thetennesseestar--2020-10-05--As European Schools Stay Open Amid Rising Cases, Many U.S. Schools Remain Shuttered

Leaders in Western Europe remain committed to continuing in-person instruction for young students — in some cases relaxing restrictions like face mask requirements and social distancing rules — even as caseloads throughout the region continue to explode .
It ’ s a sharp contrast from many school districts in the United States , including some of the largest and most populous , where governmental authorities and teachers ’ unions continue to insist that children be barred from face-to-face instruction , that any in-person learning be accompanied by strict distancing and face covering rules , and that even modest upticks in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of face-to-face learning .
The school reopening debate has been among the most rancorous and prolonged over the course of the protracted COVID-19 crisis .
Virtually all school districts in the country shuttered in March and April as state governors and local authorities ordered schoolchildren to switch to remote online instruction for the remainder of the semester .
Many officials have extended those policies well into this semester , with authorities in some cases pledging to continue in-person instruction as long as into next year .
Many schools that have reopened , meanwhile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coverings , keep six feet apart , stay in the same classroom all day , and in some cases even eat lunch without talking .
A school district ’ s reopening , meanwhile , does not ensure it will remain open going forward .
The New York City public school system — which has welcomed students back at staggered intervals over the early fall — has promised that schools will close if the “ percent of positive tests in New York City is equal to or greater than 3 % using a 7-day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this threshold , schools will close , ” the city declares .
New Jersey , meanwhile , says it will shut down a school if 2 or more cases are identified within 14 days that occur across multiple classrooms and a clear connection between cases can not be easily identified.
” In the Los Angeles Unified School District earlier this month , Superintendent Austin Beutner laid out what appeared to be a lengthy road back to in-person instruction .
“ Don ’ t expect to see a decision about a return to school @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the area is significantly lower and remains there , ” Beutner said in an address to the school district earlier this month .
( The positivity rate in L.A. County is hovering around 3 % , compared to a national rate of 4.5 % . )
“ Our return-to-school plan has 3 main parts — state of the art health practices at schools , COVID-19 testing for students , staff and family members and the ability to notify and isolate any members of the school community who may have come in contact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Students will only head back to school , he said , “ as soon as it ’ s safe and appropriate for them to do so.
” Schools likely to ‘ remain fully open to all ’ Numerous leaders in Europe , meanwhile , have committed to keeping schools reopened for in-person instruction , though cases in many countries have spiraled upward in recent weeks , at times matching or exceeding the height of the pandemic in the early spring .
France , for instance , is currently registering a seven-day average @ @ @ @ @ @ @ height of its outbreak in the spring .
Cases had been flat there from May until late July before beginning a steep climb .
Yet France last week announced it was loosening its COVID policies governing elementary and primary schools , declaring that classmates of individual students who test positive will “ no longer [ be ] considered contact cases ” and will not have to go into quarantine .
Students will only have to isolate if three pupils from separate families test positive .
Education Minister Jean-Michel Blanquer said last week that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been shuttered under the old policies .
“ We should see the number of shut classes go down , ” he said of the new rules .
“ Less children will be sent home as a precautionary measure.
” The United Kingdom , meanwhile , is also committed to keeping schools open , even though daily caseloads there have now exceeded their earlier peak in April .
