Games without rules.
Ever played a game with the neighborhood bully?  You know, the kid who made up the rules or changed the rules as the game went along?  You may have thought that kind of behavior was only found on the school playground.  If so, you are not very familiar with the Tennessee House of Representatives.

Oh, they have rules.  They just sometimes ignore them!  Take last week for instance.  Rep. Stacey Campfield (R-Knoxville) had a bill that probably most parents in Tennessee would agree with.  It simply said that,

1). in view of the fact that “human sexuality is an immensely complex subject
2). with enormous societal, scientific, psychiatric and historical implications
3). best understood by children with sufficient maturity to grasp such issue,” 

No “public elementary or middle school shall provide any instruction or materials discussing sexual orientation other than heterosexuality.”

Most parents would say that they, not the school, should be explaining sexual issues to their children.  It’s like religion.  Most parents don’t want their schools telling their young children what to believe about God.
But in the State House of Representatives, prohibiting the promotion of homosexuality is “controversial.”  So they killed the bill.

That is bad enough, but how they killed it helps explain why traditional values legislation has such a hard time passing in the House.

Rep. Campfield, knowing that the bill would probably get killed, asked at the start of the meeting for a roll call vote taken on his bill.  Having a roll call vote is important so that you, the voting public, will know who voted consistent with your values.    Under the House rules, the sponsor of a bill has a right to request a roll call vote.

After some members of the subcommittee finished roasting Rep. Campfield, Rep. Les Winningham (D-Huntsville) “moved” that the bill be sent to the Department of Education “for action.”  Here are two important lessons.

Lesson No. 1:  You don’t have to vote “no” to vote against a bill.  Motions such as that made by Rep. Winningham are effective ways to kill a bill without having to cast a vote against the bill. 

Sometimes bills are legitimately sent to a department with the request that certain information be collected.  The department then reports back to the committee.  But this was not one of those kinds of motions. 
This motion was “for further action.”  The problem is the department wasn’t told what action to take.  It can’t really take any action because it wasn’t told what action to take.  So all those who voted for this motion were effectively voting against the bill.

Lesson No. 2:  The rules don’t really mean much if the chair  refuses to abide by the rules.  In spite of the fact that Rep. Campfield asked for a roll call vote, Chairman Towns ruled creatively.  He ruled that the committee was not voting “on the bill” but just on “a motion.”  In short, the Chair’s ruling was a sham, or perhaps even a scam to fool the public.  Why?  Because every action taken on a bill in a subcommittee or committee is the result of a “motion.”  And Rep. Campfield clearly wanted any action on his bill to be recorded.  You can see it for yourself on this YouTube video clip by clicking here.

Now to add insult to injury, any member of the committee who was in support of the bill could have challenged the ruling of the chair.  Unfortunately, none of those who might have been in favor of the bill challenged the chair’s ruling.  But, in all fairness, it would have been a waste of time.  The chair would have appointed a “substitute” chair who would agree with him.

But had just three members of the committee wanted to help Rep. Campfield’s get his right to a roll call vote, they could have asked for one, as well.  No one did so.  But some members have learned that invoking the ire of a House chair over a request for a roll call vote will result in their own legislation getting rough treatment.

The House rules do allow a member to request that he or she be recorded as voting no.  Others who are present will be considered having voted yes.  But, unless you are there to see who is present and who is not, it is too easy for a Representative to say they weren’t there and they would have voted “no.”  So, all we know for sure is that Rep. Harry Brooks (R-Knoxville) and Rep. Gerald McCormick (R-Middle Valley) audibly asked, at the time of the vote, to be recorded as voting against Rep. Winningham’s motion.  We commend them.  Presumably all the other members of the subcommittee voted to kill the bill: Rep. Joe Towns (D-Memphis), Rep. Richard Montgomery (R-Sevierville), Rep. Tommie Brown (D-Chattanooga), Rep. Beth Harwell (R-Nashville), Rep. Ulysses Jones (D-Memphis), Rep. Mark Maddox (D-Dresden), Rep. Larry Turner (D-Memphis), and Rep. Les Winningham (D-Huntsville). 

Unfortunately, things like this are far too common in the state House.  Next week SJR 127, the resolution to amend our state constitution to “reverse” our state Supreme Court’s decision to write abortion into our state Constitution, will be heard either on Tuesday, February 26, or Wednesday, February 27, in the Public Health and Family Assistance Subcommittee of the Health and Human Resources Committee.  It will be interesting to see what happens on that issue.

Girls Gone Wild … going, going gone!
This Tuesday, February 26th, the Civil Practice Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee will hear a bill sponsored by Rep. Mike Turner (D-Nashville) that will make it a crime to air obscene material on television in Tennessee.  As importantly, the bill will make it a crime to advertise for sale obscene material.  It will also make it a crime to advertise material that is harmful to minors during times when younger children are most likely to be watching TV.

Senator Doug Jackson (D-Dickson) has already passed the bill in the Senate by a vote of 31 to 0.  But, as usual, as a “pro-family” bill it is stuck in the House. 

You might think, “Who could be against doing whatever one can to get tough on this stuff.”  Well, there are members of that subcommittee who do not think that way. It is amazing to see the length some will go to rationalize not doing something they don’t want to do.   Watch out for the legislator who says he’s all against some evil like obscenity on TV but will not give it his or her all to stand against it.

For example, I’ve heard some members of the subcommittee say that the law won’t do any good.  They say proving something is obscene is too hard.  They think the state will never get a conviction.  Proving obscenity can be hard, but you for sure can’t prove it if there’s no law against it.

I’ve heard some members say that parts of the bill may be pre-empted by federal laws.  The State’s Attorney General has said that this issue is unclear, but noted that three other states, even liberal Connecticut, had passed similar laws.  One thing is clear – nothing is gained if nothing is ventured! 

If the bill passes and a federal court will not allow certain parts of the law, so be it. Our legislators will have tried.  But in voting against the bill, they will have unilaterally “disarmed” our state from trying to stop the spread of obscenity.

I’ve heard some say it’s just “political grandstanding” to vote for a bill that you don’t think will accomplish anything.   Usually that is a charge made by Democrats against Republicans who push “traditional values” bills.  

But this bill is sponsored by two Democrats!  I say “Hooray for Democrats Doug Jackson and Mike Turner.”  I know these men and, and while I do not always agree with them, they are not grandstanding.
They have families.  They have raised children.  They know this material is harmful to families.  And if the bill passes and does not, for some reason, do as much good as they hoped, they will have done what they could.  I trust that the other subcommittee members will find it in themselves to come to the same conclusion.

We’ll let you know how the vote comes out in our next issue, but if your Representative votes “no” don’t be fooled into believing that he is opposed to obscenity – given the chance to try to do something, he will have folded his cards before the first bet was played.