►
Description
House Local Government Committee- February 8, 2022- House Hearing Room 1
A
Welcome
members
and
guests
today
is
tuesday
february
the
8th
2012.
I
hereby
call
local
government
committee
to
order.
Madam
clerk,
you
will
please
take
the
roll.
A
Thank
you.
Let
the
record
reflect
representative
carri's
excuse
today.
Are
there
any
personal
orders
or
announcements
from
the
members
seeing
none?
Today
we
have
five
bills
on
the
calendar,
we'll
start
with
house
bill
1684
by
leader,
lambreth
proper
motion
in
second
on
the
bill
leader,
lambert
you're,
recognized,
sir.
C
Mr
chairman
and
members,
this
bill
is
very
simple.
It's
one
paragraph.
It
just
says
that
our
our
locally
elected
officials
serving
on
a
legislative
body
have
to
declare
the
same
conflict
that
we
do
so.
If
they're
voting
on
the
budget
or
something
else,
and
they
have
a
specific
conflict,
they
can
still
vote.
They
just
have
to
stand
up
and
tell
folks
hey.
I
have
a
conflict
on
this.
A
C
C
Currently,
there
is
a
barrier
between
a
judge
being
able
to
directly
ask
somebody
for
a
campaign
contribution
that
same
judicial
candidate
signs
their
forms
and
indicating
that
they're
accurate
just
like
we
do
so.
They
review
who's
given
to
their
campaigns
and
that
same
judicial
candidate,
which
they're
all
up
and
running
this
year
goes
to
their
fundraisers
or
presumably,
if
they
want
to
have
a
successful
fundraiser,
they
actually
show
up
to
their
own
fundraiser.
C
So
it's
it's
not
like
they're,
not
shaking
hands
and
thanking
those
folks
and
know
who
gives
so
all
this
says
that
they
can
actually
ask
those
folks
directly
or
not.
If
they
don't
want
to,
I
mean
they
can
still
keep
a
barrier
between
them
and
requesting
for
a
donation,
but
if
they
would
like
to
go
ahead
and
just
do
as
each
of
us
are
allowed
to
do,
they
can
call
donors
and
actually
request
funds
during
the
fundraising
time
periods.
E
Thank
you.
I
just
had
one
question:
miss
lita.
I
see
what
you're
doing
here.
How
does
that
affect
them
in
terms?
Well,
I
guess
this
is
kind
of
a
weedy
question,
but
if
I'm
a
judge-
and
I
get
this
huge
donation
from
somebody-
what
what
does
the
law
say
about
that
same
thing?
It
says
about
ours,
breed.
C
Famous
chairman,
and
and
yes,
I
mean
in
essence,
if
a
judge
feels
like
they
got
a
contribution
that
in
any
way,
shape
form
or
fashion
either
currently
or
under
this,
whether
they
ask
for
it
or
not.
If
somebody
gave
you
their
campaign
and
in
any
way
affects
their
ability
to
be
a
fair
and
impartial
judge,
they
need
to
recuse
themselves
from
that
case,
whether
they
asked
for
it
personally
or
just
saw
it
on
the
list
or
saw
that
person
at
the
fundraiser.
C
It's
the
same
thing
I
mean,
and
I
want
to
be
crystal
clear
this
would
this
statute
would
trump
any
rule
or
procedure
or
ruling
that
has
been
made
by
any
other,
unelected
body
that
is
out
there.
So
if
some
ethics
panel
or
something
tells
them
they
can't
fundraise,
this
would
be
in
state
law
that
they
absolutely
could,
but
that
does
not
change
any
of
those
ethical
decisions
or
opinions
by
those
bodies
on.
If
someone
got
a
large
contribution,
whether
or
not
they
would
be
forced
to
recuse
themselves.
C
That
is
the
case
now
it
will
be
the
case
if
this
bill
is
successful
and
should
always
be
the
case.
In
my
humble
opinion,.
A
Follow
up
mr
shaw,
representative
miller,
you're
recognized
thank.
F
C
I
have
not
looked
at
the
specific
individual
limits
to
see
whether
or
not
they
are
allowed
to
raise
what
we
can.