“ We have set out plans in the Government ’ s contain framework for local lockdowns , ” Department of Education spokeswoman Lauren Carpenter told Just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] are clear that we anticipate that education and childcare will usually remain fully open to all.
” “ There may be exceptional circumstances in which some level of restriction to education or childcare is required in a local area , ” the U.K. government says in guidelines posted on its website .
Among the four “ tiers of restriction ” the U.K. government will consider implementing in the event of increasing infection rates , just one — the fourth , most severe iteration — mandates widespread remote learning for most students .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to send children back to school following closures in the spring .
About one-tenth of one percent of schools there have gone into quarantine since classes started up again .
German epidemiologists have reportedly found little evidence that the virus spreads in schools there .
“ The schools are not driving this , ” Tobias Kluth , the director of Berlin ’ s Charité ’ s Institute for Public Health , told the Washington Post this week .
Kumi Smith , a professor of epidemiology at the University of Minnesota School of Public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the scale of the epidemic ” in both the United States and Europe , respectively , while assessing various countries ’ decisions to open schools .
“ As it stands in these countries , there has been an uptick in Europe , but it ’ s nowhere near where the U.S. is at in terms of community transmission at a national level , ” she said .
“ I think it would just be a matter of scaling it in that sense , ” she said , warning against “ cherry-picking ” school @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to European countries .
Smith noted that decisions to reopen schools in the U.S. are frequently being made at the local level .
“ There ’ s some local areas that are looking at their community-level transmission and making decisions , ” she said , noting that administrators are under “ huge pressure ” to prioritize student academic well-being , parents ’ working schedules , and the health of everyone involved .
Public health experts and children ’ s advocates have been urging authorities for several months to reopen schools , citing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and arguing that school closures pose “ significant adverse health and welfare consequences for children , ” as the Toronto Hospital for Sick Children said in June .
In July , meanwhile , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Robert Redfield said that , based on the data , school-age children have a literal “ one-in-a-million ” chance of dying from the coronavirus .
Redfield for several months has been stressing the need to re-open schools and bring students back for in-person instruction .
Still , many authorities in the U.S. continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ We ’ re not there yet , ” Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot said this week of in-person instruction .
Asked during a virtual town hall meeting this week about the possibility of reopening schools in November , Lightfoot said : “ We haven ’ t made a decision yet whether or not that ’ s going to be possible.
” Smith pointed out that the potential seasonality of COVID-19 may play a role in school decisions in Europe as the continent moves toward colder weather and less outdoor activities .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a full winter through COVID yet , ” she said .
“ Epidemiologists are pretty nervous about that.
” European authorities , meanwhile , seem more or less certain that — barring a catastrophic increase in COVID-19 spread there — schools will remain open .
Notably , among the European countries that have seen spikes in cases , death rates have risen to nowhere near the levels observed in the early spring .
“ There ’ s no point sending pupils home or even shutting entire schools at the first alert , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this month .
“ We can ’ t throw children out if they have a cold.
” Daniel Payne is a reporter at Just the News .
Photo “ Classroom ” by Scott Brenner CC BY-ND 2.0 .

