dog coming through the door. Everyone turns around to greet Bella, who belongs to Sheila Cook, a customer at Textile Fabrics for 30 years.

“I see a sign in the front that makes me sad,” Cook said. “I’m retired, so I understand it, but I’m sad about it.” 

“30 percent off retirement sale,” is plastered across the windows in big, bold, red letters. Textile Fabrics in Berry Hill off of Craighead Street is set to close as soon as it sells out of fabric or someone purchases the building. 

‘Chevrolet and a Mercedes’

“I’ve been unwell for a while, and it just seemed like the right time,” Textile Fabrics owner Chip Grimes told the Banner. 

Grimes has owned the shop for 32 years. 

“I don’t have anybody in the family to take it over or anything, and I just can’t put the time into it or be here like I was able to earlier,” he said. “I wasn’t planning on closing it quite so soon but it’s just the way it worked out.”

When he took over, the store was in Green Hills, but it moved to multiple locations before it settled into its current location about nine years ago. His parents purchased the store in the 1980s, but the Grimes family’s involvement in the fabric business goes even further back. His grandfather owned a fabrics store right here in Nashville, where Grimes’ father worked.

So, the love for fabrics runs deep in the family. But, like his mother, Grimes has never learned to sew himself. 

“I’m not that patient,” he said, adding that he finds joy in watching other people bring their ideas into fruition at his store. 

“We have several different classes, including a ‘sit and sew’ for people to work on their individual projects. So, I see them struggling and getting help with all the stuff that they do,” Grimes said. “They seem to have a good time doing it.”

Much of Grimes’ work entails locating the highest quality fabrics, and curating such a selection can be a lot more work than it sounds. 

“We go to shows, and sometimes go to markets. And then, of course, salesmen come here with their samples,” Grimes said. “Lately, it’s easiest to get stuff through the internet although we prefer to see it in person, because it’s so tactile, you know, you need to get the feel and everything right.”

Over the years, Grimes tried to go the extra mile to make sure he had stocked just what his customers seek — whether it’s a polyester blend for less than $20 per yard or a camel hair blend for more than $130 per yard. Cook has certainly appreciated the effort, which has contributed to her longevity.

“They have a little bit of everything for everybody, and they always listen to their customers about what they want with fabric,” Cook said. “Nashville needs this store, so I hope somebody buys it.”

While a city like New York may have an entire district devoted to fabric stores, in Nashville, Textile Fabrics is the go to place for anyone looking for quality fabrics. And while one could make their way out to one of the three Joann fabric stores on the outskirts of the city, or Botani Fabrics on Nolensville for synthetic material, just a few minutes perusing the aisles at Textile Fabrics is a reminder of why the slightly — but not by much — higher price tags are worth it. 

Customer Connie Smith, a friend of Cook’s, said the comparison between a place like Joann and Textile Fabrics is simple. 

“Chevrolet and a Mercedes,” she said.

A fit for everyone

The Textile Fabric’s clientele ranges far and wide. Women needing a dress for the Swan Ball might be shopping next to drag queens assembling their outfits. A touring musician might be shopping for tour outfits next to a man who needs to make pants long enough to conceal the stilts on which he performs. Someone who does vintage furniture reupholstery might be shopping next to someone looking for water-resistant materials to reupholster their boat.

“We get a lot of photographers coming in who need backdrops. We get lots of audio engineers who want fabric to cover sound panels in their studio. Not a week, I would say, goes by that we don’t have at least one,” employee Charles Brown said.

Cook and Smith’s favorite pieces in their wardrobes all began as bolts of fabric displayed along the aisles of Textile Fabrics. Smith can recall multiple pieces over the years that she no longer wears but can’t help but keep around, feeling as if they’re art pieces. Because while a piece of clothing from Shein or Zara or even Louis Vuitton or Dior has hundreds of thousands of identical copies, many of the pieces in Smith and Cook’s closets are one of one. 

“I’m hard to fit. Most women are not just going to pick a dress off the rack and it fits in every area,” Smith explained. “That’s why I like to have clothes made, because my clothes fit.”

And Rosie Barnett is who they have to thank. She has been working at Textile Fabrics for as long as Cook has been a customer. And she’s been sewing since she was just nine years old. 

“There was a lady that lived next door to us when I was growing up, and she’d sew for other people,” Barnett said. 

“Back then [in the 1960s], there was a lot of prejudices. So she would go to their house to fit them. She taught me how to sew the correct way, where no one would be able to tell whether you made it, or you bought it.”

