Tennessee legislature puts state watchdog agency under attorney general
The Tennessee Attorney General's Office could soon have the responsibility for investigating claims of discrimination by state agencies after the state Senate passed a measure dissolving the Human Rights Commission and moving operations to the AG's office.
Senate Bill 861, sponsored by Huntingdon Republican Sen. John Stevens, passed Monday 27-6 on partisan lines. The House version, sponsored by Goodletsville Republican Rep. Johnny Garrett, passed Thursday. The bill would go next to the governor's desk for his signature.
The 60-year-old commission is a nonpartisan and independent agency responsible for enforcing civil rights laws in employment, housing and public accommodation as well as discrimination claims against the state of Tennessee.
Bill to give Tennessee AG civil rights oversight draws Democratic pushback over partisanship
The measure has drawn criticism from Democrats who say handing discrimination claims to Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti sets up a 'fox in the henhouse' scenario.
After Stevens referred to Skrmetti's office as 'the most nonpartisan' of Tennessee's three branches of government, Sen. Raumesh Akbari, a Memphis Democrat, disagreed.
'I'm not going to make it personal, but if you've never been discriminated against . . . it makes a difference who is investigating,' Akbari said. 'I would urge you to google the last few suits the attorney general has filed and I assure you their actions do not look nonpartisan.'
Skrmetti has led or joined lawsuits that include a challenge to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's rule prohibiting discrimination against women seeking abortions, litigation seeking to stop transgender medical care for minors and sent letters to corporations warning them against diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, among other actions.
Tennessee Attorney General's Office to election finance office: We're 'not an investigative agency'
Stevens said his review of the commission showed that thousands of claims have 'languished' and not been investigated.
Democrats objected to that characterization.
'HRC testified to the fact they have several vacancies on their commission and it's because the House Speaker has refused the fill the vacancies since 2022,' said Sen. Charlane Oliver, a Nashville Democrat.
'We have crippled the ability of the HRC to do their job,' she said. 'That may be the reason they can't respond to complaints.'
Sen. Kerry Roberts, a Springfield Republican, described the commission as 'enormously ineffective' before calling for a vote.
Under the measure, the commission will be dissolved by July 1 and its 30 staff positions will move to the attorney general's office.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
11 minutes ago
- USA Today
Republicans are afraid of Mamdani in New York. That's a good thing.
Republicans think Zohran Mamdani will turn NYC into a socialist mecca because they forgot what a functioning government looks like. We're a few months out from New York City's municipal election, and Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani is still the frontrunner in the mayoral race. It's a positive sign for progressives who want to see democratic socialists transform the party. In a July poll by Zenith Research and Public Progress Solutions, Mamdani received 50% of support while the rest of the candidates trailed behind. Former Democratic governor Andrew Cuomo, who is now running as an independent, received 22% of support, followed by Republican Curtis Sliwa at 13%. Current Mayor Eric Adams, who is also running as an independent, received just 7% support. Mamdani may be polling well, but his path to victory in November is anything but smooth. There are already five anti-Mamdani PACs that have formed since the primary, backed by business moguls and real estate tycoons who warn that the Democratic nominee would be bad for the city's economy. He's also having to answer for some of his previous posts about 'defunding the police' and comments on Israel. Republicans criticizing Mamdani for 'defund police' comment are hypocritical The biggest criticism of Mamdani has come from his previous comments about the New York City Police Department. In the wake of George Floyd's murder in 2020, Mamdani posted to X that the NYPD was 'racist, anti-queer & a major threat to public safety' and called for defunding the force. Mamdani has also proposed creating a Department of Community Safety separate from the police department, which would respond to mental health calls. But the Democratic nominee is attempting to distance himself from these previous claims, calling the posts 'out of step' with his current stance on public safety. He recently met with the family of Officer Didarul Islam, one of the four people killed in a recent shooting in Midtown Manhattan. Republicans criticizing him seem more than willing to ignore the way President Donald Trump pardoned Jan. 6 rioters who attacked police officers, or his own criminal convictions. But he is the "law and order" president, for sure. And the GOP is the "law and order" party, right? Voters are increasingly agreeing with Mamdani on Gaza Another criticism from the right is that Mamdani is too critical of Israel. Fox News recently resurrected a clip of Mamdani from a 2024 panel where the mayoral candidate claimed, 'Israel is not a place, it is not a country.' Mamdani seems to be taking these attacks to heart. He recently said