From a sign ban during the fall’s special legislative session, to this session’s new ticketing process, spectators have taken issue with Tennessee statehouse rules made behind closed doors. Now, a new proposal could eliminate one of the only avenues that constituents have for recourse: the courts.
Rep. Gino Bulso, R-Brentwood, has proposed a bill that would make it so House rules cannot be challenged in court.
“It seems that their end goal is to push out people who think differently than them,” Allison Polidor said.
Polidor’s first time at the legislature ended with her being escorted out by state troopers, because she was holding an 8 1/2 by 11 sign that read “1 Kid > All the Guns.” Those dimensions are usually the standard for signs in the Tennessee House, but Speaker Cameron Sexton had banned spectators from holding them altogether for the special legislative session.
Polidor wasn’t alone in defying the rule; Erica Bowton and Maryam Abolfazli also refused to put their signs away.
“Signs are a big part of how we show what we stand for and what we want legislators to act on,” Bowton said. “Because a lot of times they won’t take meetings with you … or they jump in an elevator and shut the door.”
Abolfazli said the way that the House decides on its rules is undemocratic.
“No conversation. No back and forth. No dialog,” Abolfazli said. “And then we, the people, have to abide.”
Within 24 hours of the three women being kicked out of the House, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on their behalf, and a judge temporarily blocked the rule.
ACLU attorney Stella Yarbrough, who represented the lawsuit’s plaintiffs, worried about what this bill means for the state’s checks and balances.
“If you have a legislature saying, ‘How we conduct our business is unreviewable by the other arms of the government, by the courts,’ it’s a really big issue for democracy itself and for the separation of powers,” Yarbrough said.
This isn’t the first time the statehouse has considered retaliatory legislation, Yarbrough said. After the ACLU successfully sued to increase access to absentee ballots, Republicans tried to remove the judge who ruled in its favor. The legislature was later successful in curbing the position’s power by switching to a three-judge panel for decisions that used to be handled by one Nashville judge.
“This is not just a one off. This is a pattern where, when we see justice … in state courts, then the legislature comes back in session and tries to narrow that relief and that justice as much as they can,” Yarbrough said.
If Bulso’s proposal passes, Yarbrough said the ACLU’s response would depend on the scope of the final bill. A challenge in federal court could circumvent a potential moratorium on lawsuits in state courts, but it wouldn’t be a perfect solution.
“This is something that is particularly a state issue. This is the state of Tennessee doing these things … It should be heard in state courts,” Yarbrough said. “The people are electing the legislators, but the people are also electing the judges. And I don’t understand why it should go to a judiciary that’s appointed federally by the US president rather than locally elected judges.”
The scope of a bill like this, Abolfazli said, could hurt the legislature long-term.
“You never want to set that precedent,” Abolfazli said. “Maybe it benefits you today, but in 20 years, who will it benefit?”
The bill has no Senate counterpart yet and is currently assigned to the House Public Service Subcommittee.
