Tennessee Election Bill Written To Protect Presidency From The Invasion At The Border Withdrawn Due To False Accusations Of Being Anti-Trump
Image Credit: Canva
The Tennessee Conservative [By Kelly M. Jackson] –
A bill that was being carried in this general session was withdrawn this week, due to bill language being misinterpreted and a subsequent negative social media and email campaign accusing the bill authors of establishment status with goals of keeping President Trump off the ballot in Tennessee.
The bill HB2800/SB2838 was being carried in the House by Representative Bud Hulsey (R-D2-Kingsport) and Senator Frank Nicely (R-D8-Strawberry Plains) and had a short caption text, “Election Laws – As introduced, enacts the “Tennessee Ballot Access Act.” – Amends TCA Title 2.”
However, some of the language in the bill was misconstrued, and the bill was characterized as being “anti-Trump” or a covert effort to eventually keep President Trump off the ballot in Tennessee, come election time.
Upon close examination, when the language of the bill is studied, this could not be further from the truth.
The bill stated who is eligible to run for specific types of offices in the state of Tennessee, including state and federal offices, and of course President and Vice President.
In the section that enumerates who is eligible to be elected a United States President in Tennessee, the bill clearly states:
“In accordance with and in furtherance of the requirements under the United States Constitution, Article II, each candidate must provide authentic, documented proof of meeting the requirements of these offices before the person can be placed on a ballot within this state, including proof of the following:
(A) The person is of the requisite age;
(B) The person is a natural born citizen of the United States; and
(C) The person has been a lawful resident of the United States for the requisite period.
The bill reflects who is eligible by repeating the exact same language as is in The Constitution, but in the following section, there is some language that was misconstrued, and is the basis for the accusations.
The bill explains who it is the electors in the state of Tennessee can cast a vote for, and who they can’t.
The bill enumerates the following direction for electors in the state:
“Effective immediately upon the adoption of this act, presidential electors for this state are prohibited from casting a vote for any presidential or vice-presidential candidate whose eligibility for office is in question or doubt at the time of the vote, and until such time as the candidate has been properly investigated and cleared of any reasonable doubt.”
In other words, if there is any doubt that a person doesn’t meet the constitutional eligibility criteria, then an elector in Tennessee cannot cast a vote for that person.
Since Donald Trump has already been President, this provision would clearly not apply to him.
But that didn’t stop people who misunderstood from creating enough of an issue, that the bill was ultimately withdrawn.
The Tennessee Conservative reached out to Representative Bud Hulsey about the intent and purpose of the bill, and he said:
“I suggest that all those contacting you do the same (read the bill) instead of listening to unverified rumors. Ms. Loomer never contacted my office or the office of Senator Niceley before posting her inaccurate statements to cause confusion and conflict.
This is a bill to ensure that every candidate who appears on a Tennessee ballot for any and all elected offices is authenticated as eligible under existing constitutional eligibility requirements. The only requirements in this bill are requirements that already exist. This bill simply allows the State to enforce those requirements.
The bill clearly states the following eligibility requirements for the office of President/Vice President are as follows:
(A) The person is of the requisite age;
(B) The person is a natural born Citizen of the United States; and
(C) The person has been a lawful resident of the United States for the requisite period.
In these times, the state of Tennessee must take measures to ensure that every candidate on our ballot has met the eligibility requirements as stated in the US Constitution. No new requirements are added by this bill.
Only a duty and right for the State to verify office eligibility within as it pertains to State Elections.
There is nothing in this legislation that speaks of any other requirements to be verified.”
Considering the flood of people who are entering our country daily, it seems this legislation was simply forward thinking about what could at some point be a serious issue: the installation of a president that arrived here by illegal means.
We will add any new information regarding the legislation should it develop.
About the Author: Kelly Jackson is a recent escapee from corporate America, and a California refugee to Tennessee. Christ follower, Wife and Mom of three amazing teenagers. She has a BA in Comm from Point Loma Nazarene University, and has a background in law enforcement and human resources. Since the summer of 2020, she has spent any and all free time in the trenches with local grassroots orgs, including Mom’s for Liberty Williamson County and Tennessee Stands as a core member. Outspoken advocate for parents rights, medical freedom, and individual liberty. Kelly can be reached at kelly@tennesseeconservativenews.com.