I
could
look
that
up,
but
this
doesn't
change
anything
as
far
as
what
their
individual
fundraising
limits
are,
but
it
would
give
them
the
freedom
to
be
able
to
directly
request
funds,
just
as
we
do
when
they're
running
for
public
office.
F
We
are
prohibited
from
raising
funds,
for
example,
now
in
the
legislature,
with
with
the
judges
be
prohibited,
while
they're
on
the
bench
from
raising
funds
or
soliciting
and
and
we
run
every
two
years
they
run
every
eight
years.
To
this
point,
I
don't
know
why
they
got
eight
years,
but
that's
a
judge
calling
as
a
judge.
G
C
So
there
are
some
prohibitions
on
when
judges
can
and
cannot
raise
again.
I've
never
run
for
judge,
never
plan
to
ever
run
for
judge
I
like
serving
in
this
body
and
being
an
interactive
part
of
the
proceedings.
The
judges
kind
of
you
know
up
above
it
and
it's
kind
of
the
referee,
so
to
speak.
I
I
am
probably
going
to
mistake
this
and
I
apologize,
but
I
believe
it's
120
days.
C
There
are
some
folks
that
have
helped
with
judicial
races
in
this
room,
but
there
is
whether
it's
120
days
or
whatever
prescribed
time
before
their
election
is
the
only
time
they
can
really
raise
money,
they're
not
able
to
raise
just
any
and
every
time,
and
I
think,
there's
a
very
short
time
after
the
election.
None
of
this
changes
any
of
that,
so
all
of
the
same
restrictions
that
they
have
on
time
period
just
like
we
have
restrictions
during
session
I'd
be
able
to
raise.
C
This
doesn't
change
any
and
I
may
be
a
little
off
on
the
days
where
there's
120
days
180
before,
but
there's
a
prescribed
time
period
that
they're
able
to
raise
none
of
this
changes.
Any
of
that.
It
just
says
that
they-
and
I
know
it
sounds
ridiculously
simple,
but
it's
a
big
deal
that
they
can
ask
for
the
you
know
they
can
solicit
the
contribution.
They
can
call
you
and
say
representative
miller,
I'm
running
for
blah
blah
blah,
and
I
would
deeply
appreciate
your
support.
We're
having
a
fundraiser
friday
night.
F
Up
yes,
sir,
and
thank
you
for
that,
but
but
again
I'm
trying
to
understand
if,
if
they're
going
to
be
anywhere
close
to
being
equal
to
what
we
have
to
do,
the
question
remains-
and
we
probably
will
have
to
find
the
answer
to
the
question:
will
they
be
able
to
solicit
funds
while
they
are
actually
on
the
bench
and
again
they're
on
the
bench
for
eight
years
yeah?
So
within
that
period,
would
they
be
able
to
solicit
funds
for
their
next
election,
which
would
be
eight
years
from
leader
lambert,
the
last
election,
so.
C
They
cannot
solicit
funds
while
they
are
on
the
bench,
and
I
I
believe
that
there
are
other
laws
that
prohibit
them
from
doing
it
on
state
time.
Okay,
so
they
can't
do
that
like
they
can't
be
on
the
bench
and
like
call
somebody
up
and
say
hey
by
the
way,
I'm
fundraising,
they
obviously
cannot
do
that
all
right
during
their
term
of
office,
just
as
we
can.
Yes,
they
can
solicit
funds,
but
none
of
this
changes
the
time
period
and
the
restrictions
on
when
that
can
occur.
C
H
Oh
yes,
thank
you.
Thank
you
for
bringing
this
I've.
Over
the
years
before
I
got
elected
state
rep,
I
guess
I've
managed
over
10
judicial
races
and
it's
kind
of
ridiculous.
They
there
is
a
certain
time
period.
I
believe
it
is
120
days
for
an
election
when
they
can
start
fundraising
for
the
re-election.
H
But
what's
odd
is
their
treasurer
can
stand
behind
them
or
their
wife
and
they
say
I
can't
accept
money,
but
he
can
and
they
just
give
them
an
envelope
when
you
send,
when
you
send
an
invitation
out,
it
says
our
treasurer's
accepted
money
at
the
fundraiser.
It's
just
ridiculous
to
restrain
them
like
that,
and
they
do
have
separate
laws,
and
the
cannons
is
what
they're
called
and
the
supreme
court
sets
all
those
rules.
