Ballot language vexes voters in Hamilton County

photo Election, vote, voting tile

VOTER GUIDESee a list of candidates, proposed amendments and sample ballots at timesfreepress.com/voterguide2014.

Local election officials say confusing ballot language has been the only hiccup during early voting for the Nov. 4 election.

And local party heads say that, despite months of preparation, they are still looking for ways to educate their members.

Hamilton County Election Administrator Kerry Steelman said while confusion about the four amendments on the ballot is "not pervasive," it has been "the most common concern vocalized this election."

The four amendments, which cover abortion, income tax, judicial appointments and veteran fundraising, include arcane legal language.

Further, they reference changing parts of the constitution without saying what is being replaced, and, in the case of Amendment 4, don't give voters any indication of what the amendment aims to accomplish.

Republican Party Chairman Tony Sanders said that's no surprise.

"That's standard every time we have something on the ballot. They are made to be confusing because you are dealing with constitutional language which can be hard to understand itself," Sanders said.

The GOP hasn't taken an official stand on the four amendments, so Sanders has been giving local Republicans a short script and directing them to websites for research.

Basically, most Republicans are supporting Amendment 1, the abortion amendment. The party is split on 2, with Gov. Bill Haslam leading the charge in support. Amendment 3, the no-income tax amendment, has resounding support across the party, as does the fourth, the veterans fundraising amendment, Sanders said.

Constitutional amendments under consideration:Amendment 1: concerning abortions Amendment 2: concerning judicial electionsAmendment 3: concerning a ban on state income taxAmendment 4: concerning lotteriesCOMING SUNDAY: An amendments explainer, in Perspective

Local Democrats, on the other hand, are taking a different tack in dealing with the constitutional amendments -- all of which were drafted and introduced by Republican legislators.

Terry Lee, chairman of the local Democrats, said the Republican-controlled legislature put the amendments on the ballot to drive conservatives to the polls in an otherwise low-energy midterm election where Republican incumbents are being challenged.

"They were brought by currently elected Republicans. It's a political stunt -- and a very clever political stunt," Lee said. "[Amendments 1 and 3 are] on there to do nothing but bring out hard conservatives ... to vote in a mid-term election."

Amendment 1 would grant the Legislature the ability to regulate abortion, and 3 would bar a state income tax -- both hot-button issues for Republicans.

AMENDMENT 1

State Sen. Mae Beavers, R-Mount Juliet, sponsored the so-called abortion amendment. She said Thursday it's one of the most straightforward amendments on the ballot. She added that it had been in the works for the last two sessions of the legislature.

Simply, the amendment asks voters whether they want the state General Assembly to be able to pass laws regulating or restricting abortion.

Many previous abortion-related laws approved by the legislature were later struck down by the state Supreme Court based on strict privacy laws. Among them were a mandatory waiting period prior to abortions, the mandatory distribution of material about fetal development for women considering abortions and a requirement that second-trimester abortions be performed in a hospital.

A "yes" vote would allow the General Assembly more control over abortion regulation.

"It's really just about whether you want the legislature to be able to pass laws concerning abortion. Now, we are one of the most liberal states in the nation regarding it," Beavers said.

Beavers stressed that the amendment would not set or create abortion law, but it would free the General Assembly to do so. Some of those laws could require informed consent for women getting abortions, and health inspections and licensing for abortion clinics, she said.

But Beavers acknowledged that the legislature is not completely unable to regulate abortion currently.

"Some of them [laws] escaped the Supreme Court," she said.

Among the laws that still stand are a ban on remote doctor-patient conferences for prescribing miscarriage-inducing drugs, and a law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at local hospitals.

If the amendment is approved in November, Beavers said the resulting legislation she would focus on would be for "common-sense regulation."

"At the very least, [women] should be able to go to a facility that is clean, that has been inspected and is licensed," Beavers said.

While the language in Amendment 1 seems clear, some of it has driven away would-be supporters.

Some women's groups that are otherwise pro-life have balked at the inclusion of language allowing regulation even in cases of incest or rape -- or when the health of the mother is jeopardized.

Beavers said Thursday she did not know why that language is included in the amendment.

AMENDMENT 2

State Sen. Brian Kelsey, R-Germantown, who sponsored Amendments 2 and 3, said the ballot language is in legalese for a reason.

"We had to ensure that the liberal judges couldn't misinterpret the amendments," Kelsey said in a phone interview.

He said Amendment 2, which aims to define the process for the selection, election and retention of state Supreme Court judges and judges in appellate courts, is perfectly clear.

"In particular, the original draft of the amendment was much longer. It was Gov. [Bill] Haslam's request that it was shortened and simplified," Kelsey said.

The trouble is, the language gives voters no indication of how judges are selected currently.

The amendment seeks to replace language in the constitution that says judges must be elected. In practice, and through statute, the governor has historically appointed judges and they have been elected by the people for retention.

But lawyers have argued for decades whether that process is constitutionally sound.

The amendment would make that process the undisputed law of the land, and add a layer of confirmation from the General Assembly. The measure has much support in the General Assembly and from the judiciary.

A "yes" vote would be in favor of the governor appointing judges, which are then confirmed by the General Assembly and then retained by popular vote.

A "no" vote would leave the judicial selection process unchanged -- and still at odds with the state constitution, which calls for judges to be elected.

AMENDMENT 3

The third amendment seeks to constitutionally disallow an income tax or any tax on payroll in the state.

While there is no political will from either party to enact an income or payroll tax in the state, Kelsey rejected allegations that getting the amendment on the ballot was a "political stunt" to turn out conservative voters in a mid-term election.

"I proposed Amendment 3 initially in 2005. The timing was not strategic, but the timing was based on the fact that we finally have Republican control," Kelsey said.

Critics of the amendment have said it is tying the hands of future legislators, who may need to raise revenue. Kelsey holds that not having an income tax has brought business to Tennessee and that revenue has increased over the last three years.

Voting "yes" to Amendment 3 is a vote in favor of completely banning any future income or payroll taxes at the state and local levels.

AMENDMENT 4

State Sen. Rusty Crowe, R-Johnson City, said nobody wanted clearer language for Amendment 4 more than he did. He sponsored the amendment.

The amendment aims to allow 501(c)(19) nonprofit groups to hold raffles, lotteries, bingo or other games of chance to raise money.

The trouble is, the ballot doesn't tell voters what a 501(c)(19) is.

According to U.S. Internal Revenue Service rules, the designation is for tax-exempt, politically unaligned, nonprofit groups that are dedicated to supporting veterans and their families.

Other nonprofit groups that are not politically aligned are already allowed to hold such fundraisers.

Voting in favor of the amendment is a vote to allow veterans groups to hold legislatively approved game-of-chance-style fundraisers, the same way other nonprofits do.

"The way it's worded, legally, with the legal jargon, you'd have no idea what it means," Crowe said. "I wish there had been the word veterans put in that legal jargon, but for some reason, it just wasn't."

Contact staff writer Louie Brogdon at lbrogdon@timesfreepress.com, @glbrogdoniv on Twitter or at 423-757-6481.

Upcoming Events