by Daniel Payne
Leaders in Western Europe remain committed to continuing in-person instruction for young students — in some cases relaxing restrictions like face mask requirements and social distancing rules — even as caseloads throughout the region continue to explode.
It’s a sharp contrast from many school districts in the United States, including some of the largest and most populous, where governmental authorities and teachers’ unions continue to insist that children be barred from face-to-face instruction, that any in-person learning be accompanied by strict distancing and face covering rules, and that even modest upticks in coronavirus cases should necessitate a complete shutdown of face-to-face learning.
The school reopening debate has been among the most rancorous and prolonged over the course of the protracted COVID-19 crisis. Virtually all school districts in the country shuttered in March and April as state governors and local authorities ordered schoolchildren to switch to remote online instruction for the remainder of the semester.
Many officials have extended those policies well into this semester, with authorities in some cases pledging to continue in-person instruction as long as into next year. Many schools that have reopened, meanwhile, have required students to wear face coverings, keep six feet apart, stay in the same classroom all day, and in some cases even eat lunch without talking.
A school district’s reopening, meanwhile, does not ensure it will remain open going forward. The New York City public school system — which has welcomed students back at staggered intervals over the early fall — has promised that schools will close if the “percent of positive tests in New York City is equal to or greater than 3% using a 7-day rolling average.”
“If we cross this threshold, schools will close,” the city declares.
New Jersey, meanwhile, says it will shut down a school if 2 or more cases are identified within 14 days that occur across multiple classrooms and a clear connection between cases cannot be easily identified.”
In the Los Angeles Unified School District earlier this month, Superintendent Austin Beutner laid out what appeared to be a lengthy road back to in-person instruction.
“Don’t expect to see a decision about a return to school classrooms by students until the case rate in the area is significantly lower and remains there,” Beutner said in an address to the school district earlier this month. (The positivity rate in L.A. County is hovering around 3%, compared to a national rate of 4.5%.)
“Our return-to-school plan has 3 main parts — state of the art health practices at schools, COVID-19 testing for students, staff and family members and the ability to notify and isolate any members of the school community who may have come in contact with the
virus,” Beutner continued.
Students will only head back to school, he said, “as soon as it’s safe and appropriate for them to do so.”
Schools likely to ‘remain fully open to all’
Numerous leaders in Europe, meanwhile, have committed to keeping schools reopened for in-person instruction, though cases in many countries have spiraled upward in recent weeks, at times matching or exceeding the height of the pandemic in the early spring.
France, for instance, is currently registering a seven-day average daily caseload 171% higher than the height of its outbreak in the spring. Cases had been flat there from May until late July before beginning a steep climb.
Yet France last week announced it was loosening its COVID policies governing elementary and primary schools, declaring that classmates of individual students who test positive will “no longer [be] considered contact cases” and will not have to go into quarantine. Students will only have to isolate if three pupils from separate families test positive.
Education Minister Jean-Michel Blanquer said last week that around 2,000 classrooms across the country had been shuttered under the old policies. “We should see the number of shut classes go down,” he said of the new rules. “Less children will be sent home as a precautionary measure.”
The United Kingdom, meanwhile, is also committed to keeping schools open, even though daily caseloads there have now exceeded their earlier peak in April.
“We have set out plans in the Government’s contain framework for local lockdowns,” Department of Education spokeswoman Lauren Carpenter told Just the News, “and [we] are clear that we anticipate that education and childcare will usually remain fully open to all.”
“There may be exceptional circumstances in which some level of restriction to education or childcare is required in a local area,” the U.K. government says in guidelines posted on its website. Among the four “tiers of restriction” the U.K. government will consider implementing in the event of increasing infection rates, just one — the fourth, most severe iteration — mandates widespread remote learning for most students.
The German government was among the first to send children back to school following closures in the spring. About one-tenth of one percent of schools there have gone into quarantine since classes started up again.
German epidemiologists have reportedly found little evidence that the virus spreads in schools there. “The schools are not driving this,” Tobias Kluth, the director of Berlin’s Charité’s Institute for Public Health, told the Washington Post this week.
Kumi Smith, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health, said observers should consider “the scale of the epidemic” in both the United States and Europe, respectively, while assessing various countries’ decisions to open schools.
“As it stands in these countries, there has been an uptick in Europe, but it’s nowhere near where the U.S. is at in terms of community transmission at a national level,” she said.
“I think it would just be a matter of scaling it in that sense,” she said, warning against “cherry-picking” school districts in the U.S. and comparing them to European countries.
Smith noted that decisions to reopen schools in the U.S. are frequently being made at the local level. “There’s some local areas that are looking at their community-level transmission and making decisions,” she said, noting that administrators are under “huge pressure” to prioritize student academic well-being, parents’ working schedules, and the health of everyone involved.
Public health experts and children’s advocates have been urging authorities for several months to reopen schools, citing the relatively low risk children face from COVID-19 and arguing that school closures pose “significant adverse health and welfare consequences for children,” as the Toronto Hospital for Sick Children said in June.
In July, meanwhile, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Robert Redfield said that, based on the data, school-age children have a literal “one-in-a-million” chance of dying from the coronavirus. Redfield for several months has been stressing the need to re-open schools and bring students back for in-person instruction.
Still, many authorities in the U.S. continue to resist even preliminary moves toward reopening. “We’re not there yet,” Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot said this week of in-person instruction. Asked during a virtual town hall meeting this week about the possibility of reopening schools in November, Lightfoot said: “We haven’t made a decision yet whether or not that’s going to be possible.”
Smith pointed out that the potential seasonality of COVID-19 may play a role in school decisions in Europe as the continent moves toward colder weather and less outdoor activities.
“We haven’t really lived through a full winter through COVID yet,” she said. “Epidemiologists are pretty nervous about that.”
European authorities, meanwhile, seem more or less certain that — barring a catastrophic increase in COVID-19 spread there — schools will remain open. Notably, among the European countries that have seen spikes in cases, death rates have risen to nowhere near the levels observed in the early spring.
“There’s no point sending pupils home or even shutting entire schools at the first alert,” French health minister Olivier Véran said earlier this month. “We can’t throw children out if they have a cold.”
– – –
Daniel Payne is a reporter at Just the News.
Photo “Classroom” by Scott Brenner CC BY-ND 2.0.