Intent of the sponsors would be irrelevant next November if this bill had pass as it was originally worded.
From the article: “This is a bill to ensure that every candidate who appears on a Tennessee ballot for any and all elected offices is authenticated as eligible under existing constitutional eligibility requirements.”
From the bill, as quoted above: “are prohibited from casting a vote for any presidential or vice-presidential candidate whose >>eligibility for office is in question or doubt<< at the time of the vote, and until such time as the candidate has been properly investigated and cleared of any reasonable doubt"
This part of the bill did not specify or define or refer back to specify what definition of eligibility could be in question.
The Constitution, Amendment 14, is being used to remove President Trump from the ballot & to prevent him from becoming president as it adds additional, Constitutional requirements to being eligible for office.
The Amendments are just as much part of the US Constitution as the original Constitution.
The Democrats may not be successful in using this part of the Constitution against President Trump as there literally was no "insurrection".
However, with their fake news narrative about 1/6/2021 and their constant "insurrection" claims give them false hope that using this part of our US Constitution will "work" to prevent President Trump from taking office.
This bill was problematic as it was not clear and specific. If passed it would have been a gift to the Dems and Never Trumpers come next November and would be used by them for lawsuits, chaos, drama and headlines.
I am sure the bill's sponsors, being staunch Trump supporters, are grateful that they did not pass a bill that would be a gift to Dems and Never Trumpers.
We conservative grassroots look forward to the bill passing with the clarity and to have only the impact the bill's authors and sponsors intended it to have.
Fully agree precisely because President Trump’s eligibility is being litigated across the country. All it would take is an activist liberal judge somewhere to rule as many already have presently. We need to earnestly pray SCOTUS returns a favorable decision for President Trump in the CO they just heard last week.
WRONG. His eligibilty is not being challenged. Under the Constitution he is eligible. What they are arguing is his qualifications. There is a difference. Words have meanings. He meets ALL eligibility requirements. Natural born citizen, 35 or older and has lived in the US for the past 14 years. What they are arguing is his QUALIFICATION. If you were to REALLY read the bill and keep your bias out it is clear this bill addresses the 3 requirements to be on the ballot. It never mentions anything about perceived crimes or even a person that was convicted of a crime. Trump could actually run for President from inside a prison cell. I was personally involved in this legislation and I can tell you the only person that would be afraid of this bill is Nikki Haley because she is NOT a natural born citizen. Both of her parents were citizens of India when she was born in the US. There is a big difference between being a citizen and being a natural born citizen. Hmmmmmm so think about that. We need to keep emotions out of this and get educated on the facts.
While I understand the nuanced difference of qualifications/eligibility that you are pointing out … that is not how most people, most Democrat lawyers or most media covering the legal stories see it.
Example: “When the nine members of the Supreme Court take their seats on the bench on Thursday, they will be wading into uncharted legal waters to hear a case that could have sweeping ramifications for the 2024 presidential race.
The dispute before the court involves whether former President Donald Trump is ineligible for a second term in office because of his conduct surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol. A decision against him could disrupt his bid for a second term in the White House. The outcome of the legal battle is expected to reverberate across all 50 states, since it could provide clarity about Trump’s eligibility for the primary and general election ballots.
The crux of the case, which arose out of a lawsuit six Colorado voters filed in the fall, is a seldom-used provision of a constitutional amendment passed in 1868 that was designed to keep former Confederates from holding public office.
Known as the insurrection clause, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment had never in the nation’s history been used to disqualify a presidential candidate. That changed in December, when the Colorado Supreme Court concluded that Trump’s conduct related to Jan. 6 deemed him ineligible for the presidency. The court ordered him to be excluded from the state’s GOP presidential primary ballot.” CBS, 2/28/24
Example: “On 19 December, the Colorado Supreme Court said it found “clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection”, making him ineligible to stand in the primary election.
It was the first time Section 3 of the 14th Amendment had been used against a presidential candidate.” BBC, 2/8/2024
Example: “Disenfranchisement and Chaos”: The Supreme Court Hears Pivotal Case on Whether Trump Is Eligible to Run for President”, ProPublica
“Ineligible” and “disqualified” have been used interchangeably & even in the opinion by the CO Supreme Court one is used almost as much as the other, especially in the arguments by the Dems.