Your
bill
doesn't
change
any
of
their
restrictions
laws.
It
just
simply
says
they
can
accept
funds,
and
it's
about
time.
C
Famous
chairman
and
well
said
that
that's
exactly
what
it
does.
I
mean
right
now.
Somebody
walks
up
to
an
envelope
with
a
judge
at
their
own
fundraiser
with
their
own
sign
out
front
and
they
have
to
go.
I
can't
touch
that
give
that
to
the
person
standing
right
here
and
it's
almost
comical
to
watch.
I
mean
it's
just
it
doesn't
change
any
of
the
rest
of
this.
It
just
allows
them
to
at
least
take
the
envelope
and
say.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
support.
G
I
think
what
you're
proposing
and
makes
sense
on
the
surface
and
I've
had
similar
thoughts
to
chairman
ruddon
this
regard,
but
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
are
not
overriding
anything
else.
You
made
the
comment
that
there
might
be
other
rules
or
regs
out
there
that
might
have
restrictions
in
them,
but
this
would
actually
be
the
law
now
and
so
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
will
not
override
any
of
those
restrictions.
G
I
don't
know
if
we
can
go
out
of
session
and
hear
from
legal
briefly
on
what
some
of
those.
A
C
They,
mr
sherman,
and
again,
to
be
crystal
clear
to
make
sure
the
intent
of
this
bill
is
is
on
the
record.
It
is
absolutely
not
my
intention
to
change
any
other
canons
of
judicial
ethics
or
any
of
the
rules
that
they
have
to
abide
by
or
any
of
the
recusal
procedures
that
they
would
have
to
go
through.
G
Okay,
that's
good.
I
appreciate
that
clarification
and
to
just
throw
it
out
there.
It's
my
understanding
that
they
can
raise
funds
365
days
before
the
election
day,
and
that
was
a
number
I
was
thinking
could
possibly
get
out
there
from
a
more
authoritar
a
thor
teddy
source
than
me.
If
anyone
wants
to,
but
that's
my
understanding.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
representation,
you're
recognized.
E
E
A
F
C
Lamberth
again,
there
is
nothing
in
this
bill
that
changed.
I
don't
know
if
it's
120
365
as
I
specified
earlier,
there
is
a
time
period.
Your
question
earlier
that
they
can
raise.
There
is
a
time
period
that
they
are
prohibited
from
raising
those
time
pair.
Those
time
periods
do
not
change
at
all,
but,
as
our
learned
colleague
to
your
right
said,
this
does
make
it
just
an
honest
process
where,
if
the
good
judge
is
going
to
ask
for
money,
they
got
to
do
it
themselves.
C
F
F
C
Chairman,
no
sir,
without
respect,
I
don't
want
to
go
into
any
of
that.
I
want
to
keep
this
bill
nice
and
simple
where
it
just
says
they
can
solicit
funds
within
whatever
time
periods
that
they're
currently
allowed
to
or
not
allowed
to,
and
we
leave
up
to
that
that
up
to
the
judicial
branch
wherever
they
want
to
put
that
that
gets
into
a
whole
different
area.
I'm
literally
just
talking
about
with
this
bill,
one
sentence
that
they
can
personally
ask
for
the
contribution.
C
A
A
Okay
house
bill
number
1868,
chairman
vaughn.
This
is
item
number
three.
I
have
another
bill
to
present
in
another
committee.
I'm
going
to
do
that
so
at
this
time
I
will
pass
the
gavel
to
vice
chairman
right.
I
D
Thank
you,
mr
presenter.
Do
we
have
a
motion
a
second
thank
you.
I
just
need
to
make
sure
we're
in
proper
state.
I
D
D
I
Yes,
sir
again
house
bill
1868
removes
the
possibility
or
prohibits
the
use
of
rank,
choice,
voting
or
instant
runoff
voting
for
state
and
local
elections
throughout
the
state
of
tennessee.
I
I
I
I
I
The
the
we
believe
that
rank
choice
voting
will
provide
a
longer
time
period
before
actual
winners
are
declared
and
again
it
will
require
a
great
number
of
ballots
to
be
handled
and
gone
through
we're
going
to
spend
a
lot
of
money
on
it
in
shelby
county,
where
the
city
of
memphis
had
altered
their
charter
to
to
allow
rank
choice.
