A three-judge panel will soon rule on whether Tennessee’s new congressional map is constitutional.
Judges from West, Middle and East Tennessee heard arguments Thursday in the first of four legal challenges to the new map. The NAACP filed an emergency petition soon after the legislature approved new congressional districts, heeding a call from President Donald Trump to redistrict before the midterm elections.
In its first filing, the NAACP argued that lawmakers didn’t have the authority during its special session to strike down a 50-year-old law that prohibited mid-decade redistricting.
Anthony P. Ashton, senior associate general counsel for the NAACP, said that by removing the ban, the legislature could impact future elections.
“You could redistrict every two years if you wanted,” Ashton said.
Attorneys for the state argued that Gov. Bill Lee’s call for a special session accounted for the change, making it within the legislature’s authority.
More: Redistricting continuing coverage
The NAACP also pointed to previous arguments state election officials had made in court. When the group unsuccessfully challenged earlier maps, election officials testified that a change to the voting maps past April 7 would “wreak electoral chaos,” cause “voter confusion,” and “risk disenfranchisement of voters.” The legislature approved the new map on May 7.
“’Don’t believe what I said before; believe what I’m saying now. When I won last time, and I said this? Oh, that was nonsense’,” Ashton said.
Taylor Meehan, arguing for the state of Tennessee, said the cases are different because the legislature accounted for the extra cost to county governments, while a court-ordered change would not provide reimbursement.
“Those appropriations for overtime and for mailing notices, that’s the real difference,” Meehan said.
She estimated that by next week, every county except Davidson would have made all the changes necessary to carry out the new maps.
Nashville Chancellor Anne Martin, who represented Middle Tennessee on the panel, questioned Meehan about how the new map would impact candidates who are now in different districts compared to where they first started campaigning.
“Have you ever run for office before?” Martin asked. “Part of the analysis is: how much is it going to cost? How many voters do I need to reach? … As a candidate, you have to make a decision about whether or not it’s a winnable race based on a whole lot of factors, most of which, where are your votes going to come from?”
Meehan argued that a candidate doesn’t have “an interest in representing a particular constituency.”
One argument not mentioned in the courtroom was how the new map slices up the state’s only majority-Black voting district. Since a U.S. Supreme Court last month found that lawmakers don’t have to consider race when drawing district maps, the argument has become moot. But it’s still at the center of this case, Ashton said.
“That (split) was done, as far as we can tell, solely for purposes of making sure that the people of Memphis no longer can elect candidates of their choice,” Ashton told WPLN News.
Ashton said Memphis’s interests are different from the interests of surrounding rural areas, and with these maps in place, he argued Memphis will not have those interests represented in Congress.
On Air - 90.3 WPLN-FM