David Fowler President

May 19, 2009

Since 2001, Senate Joint Resolution 127 has languished in a House subcommittee. But last night life and vitality was breathed into the resolution that would allow the people of Tennessee to vote on whether our state constitution should once again be neutral on the issue of abortion right. Last night it became clear that a small minority of the House had thwarted their colleagues long enough. The results were beyond surprising. Some might even say that death was swallowed up in victory.

To appreciate what happened last night, some background information is in order.

Each of the four times that SJR 127 passed the state Senate and was sent to the state House for action, it was referred to a subcommittee of the House’s Public Health Committee, where it was killed on a straight party-line vote, usually with the votes of six Representatives. Usually the six protested that it was all about partisan politics, a point you should hang onto. But the results were always predetermined because former House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh (D-Covington) made sure that a majority of the members on that subcommittee were pro-abortion.

 

The Road to Victory Started in 2008

But this year was different. When Republicans, to the surprise of everyone, took the majority in the state House last November, the stage was set for a Republican Speaker who would undoubtedly be pro-life. And with that change a change in the pro-life composition of the key committees was anticipated. And while the Speaker who was elected, Kent Williams (R-Elizabethton), was not the one whom Republicans expected, he assured everyone that SJR 127 would finally get to the full House for a vote. In fact, without that assurance the pro-life Democrats who were critical to his election as Speaker would not have voted for him. And Speaker Williams fulfilled that promise, making sure that a majority of the members on the key subcommittee and committee were pro-life. With that change, the odds were strong that SJR 127 would finally reach the House floor.

 

Past Is Prologue

But before discussing the actual vote last night, one also needs to appreciate that twice in the last eight years, attempts were made to bring the Resolution straight to the floor from the killer subcommittee, but procedurally that required the affirmative votes of two-thirds of the Representatives. The last effort, last year, fell short of the 66 needed. Several Democrats who said they were pro-life would not vote to bring the Resolution straight to the floor, but they said that if it ever got to the floor through the “normal” committee process, they would vote for it.

With that as background, the House finally got to SJR 127 on its calendar. While most expected the Resolution to pass, no one could have predicted what ultimately happened.

 

A Picture Is Worth a Thousand Partisan Words

To begin with, in the “well” of the House (the podium at the front center of the camber), a diverse team of co-sponsors assembled: Representatives Debra Maggart (R-Hendersonville) and Charles Curtiss (D-Sparta), as co-prime sponsors, and Curt Cobb (D-Shelbyville) and Bill Dunn (R-Knoxville), as co-sponsors. Allegations from previous years that the Resolution was all about partisan politics, not the lives of unborn children, were quashed by the scene.

 

Setting the Table for the Vote

As expected an amendment was offered by Democratic Leader Gary Odom (D-Nashville) that would have allowed the Court to remain autonomous on certain issues related to abortion policy, thereby defeating the purpose of the amendment. And as expected, a motion was made to table the amendment. But the way it was made and the way the vote went down was a thing to see.

After Rep. Dunn clearly stated the problems with the amendment, another strong statement was made that the Resolution was not about partisan politics when Democratic Representative Charles Curtiss made the motion to table the amendment which, you recall, had been offered by his own party’s leader.

Those who have followed the Resolution for the last eight years had expected a contentious and extended debate on the amendment, but a vote was called for quickly, and the vote was taken on the tabling motion. While most expected the tabling motion to eventually pass (effectively defeating the amendment), the vote was stronger than expected. Fifty-nine of the 98 Representatives voted to table the amendment, three or four more votes than expected.

 

The Wait Is Over: Finally a Vote

With no more amendments having been filed, the stage was set to debate the merits of the Resolution and vote. Surprisingly, a motion to call the previous question was immediately made. Such a motion, if approved by 66 of the members (two-thirds of the 99 being required), would have ended debate before it started and a final vote would be taken. The motion almost passed, receiving 63 votes. But that vote made it was clear that the House was in no mood to engage in extended debate. And with 59 of the 99 members having voted to table the amendment, nine more than the 50 votes needed to actually pass the Resolution, they all knew where they stood and that the outcome was not in doubt.

After short speeches in opposition by Representative Sherry Jones (D-Nashville) and Jeanne Richardson (D-Memphis), the previous question was called for again. But this time the Speaker simply asked if there was an objection to putting the Resolution to a vote, and there was no objection. And when Speaker Williams asked the House Clerk to “take the vote,” the vote exceeded all expectations: 76 in favor and only 22 against!

Yesterday’s vote, while exciting and encouraging to the pro-life community that has labored so long just to get a vote in the House, is not the end of the issue. The General Assembly that is elected in 2010 will have to vote on the Resolution again. And it must get at least 66 votes. Then, if the Resolution receives the required number of votes, there will be a two-year public education campaign to make sure the amendment passes when on the ballot in 2014.

 

Short Observations and Passing Thoughts

• All 50 Republicans voted for the tabling motion and for the Resolution.

• One man can make a difference. A majority of the 49 Democrats, 26 in total, voted for the Resolution, demonstrating that Speaker Naifeh’s committee appointments in year’s past most likely didn’t even reflect the values of a majority of the caucus members he controlled. While only nine of the 26 voted for the tabling motion, it is clear that Representative Naifeh, who voted against the tabling motion and against the Resolution, held back a strong majority of the state House from getting to vote on something that, at some level, a strong majority supported.

• Sobering thought: To get on the ballot, a constitutional amendment Resolution must be passed twice, once by a majority, and then, after an intervening general election, by two-thirds. But it can only go on the ballot in years when there is a Governor’s race.

• So consider this: This resolution has always had the support of a majority of Representatives. There is no doubt that a majority vote could have been achieved in the last session. Had that happened, that combined with today’s vote means that the Resolution would be on the ballot next year. But because Rep. Naifeh’s committee appointments made sure it was killed over the years, now the Resolution cannot go on the ballot until 2014!

• A vote on the floor last year was not out of reach. While some of the 26 Democrats who voted for the Resolution are new this year, had 20 Democrats voted last year to put life ahead of the committee process by voting to bring the Resolution straight to the floor, the Resolution could have passed last session. Their votes, combined with the 46 Republicans who were then in the House, would have made the 66 votes needed to bring the Resolution straight to the floor.