The Democrat leaders of the State House and Senate proposed a bill that would require “model legislation” to be designated and posted on the General Assembly’s website.

The text of the bill reads:

Any bill filed by a member of the general assembly that is a model bill or is substantially similar to model legislation from an established and recognized organization of elected or appointed state government officials, staff of state government officials or both officials and staff, or any other established and recognized organization that is an umbrella organization for such officials, staff, or both officials and staff shall be accompanied by a form created by the chief clerk of each house that designates that such bill is a model bill or is substantially similar to model legislation and shall designate the name of the organization. Any form completed pursuant to this subsection (a) shall  be available on the general assembly’s web site by clicking on a link on the page of the bill description.

Without mentioning the organization, this bill targets the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative policy organization that helps share legislative ideas from state legislature to state legislature.

Suppose a State Senator in Arizona devises legislation to curb illegal immigration, and a Senator in Tennessee wants to sponsor a similar bill? ALEC works with these legislators to adapt the legislation to work in the different states.

My question is, Why re-invent the wheel? If something works in one state, shouldn’t legislators in another state be allowed to adapt the legislation to work for their constituents? And further, why not create a clearing house for these ideas?

But ALEC has become a target of the left, and Democrat legislators are convinced evil corporations are writing bills for state legislators.

Full Disclosure: I know people at ALEC. They’re policy nerds. They spend their days researching statistics and data in order to make sure legislation is legally sound.

The bill died in the House State & Local Government subcommittee by a voice vote. The Chattanooga Times Free Press made sure to let readers know the State Representative who spoke out was a member of ALEC’s board.

If Democrats want to make the system transparent, why not require EVERY bill to cite where the idea came from? Be in a teachers’ union, or the NCSL, or any number of lobbyists…

Here’s a couple links directing folks to anti-ALEC sites, including a blog post by a lefty group in Tennessee about the evils of Koch-funded ALEC.

Republican State Leadership Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie penned an op/ed in the Washington Examiner today about the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. It’s a terrible idea that has wide bipartisan support.

Gillespie writes:

The NPV would allow state legislatures to cast their state’s Electoral College votes for the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of how their states voted. In August, California joined the compact, giving it 49 percent of the 270 electoral votes it needs to take effect.

The compact must pass in states controlling the remaining electoral votes needed by July 2012 for the system to be in place for the November 2012 presidential election. NPV supporters incorrectly assume that such a system would lead to fairer elections and more states being represented in the process.

Rather, if the NPV compact takes hold, instead of making elections fairer, our nation will face more recounts, an explosion in voter fraud and a diminished role for nearly every state. It would create a system wherein presidential election outcomes would be decided by a few swing cities rather than swing states.

Currently, when a recount is conducted in one state, it only affects that state’s electoral votes. Under the NPV, the entire country’s results could hinge on a single vote in a single precinct in a single state.

Not only that, but National Popular Vote would consolidate political power and influence in large cities like New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

So far, it’s only been enacted in Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Massachusetts, the District of Columbia, Vermont, and California — all bastions of big government liberalism.

But there’s a proposal in the Tennessee General Assembly that would change the way Tennesseans would appropriate its 11 electoral votes. (Currently, it’s a mix of popular vote statewide and popular vote by Congressional District.)

If Tennessee enacted the National Popular Vote proposal, voters in big cities like New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago would essentially choose Tennessee’s electors.

Don’t think a measure like this could pass in Tennessee? Think again. HB1302/SB1024 are bills that would convert Tennessee to a pro-National Popular Vote state, and they’re both being sponsored be Republicans – Vince Dean in the House and Steve Southerland in the Senate.

There has been no movement on either the House or Senate version since they were assigned to the general subcommittees of State & Local Government in both Chambers last March.

Republic-loving Tennesseans should contact these legislators to make sure HB1302 and SB1024 both die in committee to ensure Tennessee voters continue to select their state’s Electoral College Electors.

Oh, the tolerance of the Left…

Late yesterday evening, a Knoxville restaurant cryptically suggested that it denied service to conservative State Senator Stacey Campfield, allegedly for remarks he’s made about the gay community and his fervent opposition to LGBT rights in the Legislature.

In a Facebook status update, the Bistro at the Bijou posted, “I hope that Stacy Campfield now knows what if feels like to be unfairly discrimanted against.” (At the time of this publication, their post had nearly 400 “likes” and more than 80 comments.)

The general consensus from the liberal commentariat in Tennessee (and now nationally) is that an establishment should be allowed to deny service to a customer based on the owner’s opinion of that customer.

Right. A business should be allowed to choose whom it serves. This is their argument. This is the very definition of discrimination, “the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their membership in a certain group or category.” Toss Stacey into the group of conservative legislators, or high profile individuals who oppose LGBT rights in Tennessee, or Gingers. This definition applies.