Voting
prior
to
the
election
commissioners.
I
The
election
commission
estimated
that
it
was
going
to
cost
about
twenty
six
thousand
dollars
per
district
to
redo
the
voting
machines,
and
on
top
of
that,
it
was
going
to
be
about
another
fifty
thousand
dollars
in
voter
education,
voter
education
efforts,
and
then
there
will
be
the
inevitable
challenges
of
the
results
of
the
cost,
to
count
and
defend
those
results.
And
then,
at
the
end
of
all
of
this,
at
the
end
of
this,
there's
no
guarantee
that
the
winner
will
have
a
majority
of
the
votes.
I
Where's,
there's
up,
there's
examples
where,
in
past
elections,
where
they've
gone
through
the
ranked
choice
voting
and
they
still
didn't
get
to
a
majority
winner,
even
after
all
of
that,
and
so
what
we
would
like
to
do.
This
is
a
the
only
time
this
has
been
approved
in
the
state
of
tennessee
has
been
the
city
of
memphis
charter.
I
Again
election
director
of
elections
for
the
secretary
of
state.
Our
office
had
rented
an
opinion
that
state
law
did
not
allow
this,
and
so
what
we'd
like
to
do?
Is
we
just
like
to
clean
up
the
matter?
So
we
can
end
the
conversation
and
concentrate
on
providing
as
clear
and
transparent
of
an
election
process
for
our
citizens
as
possible.
D
D
Yes,
sir,
you
you
may
seat
yourself
at
the
desk
and,
if
you're
ready
to
go,
I
would
ask
that
you
give
your
name
and
organization
representing.
J
My
name
is
chris
saxman.
Thank
you,
mr
members
of
the
committee,
I'm
a
former
member
of
the
house
of
delegates
in
virginia
served
for
four
terms.
I
now
run
a
non-profit,
nonpartisan,
pro-business
organization
in
which
we
analyze
elections
for
the
business
community.
I
came
here
at
the
request
of
an
organization
that
I'm
not
representing
I'm
here
because
of
the
experience
that
I
had
in
virginia
with
ranked
choice,
voting
for
the
republican
party
of
virginia
in
the
2021
cycle.
J
If
you're
familiar
with
that
election
cycle,
probably
not
as
much
as
as
most
but
the
virginia
republicans
could
not
come
to
an
agreement
on
how
they
were
going
to
nominate
their
statewide
ticket
for
2021.
There
has
been
a
growing
fight
between
the
convention
and
primary
people
if
you
will-
and
they
just
couldn't
come
to
an
understanding
of
how
they're
going
to
conduct
their
own
election.
This
is
outside
the
state.
This
is
the
party
apparatus.
J
J
I
think
is
one
of
the
key
reasons
is
because
they
went
to
ranked
choice,
voting
the
outcome
of
that
election,
in
which
there
were
multiple
candidates
in
the
three
statewide
offices
of
governor
lieutenant
governor
and
attorney
general,
they
weren't
able
to
attack
each
other
with
the
usual
enthusiasm
they
they
have
and,
as
a
result,
the
republican
party
virginia
was
able
to
come
together
much
more
effectively
and
quickly
to
to
gather
themselves
for
the
general
election.
J
After
that
election,
a
friend
of
mine
who
won
lieutenant
governor,
we
served
in
the
house
together
in
2002,
were
elected
the
same
year.
She
asked
me
to
be
her
transition
director
and
win
some
sears,
and
I
asked
her
what
it
was
like
to
be
a
candidate
in
that
format.
I'm
now
a
political
director
for
and
I'm
not
in
any
way
of
representing
her
or
her
organization.
J
Voters
later
in
in
later
rounds
of
balloting
to
the
to
the
to
the
gentleman's
testimony
those
later
rounds
created
a
lot
more
transparency,
because
a
lot
more
people
were
paying
attention
to
every
ballot
that
was
being
counted,
and
I
thought,
as
a
former
history
and
government
teacher,
it
was
actually
quite
quite
a
stunning
accomplishment.
The
republican
party
pulled
off
and
it
was
very
engaging
for
the
rest
of
the
electorate.