Barnett has crafted clothing for everyone from Swan Ball attendees to touring musicians to local news anchors. She pointed at a green silk satin 1950s swing dress she once made for one of her coworker’s daughters, now on display. But she won’t make things for just anyone.

“I’m very selective about the projects that I take. I kind of get a feel for their personality,” she said. 

Sewing clothing from scratch is a time-consuming process — especially when you have a weekly commute between Nashville and Chattanooga. When she moved to Chattanooga 15 years ago after her husband got a new job, she quit Textile Fabrics. But two weeks later, she was back. 

“That was enough time, and then I said, I want to go back to work,” Barnett said. 

She’s been working part-time ever since. 

While Barnett may be the only staff member who consistently picks up projects for other people, all of the staff sews — “threadaholics,” as they call themselves. Brown is one, and he come by it honestly.

“My mom, so she’s a seamstress and tailor — she actually works here now one day a week, she started a couple of months ago — but I remember coming when I was in high school and sort of studying the fabrics and stuff and just sort of learning what is what,” Brown said. “At that point, I already knew I wanted to be a designer.” 

One day while wandering the aisles of Textile Fabrics, Brown met a woman who was a teacher at the O’More College of Design. She told Brown about a design school she went to in Atlanta. 

“I wrote it down in my little sketchbook, went home and looked it up. And that’s where I ended up going to college,” Brown said. “A lot of my life spun off from just happening upon this fashion design teacher in a fabric store. So, you know, 20 something years later, I’m working at the fabric store that sort of fed me even as a kid.”

While Brown’s first collection out of college may have used Joann fabrics — he was working there at the time — he quickly upgraded. 

“Anytime I’ve had a client who needed something clearly remarkable or special, I’ve always come here,” Brown said. “I would say that our store is on par with the best in the country, and every time I travel, I go to fabric stores. I don’t see how any local designers or makers could do what they do without us to some degree.”

And while everything is still up in the air, Grimes still has high hopes that the store will live on. 

“I wasn’t planning on selling it, but I’ve had several express interest in it,” Grimes said. “So I’m hoping it’ll continue in some form not with me involved, but with somebody else.”

“It’s a really cool place, and it’s great to sort of be in the epicenter of the creative community in terms of fashion, in terms of clothing, garment making,” Brown said. “Not everyone considers themselves designers, not everyone considers themselves seamstresses, but we all kind of end up intersecting here. It’s a great community center in that way, and I’m hoping we can find an owner and stay open and maybe even in the new space, create more space for community to meet and congregate.”

The post Textile Fabrics, a Nashville Institution, Set to Close Soon After More than 50 Years appeared first on Nashville Banner.

The Tennessee Supreme Court will hear a case from the Nashville Banner appealing the sealing of court documents related to the competency of longtime Davidson County Criminal Court Judge Cheryl Blackburn. 

Defense attorneys and prosecutors have long been concerned about Blackburn’s performance following a stroke she had in 2021. Throughout a five-day murder trial in June that the Banner attended, Blackburn stumbled over her words, misspoke and appeared to fall asleep multiple times. But when the Banner attempted to unseal a motion filed by a defense attorney in a criminal trial that made specific allegations about Blackburn’s competency, the publication was denied by Judge Angelita Blackshear Dalton despite no opposition from the state or defense attorneys. The Tennessee Court of Appeals later narrowly upheld Dalton’s ruling. 

“The trial court clerk shall file the record on appeal within thirty days from the date of entry of this order,” reads the Supreme Court’s order, entered on Thursday. “The record on appeal shall include any filings and hearing transcripts regarding the motion to disqualify Judge Cheryl Blackburn and the Nashville Banner’s motion to intervene and to unseal records.”

This is only the third media case the Supreme Court has taken up in the past 10 years. 

Banner Editor Steve Cavendish was grateful for the court’s decision to hear the case.

“Our courts have credibility when they are open and transparent,” he said. “When judges ignore the rules and then seal files that could be critical of their performance, it creates the appearance of a cover-up. Transparency is always the answer for creating public trust in our institutions.”  

Like other government entities, the courts are public. That means that court proceedings must be open to the public and the documents they produce must also be accessible. As with any laws surrounding public and open government, there are exceptions. But those exceptions are strict. 

When a judge does have a valid reason to seal documents in a case, they must enter a written order explaining why they are sealing that document and cite case law to back it up. 

However, as reported by Banner in June, Davidson County Criminal Court judges have been shirking that responsibility. Not only has the Banner confirmed multiple cases and case documents being sealed without the filing of an order, but in Davidson County, the sealing of a document in a criminal court case means the public may never be aware that the document existed in the first place. 

When Blackburn sealed the documents related to her own health, she did not file a written order. 

