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.

The group that unsuccessfully opposed Mayor Freddie O’Connell’s transit referendum ahead of the November election is taking a new approach, filing suit in Davidson County Chancery Court on Wednesday seeking to declare the vote void.

Nearly two-thirds of Nashville voters backed the proposal, which establishes a half-cent sales tax surcharge to be dedicated to Nashville’s transit system, sidewalks adjacent to the transit system and traffic signal updates.

The plaintiffs in the suit are the Committee to Stop an Unfair Tax and Emily Evans, the group’s chair. They are represented by Nashville attorney Kirk Clements. Chancellor Anne Martin immediately rejected the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary injunction, citing their lack of compliance with court procedures. A temporary injunction could still be granted at a later date.

The challengers contend that the proposal violates state law by offering to pay for things that go beyond the scope of public transit, like sidewalks and signals.

“The Mayor used the term ‘transportation’ instead of ‘transit’ because he knows very few Nashvillians use Nashville’s mass transit system or ever will,” the complaint states. “The Plan contains multiple projects which clearly do not fall within the definition of a “Public Transit System.” … The Mayor’s Plan disingenuously attempts to inject ambiguity into the definition of a Public Transit System by expanding the natural and ordinary meaning of the term ‘connectivity’ as used in the Act.”

“Our only comment is that the complaint speaks for itself,” Evans said when reached for comment.

The Davidson County Election Commission certified the election last Friday. 

The state comptroller reviewed O’Connell’s proposal prior to it being placed on the ballot.

“The transportation improvement plan referendum fully complied with state law,” Metro Legal Director Wally Dietz told the Banner. “This lawsuit is a nuisance.”

The post Transit Plan Opponents Seek to Reverse Nashville Referendum Results 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.

Ever since she joined the Davidson County District Attorney’s Office in 2018, Christina Johnson has struggled with how to handle a certain kind of domestic violence case. It was a sort of case she saw regularly, involving people who didn’t fit neatly into the categories provided by the criminal justice system. In a recent interview with the Banner, Johnson — who has led the office’s domestic violence division since 2021 — offered a hypothetical example. 

Say the police are called to a Nashville home multiple times in a single month by a woman accusing her husband of abuse. But when officers arrive there are no outward signs of it, no visible bruises or injuries. Without any physical evidence, the officers separate the couple to interview them about what’s going on and the woman — possibly scared of her partner — says it was a misunderstanding or a mistake. The officers might have their suspicions but can only write up a report and wait for the next call. Then one night, the police are called to the same house again, only this time by the man. When they arrive, he has a scratch on his face. With state law all but mandating an arrest in such a situation, the woman is taken into custody and charged with a misdemeanor.  

“The police officers come to court and they tell me, ‘Hey, I [didn’t feel] great about making this arrest but he had a scratch on his face and I want you to know there’s something going on in this house,’” Johnson told the Banner.

Faced with a defendant she believed was caught in a cycle of abuse — an alleged domestic abuser she believed was actually the one being abused — Johnson said she tried to “do the right thing” but found she was working against the grain. 

Nashville Picked for Pilot Program

That changed earlier this year, when the DA’s office started a pilot program that diverts the cases of “survivor-defendants” away from the criminal justice system and toward the kind of resources offered to other Nashvillians facing domestic violence. The program is a partnership with the YWCA of Nashville and Middle Tennessee and since June 1, Johnson said, around 40 individuals have had their cases diverted through it. 

The program is modeled after one started in Seattle in 2019. Johnson has spoken to officials there about their approach and last year, Nashville was selected by the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys to be one of two pilot sites for similar programs. In partnership with Bowie State University in Maryland, the APA will provide guidance and oversight along with analyzing data to evaluate whether Nashville’s program is effective. 

The idea, Johnson said, is to better recognize these types of cases for what they are. 

“These are not just acts of violence,” she said. “If I walk in on my significant other in a compromising position, I might be so enraged that I slap them across the face. That’s very different from a power and control dynamic where I’m in control of the finances, where I belittle them on a daily basis, where I use my position in society or over the kids as something to keep [them] in this cycle.”

After a survivor-defendant is diverted from the criminal justice system, their case leaves Johnson’s desk and moves over to that of Daffany Baker, the vice president of domestic violence services at the YWCA. Within 48 hours of a case being referred to it, the YWCA contacts the individual to offer a variety of services. Among them: shelter, counseling, job readiness training, financial education and safety planning. 

Before coming to the YWCA, Baker was an associate warden at the Debra K. Johnson Rehabilitation Center, a women’s prison in Nashville. She saw then how many of the incarcerated women she worked with were also survivors of domestic violence. 

“The trauma that the women personally had been through, a large percent of it was due to domestic violence, intimate partner violence,” she said.  

The diversion program is designed for people found to be survivors of domestic violence and Johnson outlined several ways her unit identifies those individuals. A person can be eligible if they have been named as the victim in a domestic violence case within the past year or if they have recently sought an order of protection. Johnson said she has also gotten referrals from defense attorneys and community advocates. 

For now, the program is only offered to people charged with a misdemeanor. 

“Every jurisdiction is going to be different,” Johnson said. “I think we are a bit more, for lack of a better word, conservative than some other jurisdictions who are using this for cases all the way up to homicides. We’re not there, but we have to start somewhere.” 

