Image Credit: TN General Assembly & Canva
The Tennessee Conservative [By Olivia Lupia] –
After first being denied an injunction to stop the newly redistricted Tennessee congressional map, a three-judge panel has completely rejected a suit by the NAACP on behalf of several Democrat organizations, candidates, and lawmakers, upholding the maps and upcoming primary election preparations and potentially indicating how the remaining legal challenges to the maps will result.
The NAACP initially filed an emergency petition in Davidson County Chancery Court hours after Gov. Lee signed the new maps into law on May 7. A federal judge denied the injunction which would have prevented the map from taking effect for the August 6 primary election, and a federal court hearing was then set for May 20.
A three-judge panel appointed by the Tennessee Supreme Court presided over the proceedings, as prescribed by state statute and reiterated in the legislative package passed by lawmakers during the redistricting special session. Chancellor Anne C. Martin, Chancellor Tony Childress, and Judge James Gass heard arguments in the case at the hearing which took place May 21.
In their arguments, the NAACP claimed the lawmakers violated the Tennessee constitution by repealing the 1972 law which only allowed for redistricting after the decennial census and tried to claim Gov. Lee’s verbiage to “facilitate” 2026 elections in his proclamation calling for the special session did not actually allow for the repeal of the law and the actual district changes.
After the hearing, the judicial panel stated it would issue its decision quickly and on Tuesday it quickly concluded the NAACP challenge failed along several criteria. While the judges did rule that one candidate, DeVante Hill, met the criteria for standing as he was able to successfully demonstrate that he spent unrecoverable resources rendered moot by the redistricting, several of the other plaintiffs were dismissed for lack of standing.
As the rest of the petitioners’ arguments were based on the changing of the census redistricting law and the narrow interpretation of Lee’s proclamation, the panel’s ruling dismissed their case as out of hand.
“The Court believes bills to repeal a prohibition on redistricting and to ease various election requirements such as the residency requirement, qualifying deadlines, and notice requirements are fairly contained in the language ‘making statutory changes that are necessary to effectuate changes to the composition of Tennessee’s congressional districts and to facilitate 2026 congressional elections,’” the ruling reads.
All three judges signed Tuesday’s ruling which dismisses the NAACP case in its entirety.
As of this writing, there are no further updates on the three other pending federal suits by the Tennessee Democrat Party, whose emergency injunction for a Temporary Restraining Order was also denied by a judge this week, the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, and the League of Women Voters in conjunction with the NAACP, which have been consolidated into one case.
The state has reportedly refiled several of the same arguments and affidavits from the NAACP case in these other suits, as they allege some similar grievances. With the first ruling completed, the consolidated cases will likely see movement soon, and the victory for the state in the NAACP case could lend precedence and weight in determining how the other challenges will resolve, especially as the consolidated case may also be subject to a ruling by a similar three-judge panel.
About the Author: Olivia Lupia is a political refugee from Colorado who now calls Tennessee home. A proud follower of Christ, she views all political happenings through a Biblical lens and aims to utilize her knowledge and experience to educate and equip others. Olivia is an outspoken conservative who has run for local office, managed campaigns, and been highly involved with state & local GOPs, state legislatures, and other grassroots organizations and movements. Olivia can be reached at olivia@tennesseeconservativenews.com.
2 Responses
Good, thanx.
Packing minorities into safe Democratic seats called “minority opportunity districts” (sounds better) is praised when it helps Democrats. Cracking that concentration to make more competitive or Republican-leaning seats is suddenly “racist.” Both are race-conscious to some degree, but courts have long allowed partisan gerrymandering while scrutinizing explicit racial predominance (see Rucho v. Common Cause and recent SCOTUS shifts).
Sigh….. The NAACP calls foul as typical when they lose any racial-bloc advantages they’ve relied on for years. If blacks had continued to be predominately Republican as they were before the “welfare state” led them astray, we would see a completely different whine and cry. See…. the Democratic Party decided instead of direct racism to be more subtle and get blacks as dependent on government as possible. (As LBJ so elegantly put it, “I’ll have those ni***rs voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”) At the same time, the Democrats started a persistent campaign of lies and innuendo, falsely equating any opposition to their welfare state give away to blacks with racism. By the way….. From a purely cynical political perspective, the Democratic strategy of black dependence has been extremely effective. The Voting Rights Act of 1965, when 94 % of GOP lawmakers in the House voted for it, while 27% of Democrat House members opposed it. Today, Democrats scream “Jim Crow 2.0” but…. would like us to forget that they were the party of Jim Crow, the Klan.