“What legal standard and standard of review should apply to a motion to unseal records when no initial sealing order was filed?” the Supreme Court asks in their order. 

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the Tennessee Association of Broadcasters, the Tennessee Coalition for Open Government and the Tennessee Press Association have all filed a brief supporting the Banner’s motion to unseal documents.

The post Tennessee Supreme Court to Hear Banner Case Seeking Judicial Records appeared first on Nashville Banner.

The Tennessee Court of Appeals heard arguments on Thursday over whether or not a state law taking control of Metro’s airport authority violated the Home Rule Amendment of the Tennessee constitution. 

In October 2023, a three-judge panel unanimously ruled to strike down the law, but the state filed an appeal one month later. The law, passed during the 2023 legislative session, came during an onslaught of legislation targeting Nashville. The wave also included a bill to cut the Metro Council in half, a bill that would have undone part of the fairgrounds charter and a law that would have given the state control of Metro’s sports authority board. So far, Metro has been successful in getting all four laws thrown out.  

“Metro Nashville challenged each of these statutes on Home Rule Amendment grounds,” Metro Legal attorney Melissa Roberge said. “And as we stand here today, all of those statutes have been enjoined.”

The Home Rule Amendment of the Tennessee Constitution says that the state legislature cannot pass laws targeting one single local government. The three-judge panel agreed with Metro that this bill, which vacated a mayor-appointed board and replaced it with a board appointed by Gov. Bill Lee and the speakers of the House and the Senate, violated the Home Rule Amendment. 

“[The bill] starts by using metropolitan airport authorities, that’s Nashville, Memphis, Knoxville and Chattanooga,” Roberge said, explaining how the bill singles out Nashville. “And then the funnel gets more narrow with a population threshold of 500,000 so now we just have Nashville and Memphis, and then they use the form of government classification, and now we just have Metro Nashville.”

The state argued that in the future, other jurisdictions, such as Shelby County, could consolidate to become a metropolitan form of government, therefore being affected by the law. But the questioning by Thursday’s three-judge panel — comprised of Jeffrey Usman, Neal McBrayer and Thomas Frierson — was skeptical of this argument. 

“Does that render the substantive provision of the Tennessee constitution then little more than a drafting hurdle for the legislature if you can draft it in such a way that theoretically, it’s possible you don’t have to change anything, but realistically it’s never going to apply to any other jurisdiction?” Usman asked.

Shelby County has attempted to consolidate on three occasions and failed each time. 

Assistant Solicitor General Philip Hammersley also argued that the oversight of the airport is a matter of statewide concern and therefore should not be affected by the equal protection guarantee in the Tennessee Constitution, which “ensures that similarly situated entities receive equal treatment.” 

BNA is, by far, the busiest commercial airport in the state, and one of the legislature’s big arguments in passing the bill was that the state should have some say in oversight of such an essential part of Tennessee’s economy. 

“That new traffic creates unique problems among metropolitan airports, including an unprecedented need for more gates, more concourses, more parking, and more amenities,” reads the state’s brief. “Along with the singular regulatory problems that growth in traffic creates for Nashville International Airport, it also generates unparalleled economic growth.”

But again, this seemed to raise some eyebrows from Usman, who questioned if this argument contradicted the state’s Home Rule argument. 

“In your brief, as you transition into the equal protection analysis, the first arguments you make are specific to Nashville’s airport,” said Usman. “Now to say that the idiom of having your cake and eating it too comes to mind here in terms of can you argue at the local legislation based upon population, type of government and then argue in equal protection analysis, in terms of Nashville’s airport? Doesn’t it have to be one way or the other here?”

The judges gave no indication of when they might release an opinion, but as of now Metro will retain control of the airport authority board unless the appellate court overturns the trial court’s opinion.

The post Nashville, State Square Off in Appeals Court Over Airport Authority appeared first on Nashville Banner.

Incumbent Democrat Bo Mitchell beat Republican challenger and District 10 Metro Councilmember Jennifer Frensely Webb by 10 points to retain his seat as state house District 50 representative. 

“We’ve got most of the precincts in and right now we’re up by 11 percent, about three thousand votes. We don’t think there’s three thousand votes outstanding, so we win,” Mitchell said shortly after the early vote totals came out close to 8 p.m. 

“Now let’s sit here and pray for this,” Mitchell said, gesturing towards the the presidential race on the TV. 

Tensions were high in that race from the beginning, when Mitchell challenged Webb’s qualifying petition, which required 25 signatures to be valid. Webb acquired 31 signatures, but with the help of a handwriting expert, Mitchell challenged the validity of those signatures, and at a later hearing one of the signers admitted under oath to also signing his son’s name, which is a felony. 

