Charter Amendment Analysis - Early Voting Starts Today

Today begins early voting on two amendments to the Metro Charter. There is just one early voting location and that is the Howard School Office Bldg at 800 Second Avenue South. The polls are open Monday-Friday from 8:30am til 5:30pm and Saturday January 3 and Saturday January 10 from 9am til noon.

As has become my habit, I would like to provide you with a little bit of an analysis regarding these amendments that might help you as you go the polls.

Amendment #1 "English Only"

You probably have heard a good deal about this amendment. Before I get into the meaning of this change to our Charter let me preface my remarks by saying that virtually no one - myself included - thinks that American immigration policy and its enforcement are a success right now. But to put it in perspective, immigration policy has been a point of contention since the pilgrims complained about the Godless freeloaders who showed up after they secured a little crust of Massachusetts against the weather, disease and very displeased Native Americans. Some say we need to pass the English Only amendment because we need to send a message about immigration. I like messages but as your elected representative I have to be more concerned with substance. So, with that here's the substance as I see it.

One thing in this amendment is not new. It makes English the official language of Metro. English is already the official language of Metro as required by state law (T.C.A 4-1-404).

However where state law appears to require all government publications, communications and meetings be in English it leaves open the possibility that those services can be provided in other languages (including sign, braille, etc) as well. The charter amendment would prohibit government activities in any language other than English with just two exceptions; to prevent a conflict with state or federal law and if Metro Council provides an exception.

I tend to think that the first and fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution are so broadly written that the first exception will mean very little changes in terms of how services are provided. As much time as I spend in various departments I see little translation going on that exceeds the fundamental requirement that we protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of this city, guarantee free speech or ensure that everyone is protected equally under the law.

The exception granted by the Metro Council is unclear. I can't tell if it would happen by ordinance or by resolution. In any event, it will certainly add another layer of bureaucracy to the function of our Metro departments.

So, we have an amendment that won't cure immigration and won't change how we run government. So, why have it? I guess to send a message. Problem is the message will be heard differently depending on who you are. Some will see it as a victory for those who oppose immigration or want better enforcement of illegal immigration. But some - particularly those who recognize us an a destination for international tourists and business - see it as a message that we are unwelcoming, inhospitable and downright rude.

Amendment # 2 Charter Revisions.

While I think amendment # 1 will have no meaningful impact except the message stuff I refer to in the last paragraph, Amendment # 2 is a far different matter.

Currently the law allows us to amend the Metro charter two ways. The first way is for the Metro Council to approve of amendments being placed on the ballot. That will not change. The second method is for 10% of voters voting in the most recent general election to sign a petition. These types of petition driven amendments are limited to one every two years.

This amendment would change the charter so that only 1% of registered voters must sign a petition and those petitions can be submitted for any regularly scheduled general election AND any special election. There can be only one special election per year.

So let's do a little compare and contrast. In the presidential election in November, 264,000 people showed up to vote. If you were pursuing a charter amendment after that election, under the current law you would need 26,400 signatures on a petition. Under the proposed law you would need 1% of all registered voters. There are 381,000 registered voters in this county so you would need just 3,810 signatures on a petition. For a smaller election like the August 2007 general election, 101,000 people voted. Under current law, you would need about 10,000 signatures. If the proposed change becomes law, you would still need 3,810. So, in terms of gathering signatures, the bar is lowered significantly.

In terms of timing, the standard is also lowered significantly. Currently, these types of voter driven petitions can be submitted only once every two years. The proposed change would allow them at every general election and no more than once a year at a special election. In 2008 we had 2 general elections. Under the proposed change there would be 3 opportunities to change the charter.

There is one thing in particular about this amendment that I had not noticed until today. It adds a new paragraph to the charter that prohibits the Metro Council from passing a resolution over-riding a petition driven amendment for 4 years after enactment. I don't know why that would be necessary. Council generally accedes to the will of voters and doesn't like to tinker with their work. So is it necessary to tie their hands? Is it sensible?

Let's use recent events to construct an analogy. Council passed an ordinance that our lawyers said might be in violation of the Federal Fair Housing Act. We passed it anyway. That pesky Department of Justice came calling and pretty soon we had a recommendation from everyone with a law degree in the Metro government to repeal our ordinance. Voter driven initiatives don't tend to have the benefit of the bright minds of Metro legal. So what if someone proposes an amendment that has major and unforeseen implications to our legal position or our budget? Council won't be able to act for 4 years! Someone would have to launch another petition drive to undo the effort and ask all those people who voted for it to now be against. That last scenario seems unlikely.

Frankly, I am a firm believer in the wisdom of the voters but I hope the voters will think about this one long and hard. California is a direct initiative state, With just 5% of voters from last gubernatorial election they can amend state statutes. They can amend them at primary, general and special election. There is so much voter initiative in California that they have an entire section of the election commission's website dedicated to tracking them. I love California but I would not hold them up as the paradigm of great government. The budget shortfall right now is 3 times our entire Metro budget. So, think about whether you want to be more like California or you think we are doing OK they way we are now.

I hope all this helps you as you go to the polls. As always, don't hesitate to call or write if you have any questions.