thetennesseestar--2020-10-05--State Supreme Court Ruling Likely Strikes Down Gov. Whitmer’s Carbon-Neutral Initiative

The Michigan Supreme Court on Friday struck down Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer ’ s extension of emergency powers past their initial April 30 expiration .
The governor first implemented emergency authority on March 10 in an attempt to stem the COVID-19 pandemic .
All told , she has issued more than 190 executive orders , more than issued by the governors of all Michigan ’ s neighboring states combined .
Not every executive order issued by Whitmer , however , dealt with public safety issues related to COVID-19 .
Executive Order 182-2020 , issued on Sept. 23 , for example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The order aims to transform Michigan into a carbon-neutral state by 2050 , with an interim goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 28 % below 1990 levels by 2025 .
The Supreme Court ruled that any executive orders after April 30 “ lack any basis under Michigan law , ” thus rendering the initiative unenforceable unless the Michigan legislature passes a similar law – a highly unlikely prospect for the time being given Republicans control both the Michigan House of Representatives and the Senate .
Touting her plan as protecting public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also stated it would promote clean-energy jobs as Michigan government officials work with other states to counteract the perceived negative effects of climate change .
“ The science is clear – climate change is directly impacting our public health , environment , our economy , and our families , ” Whitmer said in a statement in September .
“ This dangerous reality is already causing harm throughout Michigan , with communities of color and low-income Michiganders suffering disproportionately , which is why I ’ m taking immediate action to protect our state .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ grandchildren to leave them a cleaner , safer and healthier world.
” She offered no projections of what her MI Healthy Climate would cost , nor did she provide precise details of what the plan would initially entail .
EO 182 , however , established an advisory council to be administered by the Michigan Department of Environment , Great Lakes and Energy ( EGLE ) .
Another EGLE bureau , the Office of Climate and Energy , was established by Whitmer ’ s Executive Directive 2020 , issued at the same day as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also mandated the Michigan Department of Treasury to develop and implement an Energy Transition Impact Project to provide employment to energy workers who might be displaced during the transition as well as assist communities in providing necessary services in the event of energy shortages .
In remarks given to a video conference conducted Sept. 23 by the 25 state governors who are members of the U.S .
Climate Alliance , Whitmer cited last May ’ s massive flooding in mid-Michigan as one example of the effects of climate change and the immediate need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the subsequent massive flooding in Gladwin and Midland counties evidence of climate change , but made no mention of the two aging dams that failed during the intense rainfall .
Bruce Walker is a regional editor at The Center Square .
He previously worked as editor at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy ’ s MichiganScience magazine and The Heartland Institute ’ s InfoTech & Telecom News .

by Bruce Walker
The Michigan Supreme Court on Friday struck down Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s extension of emergency powers past their initial April 30 expiration.
The governor first implemented emergency authority on March 10 in an attempt to stem the COVID-19 pandemic. All told, she has issued more than 190 executive orders, more than issued by the governors of all Michigan’s neighboring states combined.
Not every executive order issued by Whitmer, however, dealt with public safety issues related to COVID-19.
Executive Order 182-2020, issued on Sept. 23, for example, established the MI Healthy Climate initiative. The order aims to transform Michigan into a carbon-neutral state by 2050, with an interim goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 28% below 1990 levels by 2025.
The Supreme Court ruled that any executive orders after April 30 “lack any basis under Michigan law,” thus rendering the initiative unenforceable unless the Michigan legislature passes a similar law – a highly unlikely prospect for the time being given Republicans control both the Michigan House of Representatives and the Senate.
Touting her plan as protecting public health and the environment, the governor also stated it would promote clean-energy jobs as Michigan government officials work with other states to counteract the perceived negative effects of climate change.
“The science is clear – climate change is directly impacting our public health, environment, our economy, and our families,” Whitmer said in a statement in September. “This dangerous reality is already causing harm throughout Michigan, with communities of color and low-income Michiganders suffering disproportionately, which is why I’m taking immediate action to protect our state. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to leave them a cleaner, safer and healthier world.”
She offered no projections of what her MI Healthy Climate would cost, nor did she provide precise details of what the plan would initially entail. EO 182, however, established an advisory council to be administered by the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy (EGLE). Another EGLE bureau, the Office of Climate and Energy, was established by Whitmer’s Executive Directive 2020, issued at the same day as EO 182.
Whitmer’s directive also mandated the Michigan Department of Treasury to develop and implement an Energy Transition Impact Project to provide employment to energy workers who might be displaced during the transition as well as assist communities in providing necessary services in the event of energy shortages.
In remarks given to a video conference conducted Sept. 23 by the 25 state governors who are members of the U.S. Climate Alliance, Whitmer cited last May’s massive flooding in mid-Michigan as one example of the effects of climate change and the immediate need to implement mitigation efforts. She called the subsequent massive flooding in Gladwin and Midland counties evidence of climate change, but made no mention of the two aging dams that failed during the intense rainfall.
– – –
Bruce Walker is a regional editor at The Center Square. He previously worked as editor at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy’s MichiganScience magazine and The Heartland Institute’s InfoTech & Telecom News.


thetennesseestar--2020-10-05--Ohio Hits Milestone in Funding for Businesses to Train Employees