While the Davidson County Election Commission allowed Webb’s candidacy to go forward, there is an ongoing legal dispute in Davidson County Chancery Court over the signatures.  

Aside from the legal challenges, Mitchell also outraised Webb, more than doubling her numbers with the backing of local PAC’s. Mitchell raised $95,617 and spent $25,100 in the third quarter of the year, with just over $70,000 coming from PACs. Webb raised $42,813 and spent $16,554, with only $1,000 coming from PACs. 

Mitchell’s election night party at Tailgate Brewery was nervy, but not for his race. Dozens of Mitchell supporters donned in Kamala Harris gear were confident that early voting numbers would seal the deal long before they came out, and had already moved on to focusing on the presidential race.

But over at Plaza Mexican Grill, a small gathering of Webb supporters — mostly her family — were nervous from the outset. 

“If early voting ain’t equal, then I’m going to lose,” Webb said before the early vote was announced. Over the next hour, she and her son repeatedly brought out a pen and paper to jot down results from campaign workers long before any results had come out. When early voting was announced, the energy left the room. 

Webb and Mitchell, who waged a contentious race, did not exchange any phone calls. 

“I didn’t get dirty like he did with all the lies,” Webb told supporters. “I stayed true to who I was. We’ll be back. Now people know my name. People are going to have to come up with a pretty strong Democrat.”

Here’s a look at some of the other key local races. 

House District 52

In District 52, Democratic incumbent Rep. Justin Jones beat Republican Challenger Laura Nelson as expected.

In a heavily blue district, Jones gained national attention following his short-lived expulsion from the Tennessee House in 2023. During that time he raised more than a million dollars. He managed to win this race while barely spending any of that money, and is still sitting on nearly a million dollars. 

Jones spent much of the week in the Midwest on the campaign trail for Vice President Kamala Harris.

House District 53

In District 53, Democratic incumbent Rep. Jason Powell beat Republican challenger Yog Nepal to maintain his seat. Powell has represented the heavily blue district since 2012. Ruben Dockery ran as an independent.

House District 51

In District 51, Democratic incumbent Aftyn Behn defeated independent Jeff Ketelsen. Behn had 77 percent of the vote with 61 percent of votes counted.

Unopposed

In House Districts 54, 55, 56, 58 and 59, Democrats Vincent Dixie, John Ray Clemmons, Bob Freeman, Harold M. Love Jr., and Caleb Hemmer each respectively won their elections unopposed. 

Senate

In the only local state Senate race, District 20 Democratic incumbent Heidi Campbell beat Republican Challenger Wyatt Rampy by 58.8 percent 41.2 percent with 60 percent of the vote counted. Campbell has held the seat since 2020, when she flipped the district from red to blue with a victory over Steve Dickerson.

Ty Wellemeyer contributed to this report.

The post Mitchell Defeats Webb for District 50 House Seat appeared first on Nashville Banner.

Today is Election Day. 

The polls are open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. All voters who are in line at 7 p.m. will be able to vote, so be sure to stay in line. Voters do not need to have their voter registration card but should have a federal or state photo ID.

Shortly after the polls close, the Davidson County Election Commission will post early voting and absentee ballot results. From there, precinct data will be released throughout the night as the ballots are counted. But while local election results will largely be available later tonight, don’t be surprised if the presidential election results take a few days to be finalized. 

Here’s some other helpful information to make navigating election day a little easier. 

Where do I vote?

Voters can go to the Davidson County polling place finder website to find their assigned polling place. Some polling places have changed since 2020, so double-check your precinct, especially if you did not vote in August or local elections last year. Be sure to check and make sure you receive the correct ballot once you have checked in to vote. You can see a Davidson County sample ballot here, or use Ballotpedia’s sample ballot lookup tool for a more exact sample of what your ballot will have on it. 

How do I get there?

WeGo will be offering free bus rides all day on Election Day. Whether riders are using the bus to get to work, school or the polls, they can just hop on the bus and go without having to pay a fare for all rides within Davidson County. Riders can find a full schedule with routes here.

Still trying to decide?

Check out the Nashville Banner’s 2024 voter’s guide, where we have coverage of the issues that matter most to our readers based on a community survey, interviews and details on all the candidates, and dozens of stories covering the lead-up to the election. 

Some of our most recent stories include coverage of Davidson County’s early voting numbers, which ended slightly behind the 2020 election cycle and coverage of fundraising in the race for Senate between Democrat Gloria Johnson and incumbent Marsha Blackburn. Voters will also find expansive coverage of Mayor Freddie O’Connell’s transit referendum, which voters can either vote for or against. 