The point is not that I agree with any of them on this or not. The point isn’t if they are wrong or right or if you are correctly using the terms … I think you are – I 100% Agee with you that eligibility and a disqualification are 2 different things
But the point is that is NOT clear to most and even those who know better will ignore it (as they already are ignoring this!) and would Absolutely use this bill, if passed as it was originally, against President Trump this November.
Let’s be glad this was spotted and will be addressed, moving forward to fixing it and passing it.
Passing a solid bill that does what this one is intended to do will dull the memory of the original bill needing to be fixed. I hope we can focus on moving forward and I look forward to celebrating great bills being passed!
The bill clearly states what the eligibility requirements are. There are 3. Perhaps you need to go back and read the bill again. The only person this bill would affect in 2024 would be Nikki Haley because she is not a natural born citizen and therefore not eligible to hole the office of President or VP. Same with Kamala Harris. The DNC/RNC has dropped the ball for decades and has allowed people that do not meet the 3 requirements on the ballot and Haley and Harris are two of them as are Vivek Ramswamy and Dr. Shiva. All born in the US to foreign parents (except for Shiva who was born in India). They may be citizens but they are not natural born citizens. So think about that. Perhaps it was the Haley campaign that was behind this attack. No accusing just saying think about what reasons someone might have in not wanting a bill like this to pass….Democrats…..DNC….RNC. THINK about it. Rep. Hulsey knew exactly what this bill was all about. I know because I was personally involved in this bill. And the intention was to insure we always had candidates that met the 3 constitutional requirements. With million of illegals flooding over our border who have all been told they can vote in 2024 the day is going to come when no one that meets the requirements ends up on the ballot. People who react with emotions instead of knowledge and fast are just as dangerous as those trying to ruin our country.
As described, the intent of the legislation is great and an admirable aim/goal. It is Needed legislation and I would like to see a version passed that accomplishes the narrow intent.
However, the language in the current bill is problematic, unclear and needs to be addressed. Period.
To be clear, neither I nor any conservative in TN or across our country that I know has any doubt of President Trump’s eligibility and that the 14th Amendment/”insurrectionist” claims are 100% bull on Multiple levels …. The issue is that Democrats and Never Trumpers are dragging President Trump, conservatives and our country through the courts and having a field day with just such chargers as we type these comments.
We do not want to give them yet another opportunity with a poorly worded bill that would be so easily used for the Dems purposes.
The sponsors, I am positive (especially based on past voting record and their current slate of sponsored bills) intended well.
But Intent is IRRELEVANT after the bill is passed.
Only the actual language matters after the bill is law and this bill Would be used by Democrats and, very possibly, by Never Trump “Republicans” to cause delays, chaos, lawsuits, news headlines and false narratives … all of which will be avoided by tightening the language of the bill.
No one should be upset that the flaws were spotted but rather grateful that some areas of weakness in the bill were spotted and can now be corrected rather than giving a Big Gift to the TN Dems and the national Dems.
I, and many other TN Conservatives, look forward to a bill that is tight and clear in its language.
And, yes, I 100% agree about Natural born v. citizen at birth … even the 3 oldest Trump children had 1 US citizen parent and 1 non US citizen parent at the time of their birth.
I look forward to that issue being cleared up as well as completely removing jus soli “citizenship”. I, and the majority of TN conservatives are with you on these issues.
We just want to avoid any confusion and giving Dems an invitation to lawsuits this November.
I can’t share this any where.
So, I would assume that you are over the target.
Agree with the above post. 100% chance that the karens in the nazicrat party would have used that language to challenge Trump’s eligibility in courts, delaying the casting of the Tennessee’s electoral college votes for an extended period of time.
The drafters and supporters of that language are either complicit in helping nazicrats in their lawfare against Trump, or they are incredibly incompetent. One or the other of those things is true. Without having to parse that, they are clearly unfit for office.