he would not use the phrase 'globalize the intifada,' and would also discourage others from using it. Mamdani had previously refused to condemn the phrase. On the other hand, Mamdani's criticisms of Israel proved to be popular with voters in the Democratic primary. A poll from Data for Progress and the Institute for Middle East Understanding Policy Project found that his 'support for Palestinian rights' was important for 96% of his voters, while his 'willingness to criticize the Israeli government' was important to 88% of his voters. Opinion: People are starving in Gaza. Why are we so comfortable just letting that happen? While conservatives are trying to attack Mamdani for his previous stances on Israel and his sympathy for the Palestinian people, it doesn't seem like it'll work. Democrats should listen to their voters, not conservatives, to know how to approach this issue. Only 8% of Democrats support Israel's actions in Gaza, according to a recent Gallup poll, while 71% of Republicans support it. Some Republicans are even breaking with the party to denounce mass starvation in the region, including Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, who recently called the crisis a "genocide." Republicans are afraid of what Mamdani stands for. Good. Mamdani won the primary largely thanks to his mobilization of young voters. It worked out for him: voters under 40 made up 40% of early voting turnout. Now, the question is whether they'll turn out for the general election. I'm hopeful that they will. I have personally seen the way my generation has reacted to Mamdani's campaign. There is a palpable excitement reminiscent of Barack Obama's first run for the presidency, an excitement fueled by the idea that the Democratic Party can change, in spite of itself. Opinion: Zohran Mamdani rallied Gen Z voters. We can't abandon him now. The reasons conservatives are criticizing Mamdani are the reasons people my age voted for him. We believe in moving funding from the NYPD into areas like mental health care and community building. We support Palestinian rights. We want to see that working-class New Yorkers can remain in this city. We see taxing corporations and the wealthy as a good thing. Some may call these things unrealistic, and they may have a point. There's no way New York City becomes a socialist utopia if Mamdani is elected, since he must work with the city council, state and national governments to achieve many of his campaign priorities. But his very election could signal to the Democratic Party that they should run to, not from, progressive politics. Mamdani's path to victory is not an easy one. He will continue to face criticism from the right throughout the next few months. But if polling is any indication, he's still likely to be the next mayor of the largest city in the United States. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter, @sara__pequeno
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
How Democrats can stop talking past each other and start winning
A second group of moderates, including important donors, are libertarians who endorse ' Advertisement The third group of moderate Democrats yearns to turn back the clock to the New Deal coalition. A chief spokesperson is Ruy Teixeira of the Liberal Patriot newsletter. '[T]he New Deal Democrats were moderate and even small-c conservative in their social outlook,' he Advertisement Beginning in the 1970s, college-educated progressives began to focus on issues involving race, gender, the environment, and sexual freedom. Teixeira This brings us to the only moderate position that holds promise for Democrats: defining moderate as being pragmatic, rather than doctrinaire. College-educated progressives need to recognize that their priorities and their cultural values don't match those of most Americans. In 2024, inflation and the economy were Advertisement Centering that economic message is the first pragmatic step in rebuilding Democrats' brand to appeal to both college grads and noncollege grads. The second step is to recognize that cultural preferences differ across class lines. Non-elites value self-discipline because they need to get up every day, on time, without an attitude, to work at jobs with little autonomy. Consequently, they highly value traditional institutions that anchor self-discipline: religion, the military, the family. Those same institutions offer non-elites sources of social status independent of their subordinate positions in a capitalist economy. Blue-collar values reflect blue-collar lives. That's why, on cultural issues, college-educated progressives need to stop demanding a mind-meld with the Democratic Party. If you're playing to win, politics requires not purity but an ability to build coalitions with people whose values may differ from yours in fundamental ways. Democrats need to treat voters without college degrees as respected coalition partners, making tradeoffs. Advertisement This doesn't mean that progressives need to abandon their values; it means they have to act on them. Here are two uncomfortable facts: Progressive activists as a group are much
an hour ago
After a reference to Trump's impeachments is removed from a history museum, complex questions echo