The post New Program Offers Resources Instead of Prosecution for ‘Survivor-Defendants’ in Nashville 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.

UPDATE, Tuesday, 2 p.m.: The Tennessee Attorney General’s Office has told a handful of Middle Tennessee voters that they can cast provisional ballots in today’s election amid uncertainty of their eligibility because of a change in how the state views felony rights restoration.

The state has still not confirmed whether the voters will be registered or ballots will be counted, but did say the individuals could cast provisional ballots without risking voter fraud charges.

“I spoke with other lawyers and my clients and they decided to cast provisional ballots,” attorney Keeda Haynes said Tuesday. “They are all so excited to be able to vote.”

Original story: Election Day is a day of choices for all, but for a handful of prospective voters in Middle Tennessee, the decision is whether to cast a ballot and risk arrest or forfeit their chance to vote. 

On Monday, Davidson County Criminal Court Judge Angelita Blackshear Dalton denied the state’s challenge to her September order, which restored the full rights of citizenship to four locals with past felony convictions, despite their ineligibility to own firearms. 

The four voters are among the first to try and restore their rights to vote since Coordinator of Elections Mark Goins, interpreted a 2023 Supreme Court decision to mean that someone must receive a complete restoration of rights or a pardon to have their rights restored after a felony. 

That decision complicated the logistics of restoration, requiring the process to go through a court. It also raised an eligibility question for those who meet the legal requirements for restoration but are not eligible to possess a weapon due to the nature of their conviction. 

According to Dalton, Goins’s interpretation conflicts with the actual laws on the books and the firearm requirement should not hinder someone from voting. 

“The Court is particularly concerned about the Attorney General’s repeated mischaracterization of the Office of the District Attorney General’s recently expressed stance that full restoration should be granted to the four Petitioners despite their permanent firearms prohibitions,” the newest order reads. 

Absent a stay, which had not been sought or granted by the end of the day Monday, the order stands through Election Day.

But still, it is unclear whether they can or will cast ballots in today’s election. 

Like most states, Tennessee accepts provisional ballots from voters who are unable to verify their eligibility on Election Day. Those ballots are later counted if the voter is confirmed to be eligible.

Keeda Haynes, an attorney for Free Hearts representing the four hopeful voters in Dalton’s order, said her clients are hesitant to cast any ballot before having their rights restored explicitly by the state, out of fear of prosecution. 

“My clients are uncomfortable voting provisionally with the uptick in prosecutions of directly impacted people being charged with illegally voting. It’s not a chance they want to take,” Haynes said, referencing a recent emphasis on prosecuting voter fraud from Tennessee.

Concerns about fraudulent voting from undocumented immigrants, deceased voters and other groups have proliferated in recent years, especially among conservatives following former President Donald Trump’s repeated false claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. 

In reality, voter fraud charges and convictions are rare and statistically insignificant to election results.

Still, Tennessee’s state government has increased its warnings to voters about the consequences of voter fraud, including sending foreboding letters to 14,000 “potential non-citizens” this summer, reminding them that it is a felony offense to vote illegally.

This narrative can have a chilling effect on would-be voters, including those awaiting approval from the state following Dalton’s order.

“So even though they did everything that the elections division asked and submitted everything before the registration deadline, they still will not be able to vote (Tuesday),”  Haynes said. 

The Secretary of State’s office did not immediately respond to questions about the order late Monday. 

In an earlier statement, spokesperson Doug Kufner did not clarify whether the individuals could cast provisional ballots, but explained the timeline of such ballots.  

“Provisional ballots must be resolved by Nov. 12 unless an extension is granted,” Kufner said. “The state coordinator of elections can grant extensions to county election commissions regarding the counting of provisional ballots if ballot counting can’t be completed by Nov. 12. However, no extension can be granted past Nov. 25.”

Amanda Hopkins, who had a felony drug conviction over a decade ago, would have been able to restore her rights under the previous interpretation of the law but has now been through a months-long legal process only to be left in a sort of democratic purgatory. 

On Election Day, Hopkins is debating whether to “give up” and not participate or to cast a provisional ballot, risking further criminal charges. 

“I don’t wanna go to jail. If I did, I would still be in the streets committing crimes,” Hopkins said Monday. “But do I just give up and say, ‘OK, they won, I won’t vote?’”

Hopkins said she would likely follow Haynes’ advice on voting based on whether the state would respond before the polls close on Tuesday. If she doesn’t vote, she says she will continue to fight the case in court to hopefully vote in the next election cycle and “show [Goins] he can’t scare people away from voting,” which she believes was his intent. 

Over the last four weeks, the Attorney General’s Office has ignored repeated questions from the Banner about this case and about the number of ongoing cases in which the state is pushing back on someone’s restoration.

The Secretary of State’s office referred the question to the Attorney General’s office, but said there are “not many” such cases. 

Haynes is aware of about 11 cases locally.  

Hopkins hopes this year’s setback helps influence reform before the next election. 

“I just hope that when everything is said and done, I will be restored to citizenship rights, and anyone that comes along on this path behind me will never have to experience what I’ve been through,” Hopkins said. “It makes me feel like I’m just a felon, and that’s all I’ll ever be.”

The post Some Tennessee Voters Still Unsure of Voting Rights on 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.