WRONG. His eligibilty is not being challenged. Under the Constitution he is eligible. What they are arguing is his qualifications. There is a difference. Words have meanings. He meets ALL eligibility requirements. Natural born citizen, 35 or older and has lived in the US for the past 14 years. What they are arguing is his QUALIFICATION. If you were to REALLY read the bill and keep your bias out it is clear this bill addresses the 3 requirements to be on the ballot. It never mentions anything about perceived crimes or even a person that was convicted of a crime. Trump could actually run for President from inside a prison cell. I was personally involved in this legislation and I can tell you the only person that would be afraid of this bill is Nikki Haley because she is NOT a natural born citizen. Both of her parents were citizens of India when she was born in the US. There is a big difference between being a citizen and being a natural born citizen. Hmmmmmm so think about that. We need to keep emotions out of this and get educated on the facts.
Context is everything. I read the bill. It was clear to me that it was only referencing the eligibility requirements of natural born status, age and required time in the country. Everything mentioned regarding investigation and punishment are limited to those eligibility requirements. And why did Loomer not contact and ask instead of assuming and blast? And who pointed it out to her. I know has been sent the correct information so let’s see if she has the decency to issue a correction.
Thank you Kelly for doing the journalistic job of verifying before writing an uninformed article in order to promote sensationalism and get new paying members which is what Laura Loomer has done with this issue. Anyone that read the bill and has a 3rd grade level of reading comprehension would see this bill was to protect our elected offices both at the local, state and federal level. Trump clearly is a natural born citizen. Both his father and his mother were US citizens when Trump was born. Although his mother was an immigrant she became a US citizen before Donald Trump was born. He surely meets the age requirement and he has lived in the US for more than 14 years. The only person that might be threatened by this bill would be Nikki Haley who is NOT a natural born citizen, neither is Vivek Ramaswamy, Kamala Harris or Dr. Shiva. All of the mentioned were born in the US (except for Dr. Shiva who was born in India) to 2 foreign parents. There is a difference between being a citizen and being a natural born citizen. And none of the above are natural born citizens. They are eligible to hold any and all elected offices EXCEPT for President or Vice President. The DNC/RNC has dropped the ball for years and do not verify candidates unless they happen to be a candidate they do not want to run like John McCain who WAS a natural born citizen. I was personally involved in getting Rep. Hulsey to sponsor this bill and as Sen. Niceley stated he sponsored the bill for Rep. Hulsey because of the filing deadline and I do not believe he was yet aware of all that was in the bill. People need to STOP listening to rumor and as Ronald Reagan said “TRUST but VERIFY” before you go off following someone that is obviously not interested in doing investigative journalism but instead is now a part of the senationalism journalist group. Again, Kelly and the people of TN Conservative thank you for taking the time to search out the truth.
Looks like a classic example of Advocacy Journalism on steroids. Fire, ready, aim, then research.
Better safe than sorry.
The fact that it is being argued about here indicates the language needs to be clarified so it isn’t confusing. “TN Conservative Voter” sounds like a smart guy. The language did say > “presidential electors for this state are prohibited from casting a vote for any presidential or vice-presidential candidate whose eligibility for office is in question or doubt at the time of the vote, and until such time as the candidate has been properly investigated and cleared of any reasonable doubt.” No doubt the Dems would argue that Trump’s “eligibility for office is in question or doubt” and file a lawsuit. Better to not make it easy for them.
Great debate over ‘language’ and don’t you all think that any ‘left leaning’ ‘activist’ judge that appointed by Bill Lee would also have opinions that may not be in line with ours? So, it is ALWAYS best to be clear with the language in these laws. Lawmakers should know better. However, my question in reading this article and all the opinions is: “Since when did a legislator withdraw legislation based on ‘misinterpreted’ language from a few minority activists?” I know bills get withdrawn for a lot of reasons, but I can’t imagine the work to write the bill, only to waffle at the first arrow shot across the bow? These lawmakers may not have had the courage of their convictions or it would seem that they’d have fought a bit harder to educate those that disagreed with it?
Victor – I think things are somewhat different today – we know that the Dems will look for any opportunity to file a lawsuit, preferably in a Lib court. There’s even a term for it – “Lawfare”. They don’t care about the truth or right and wrong – what they look for is any opportunity to cause Repubs problems. The lawsuits against Trump are examples.
I think the smart thing to do is to have conservatives review wording to see if anyone can “attack” it – the more, the better. If we can see a way to attack it, the Dems will attack it. Taking “pride of authorship” is a bad approach – the objective should be to outsmart the Dems.