As a libertarian, I agree with their sentiment – that a private business ought to be allowed to enter into business with whomever they chose, and by extension, deny service to those individuals they do not want to serve. It doesn’t make financial sense; a restaurant ought to want to maximize its profits and serve the most number of customers it can. A dollar from a Ginger, or a black guy, or a Jewish person, or a gay person, or whomever spends the same as a dollar from anyone else. But if the issue is property rights (and whom a property owner may serve in their establishment), then people should be allowed to exercise their principles.

But as you may recall, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul got into some trouble on the campaign trail in 2010 for expressing a very similar sentiment.

Rand Paul, in typical philosophical-libertarian-unconcerned-with-electoral-politics style, expressed his dissatisfaction with the Clause in the Civil Rights Act which forced businesses to serve customers of any race or ethnicity. Now, you might imagine that passing a law simultaneously changes hearts and minds, but it doesn’t. In fact, the Civil Rights Act did little to eliminate racist sentiments toward black Americans. I digress…

The same crowd who believes a restaurant in Knoxville should be allowed to deny service to Campfield expressed collective outrage over Paul’s comments. Rachel Maddow hosted Paul and later blogged about the discussion.

In the wake of Rand Paul’s Civil Rights-gate, John Stossel came to his defense – and by extension, the defense of those who support Bistro’s decision in Knoxville.

Stossel argues in favor of “freedom of association” and asserts that we discriminate every single day; when we’re choosing our foods, or our friends, or the hundreds of other choices we make. (On a side note, I want to strangle Megyn Kelly in this Stossel interview. She’s really grasping at straws.)

The problem with the incident in Knoxville and the subsequent public response is that it’s motivated by disdain for an individual and his beliefs. The manager who tossed Campfield out and the people who have applauded her aren’t standing on some libertarian, free association principle. They’re doing so because they don’t like Stacey.

What’s the difference, then, between refusing service to a man because you don’t like his ideas and refusing service to a man because you don’t like his skin color? Both decisions are based on a disdain for an individual.

What’s to stop the owner of Bistro from posting a sign saying “We don’t serve Gingers” or “No Republicans Allowed” or whatever?

The Tennessee Left (what little that actually exists) collectively cheers every time Campfield makes headlines for something silly. Their reaction this time is no different. It’s a personal vendetta they hold against him.

What do you think? Is it inconsistent of the Left to applaud denying service to a man with whom they disagree? Is it personal or philosophical? Leave a comment below.

Joe Lance over at Tennessee Ticket opined briefly yesterday about former Democrat State Senator Rosalind Kurita’s court battle against the State Primary Board and the Tennessee Democratic Party, asking “Is a primary election an election?”

A hearing was held last Tuesday in the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals on the federal lawsuit brought by former Sen. Rosalind Kurita over her 2008 removal from the ballot by the Executive Committee of the Tennessee Democratic Party.

As expected, the central issue being argued is whether a primary election is a binding artifact of public will, or is equal to conventions, caucuses, and other means by which political parties nominate candidates, and thus subject to the party’s control.

…

This is no secret, but I would have to side with Kurita’s attorney. Yes, the primary election is the chosen vehicle by which two parties in this state nominate their candidates; but since doing it that way means being governed by state election law; and since the elections are funded by public means; and since they are attended by the general public, and not exclusive to party members, then I argue that a winner of such an election must be recognized. The parties can’t have it both ways.

Full Disclosure: I worked (read: volunteered; there was only one paid staffer, as I recall) for Senator Kurita during her write-in campaign.

The two sides are arguing over whether or not a primary election is, in fact, an election. Kurita’s attorney argues that a primary is an opportunity for voters to select a particular Party’s nominee, while the State and the TNDP argue that a primary is merely a selection process orchestrated by the various Parties and that voting just seems to be a (sometimes inconvenient) consequence of that process.

What if the Court rules in Kurita’s favor? What happens then?

Kurita’s attorney asked the panel to order a special election; however, Senator Barnes is up for re-election this year, several months outside the time frame to call for a special election.

Lance concluded, “However, I would not go so far as to demand that Kurita be seated in the Senate,” but that opinion was based on an incorrect recollection that Kurita did not run in the general. (She did, as a write-in.)

The only course of action that I can see if the court rules in Kurita’s favor is to remove Barnes from office immediately and allow Kurita to serve out the remainder of the term that would have been hers. No Republican filed to run in the 2008 election.

Both parties could then run again in the August primary without TNDP meddling.

It has always seemed to me that once a primary election is held and paid for by the taxpayers, then the results should stand. Sure, a political party should reserve the right to select a nominee, but they should be required to announce a selection process and cancel the primary.

I will, as I have since 2008, continue to follow this story as it progresses.

The Washington Examiner has a pretty good write-up here. The Tennessean, too. Ballot Access News both here and here.

Brief Note: Yes, it’s been a while since I’ve blogged here. I hope to pick up covering state issues in my spare time. I hope you’ll join me in the comments.