Where should I look for results?

You’ve come to the right place. The Banner has a live blog starting when the polls open at 7 a.m. that we will be updating throughout the day with anything voters may need to know. Additionally, this evening we will have reporters out at various election parties covering candidates’ first reactions to the results. 

Live election results can be found on our website here beginning at 7 p.m.

The post From Poll Locations to Candidate Guides, Here is Everything You Will Need for Election Day appeared first on Nashville Banner.

On Oct. 23, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti sent out a release about a 2022 plan to release and relocate vetted immigrants from Louisiana and Mississippi detention centers to Nashville. A plan that, in fact, never came to fruition.

Despite this, Skrmetti sued the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in 2023 for public records and correspondence around the thwarted transfer, including communications between key parties like employees of the Tennessee Immigrant & Refugee Rights Coalition and Nashville’s mayor’s office. 

Skrmetti did not ask for correspondence with Gov. Bill Lee’s office in his official records request.

That suit was dismissed in September when ICE provided the AG with 384 pages of documents, which included emails and a spreadsheet from ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) listing information about the immigrants set to be released, like country of origin, reason for release and crime.

In his press release about the documents, Skrmetti cast the immigrants as “dangerous convicted criminals.” 

But, the Banner reviewed the data and found that, of 7,737 vetted immigrants ICE was preparing to release, only 94 are listed as “convicted criminals.” That’s 1.2 percent. 

One hundred forty-eight detainees had pending criminal charges for things like traffic offenses and illegal entry, with a smaller portion involving violent crimes like physical or sexual assault. That’s 1.9 percent.

Additionally, of the 7,737 immigrants, only 96 were given a threat designation by ICE at all, and nearly half of those (46 detainees) were classified as Level 3, the lowest threat level.

In at least one email with Metro, ICE states that, of the people it planned to release, “none will be criminal or public safety threats.” 

Skrmetti’s dispatch a few weeks ago sent a starkly different message. 

“Immigrants are being used as a wedge in order to score cheap political points, and we’ve already seen how dangerous that rhetoric is in places like Ohio,” said Lisa Sherman Luna, executive director of TIRRC. “And so when we use incendiary language like the Attorney General, it puts us all at risk.”

In a written statement, Mayor Freddie O’Connell called the release a “mischaracterization” of what really happened. 

“I encourage people to read the documents and judge for themselves,” read the statement. “Our residents rightfully expect the city to prepare for and coordinate with our state and federal partners any time we are called upon to assist with the transition of people to our community, whether it’s the result of a federal program, natural disaster, or other emergency.”

Local immigration advocates, like Sherman Luna, told the Banner that this kind of collaboration is vital.

“TIRRC, like most Tennesseans, wants a safe and orderly immigration system that allows people dignity,” Sherman Luna said. “We welcome coordination between state, local and federal government, faith leaders and volunteers. In 2022, we were putting together the infrastructure to be able to have the capacity to welcome people with dignity. And that was thwarted in the end by the state.”

The AG’s office did not respond to the Banner’s request for comment in time for publication.

In late November 2022, ICE reached out to TIRRC to discuss a “possible cooperative partnership.”

Title 42 — a Trump-era immigration law that allowed U.S. officials to turn away migrants at the southern border to prevent the spread of COVID-19 — was expected to be repealed soon. In preparation for an influx of immigrants, ICE was beginning a nationwide process of clearing space in its detention centers.

On Dec. 5, 2022, an internal ICE email lays out a detailed process for who will be released and how it will be determined if someone is eligible for release. 

“Public safety and national security cases will remain in custody,” reads the email.

Shortly thereafter, ICE and officials from TIRRC and Metro met to discuss the logistics. In one email, an ICE official estimated that they could release several hundred immigrants per month, adding that Nashville was selected because the city was big enough to take on the number of immigrants that would be released without them being a burden on the resources of the city.

After some back and forth over a week, ICE met with Lee’s office to discuss the plan on Dec. 19. Internal ICE emails called the meeting “cordial,” going on to say that Lee’s office “understood the difficult nature of our agency and our position.”

The next day, Fox News published an article about the planned release quoting Lee calling the plan “irresponsible and a threat to the safety of Tennesseans.”

Following legal challenges from multiple states including Tennessee, Title 42 didn’t end up being repealed until 2023, causing the 2022 effort to release asylum-seekers into Nashville to fizzle out.

The post Skirmetti Warned of Dangerous Immigrants On Way To State, But Numbers Show Very Few appeared first on Nashville Banner.