NEW YORK -- It would seem the most straightforward of notions: A thing takes place, and it goes into the history books or is added to museum exhibits. But whether something even gets remembered and how — particularly when it comes to the history of a country and its leader — is often the furthest thing from simple. The latest example of that came Friday, when the Smithsonian Institution said it had removed a reference to the 2019 and 2021 impeachments of President Donald Trump from a panel in an exhibition about the American presidency. Trump has pressed institutions and agencies under federal oversight, often through the pressure of funding, to focus on the country's achievements and progress and away from things he terms 'divisive.' A Smithsonian spokesperson said the removal of the reference, which had been installed as part of a temporary addition in 2021, came after a review of 'legacy content recently' and the exhibit eventually 'will include all impeachments.' There was no time frame given for when; exhibition renovations can be time- and money-consuming endeavors. In a statement that did not directly address the impeachment references, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said: 'We are fully supportive of updating displays to highlight American greatness.' But is history intended to highlight or to document — to report what happened, or to serve a desired narrative? The answer, as with most things about the past, can be intensely complex. The Smithsonian's move comes in the wake of Trump administration actions like removing the name of a gay rights activist from a Navy ship, pushing for Republican supporters in Congress to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and getting rid of the leadership at the Kennedy Center. 'Based on what we have been seeing, this is part of a broader effort by the president to influence and shape how history is depicted at museums, national parks, and schools,' said Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. 'Not only is he pushing a specific narrative of the United States but, in this case, trying to influence how Americans learn about his own role in history.' It's not a new struggle, in the world generally and the political world particularly. There is power in being able to shape how things are remembered, if they are remembered at all — who was there, who took part, who was responsible, what happened to lead up to that point in history. And the human beings who run things have often extended their authority to the stories told about them. In China, for example, references to the June 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Beijing's Tiananmen Square are forbidden and meticulously regulated by the ruling Communist Party government. In Soviet-era Russia, officials who ran afoul of leaders like Josef Stalin disappeared not only from the government itself but from photographs and history books where they once appeared. Jason Stanley, an expert on authoritarianism, said controlling what and how people learn of their past has long been used as a vital tool to maintain power. Stanley has made his views about the Trump administration clear; he recently left Yale University to join the University of Toronto, citing concerns over the U.S. political situation. 'If they don't control the historical narrative,' he said, 'then they can't create the kind of fake history that props up their politics.' In the United States, presidents and their families have always used their power to shape history and calibrate their own images. Jackie Kennedy insisted on cuts in William Manchester's book on her husband's 1963 assassination, 'The Death of a President.' Ronald Reagan and his wife got a cable TV channel to release a carefully calibrated documentary about him. Those around Franklin D. Roosevelt, including journalists of the era, took pains to mask the impact that paralysis had on his body and his mobility. Trump, though, has taken it to a more intense level — a sitting president encouraging an atmosphere where institutions can feel compelled to choose between him and the truth — whether he calls for it directly or not. 'We are constantly trying to position ourselves in history as citizens, as citizens of the country, citizens of the world,' said Robin Wagner-Pacifici, professor emerita of sociology at the New School for Social Research. 'So part of these exhibits and monuments are also about situating us in time. And without it, it's very hard for us to situate ourselves in history because it seems like we just kind of burst forth from the Earth.' Timothy Naftali, director of the Richard M. Nixon Presidential Library and Museum from 2007 to 2011, presided over its overhaul to offer a more objective presentation of Watergate — one not beholden to the president's loyalists. In an interview Friday, he said he was 'concerned and disappointed' about the Smithsonian decision. Naftali, now a senior researcher at Columbia University, said museum directors 'should have red lines' and that he considered removing the Trump panel to be one of them. While it might seem inconsequential for someone in power to care about a museum's offerings, Wagner-Pacifici says Trump's outlook on history and his role in it — earlier this year, he said the Smithsonian had 'come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology' — shows how important those matters are to people in authority. 'You might say about that person, whoever that person is, their power is so immense and their legitimacy is so stable and so sort of monumental that why would they bother with things like this ... why would they bother to waste their energy and effort on that?' Wagner-Pacifici said. Her conclusion: 'The legitimacy of those in power has to be reconstituted constantly. They can never rest on their laurels.'