J
The
republicans
expanded
the
number
of
people
who
voted
in
their
convention
format
from
usually
eight
to
ten
thousand
to
over
seventy
thousand.
They
did
it
very
successfully
less
expensively
and
that's
one
of
the
other
factors
that
can
be
included
in
your
in
your
understanding
of
this
issue-
and
I
came
here
not
necessarily
oh,
you've
got
to
do
every
election.
This
way,
it's
not
at
all,
just
don't
take
a
tool
out
of
your
toolbox,
because
eventually
you
might
need
something
like
this
in
your
elections,
and
I
would
hardly.
J
I
would
hope
that
you
might
want
to
study
the
issue
and
come
to
a
conclusion
and
see
how
it's
actually
done
versus
hearing
testimony
from
around
the
country
I
mean
tennessee
should
do
what
tennessee
wants
to
do.
I
would
never
suggest
that
you
do
it
the
way
virginia
does
please,
dear
god,
don't
do
that
I've
been
there
too
long,
but
the
other
state
that
has
done
it
very
successfully.
Is
the
utah
republican
party
they've
had
a
very
long
history
with
this
and
have
been
very
successful
at
it?
Yes,
sir
and.
D
D
J
You,
mr
chairman,
yeah,
I'm
a
former
history
teacher.
I
can
cover
45
minutes
without
without
messing
with
it.
J
45,
no
not
and
not
before
lunch.
I
know
I'm
a
great
peril
anyway,
from
a
governing
perspective,
I
think
you
need
every
tool
in
your
toolbox.
You
don't
have
to
use
this
all
the
time
or
anytime,
but
you
might
need
it
one
time
and
that's
what
the
virginia
republicans
discovered.
Okay,.
D
D
I
F
E
You,
mr
chairman,
not
to
chairman
of
the
who
has
the
legislation.
E
I
actually
voted,
as
you
know,
against
it
last
week,
and
one
of
the
reasons
why
I
did
was
because
of
what
we
just
heard
about
the
tool
in
the
toolbox,
and
I
guess
some
of
those
people
from
shelby
county
before
you
did
got
to
me
first,
but
because
you
all
are
from
shelby
county.
If
that's
what
y'all
want
to
do,
I
don't
have
no
problem
with
it
at
this
point,
but
I
had
heard
the
very
same
thing
that
was
said
to
us
today
about
it
being
a
tool
in
the
toolbox.
E
A
Representative
sean
any
other
questions,
seeing
none.
I
think
we're
ready
to
vote
on
house
bill
1868
all
in
favor
of
house
bill,
1868,
moving
on
to
calendar
and
rules,
please
say:
aye.
Those
opposed
no
bill
moves
on
to
calendar
and
rules.
If
you
want
to
be
recorded
as
a
no,
please
see
the
clerk.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
A
K
Thank
you
chairman
crawford.
This
is
a
bill
that
would
make
two
changes
to
our
public
finance
statutes.
The
first
change
would
be
to
make
it
clear
that
a
local
government
must
notify
the
comptroller
when
they're
going
to
reissue
revenue
bonds.
The
same
way
they're
currently
required
to
notify
the
comptroller
when
they
reissue
general
obligation
bonds.
It
just
makes
revenue,
bonds
and
general
obligation,
bonds,
sort
of
on
the
same
footing,
and
the
second
of
the
two
pieces
to
this
bill
have
to.
The
second
piece
has
to
do
with
newspapers.
K
It's
becoming
harder
and
harder
to
find
a
newspaper
that
circulates
regularly
in
such
a
way.
That
would
satisfy
the
current
requirement
for
this
information
to
be
published
in
a
newspaper
for
all
the
counties
served
by
the
utility
within
seven
days
of
the
information
being
provided
by
the
comptroller's
office.
A
K
A
L
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
This
bill
is
for
coffee
county.
It
simply
aligns
the
highway
commissioners,
the
rule
to
the
new
four
rural
districts
of
the
county
that
they
redistricted
with
the
the
census
information.
So
it's
just
lining
up
the
highway
commissioners
to
the
rural
districts
in
our
county.
A
A
Before
we
close
does
anybody
have
any
announcements
or
personal
orders
seeing
none?
I
will
entertain
a
motion
to
adjourn
so
move.
We
are
adjourned.