Nearly 300 Ohio companies are in line for funding aimed at increasing training for current and new employees .
Lt. Gov .
Jon Husted said the state ’ s TechCred program has reached nearly 1,000 companies after the latest application period .
Husted serves as the director of the Governor ’ s Office of Workforce Transformation .
“ Before being elected , Gov .
[ Mike ] DeWine and I promised to create a program to help Ohioans renew their skills and put them on track to a better career , ” Husted said .
“ Today , I am @ @ @ @ @ @ @ funding over 10,000 upskilling opportunities .
When these students complete their certificates , there will be more than 10,000 Ohioans with better skills , earning power and job security.
” The August round was record-setting , according to Husted , with more than 1,227 more credentials approved than in June 2020 , the previous high month .
The program has worked with 983 employers and reimbursed nearly 12,000 credits .
“ TechCred is helping Ohio businesses upskill their workforce , ” Lydia Mihalik , director of the Ohio Development Services Agency , said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help employees and businesses prepare for a brighter future.
” The program gives employers a chance to create new skills for current and future employees and receive up to $ 2,000 per credential when those employees complete technology-focused training .
Employers can be reimbursed for up to $ 30,000 per funding round .
“ The strength of Ohio ’ s economy hinges on a skilled workforce , and the continued growth of TechCred reinforces that idea , ” Randy Gardner , Ohio Department of Higher Education chancellor , said .
“ It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and their workers taking advantage of this program , which will help ensure their success now and in the future.
” J.D .
Davidson is an editor for The Center Square .
Photo “ Ohio Workers ” by Wayne National Forest CC BY 2.0 .

by J.D. Davidson
Nearly 300 Ohio companies are in line for funding aimed at increasing training for current and new employees.
Lt. Gov. Jon Husted said the state’s TechCred program has reached nearly 1,000 companies after the latest application period. Husted serves as the director of the Governor’s Office of Workforce Transformation.
“Before being elected, Gov. [Mike] DeWine and I promised to create a program to help Ohioans renew their skills and put them on track to a better career,” Husted said. “Today, I am excited that we reached our goal of funding over 10,000 upskilling opportunities. When these students complete their certificates, there will be more than 10,000 Ohioans with better skills, earning power and job security.”
The August round was record-setting, according to Husted, with more than 1,227 more credentials approved than in June 2020, the previous high month. The program has worked with 983 employers and reimbursed nearly 12,000 credits.
“TechCred is helping Ohio businesses upskill their workforce,” Lydia Mihalik, director of the Ohio Development Services Agency, said. “Credentials earned through this program help employees and businesses prepare for a brighter future.”
The program gives employers a chance to create new skills for current and future employees and receive up to $2,000 per credential when those employees complete technology-focused training. Employers can be reimbursed for up to $30,000 per funding round.
“The strength of Ohio’s economy hinges on a skilled workforce, and the continued growth of TechCred reinforces that idea,” Randy Gardner, Ohio Department of Higher Education chancellor, said. “It is great to see so many Ohio employers and their workers taking advantage of this program, which will help ensure their success now and in the future.”
– – –
J.D. Davidson is an editor for The Center Square.
Photo “Ohio Workers” by Wayne National Forest CC BY 2.0.


thetennesseestar--2020-10-05--Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz Recall Effort Under Review by State Supreme Court

A recall effort has been filed against Minnesota Gov .
Tim Walz ( D ) over his mask mandate in response to the coronavirus pandemic .
The Minnesota Supreme Court will now review whether the grounds for recall stated in the petition are sufficient and meet statutory requirements .
Two earlier efforts to recall Walz were dismissed by the supreme court because the petitions did not meet the legal standards to recall an elected official .
The ‘ ’ Recall Governor Tim Walz ’ ’ group said about the recall effort , “ We are hopeful that court gives this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as we continue fighting on behalf of all freedom loving Minnesotans .
As a reminder , the recall is about justice – forcing Walz to personally answer for the tyranny he has imposed for months on end , with no end in sight.
” As of October 1 , 2020 , Walz had not made a statement regarding the recall .
Minnesota is under a divided government .
A state government trifecta exists when one political party simultaneously holds the governor ’ s office and both state legislative chambers .
Republicans control the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats control the state House by a 75-59 margin .
Walz was elected as Minnesota ’ s governor in 2018 with 53.8 % of the vote .
Eighteen gubernatorial recall efforts are currently underway in 2020 .
Nine of those efforts are against Michigan Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer ( D ) .
From 2003 to 2019 , Ballotpedia tracked 21 gubernatorial recall efforts .
During that time , two recalls made the ballot , and one governor was successfully recalled .
Former California Gov .
Gray Davis ( D ) was recalled in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ R ) .
In 2012 , former Wisconsin Gov .
Scott Walker ( R ) was retained in a recall election .
The only other governor to ever be successfully recalled was former North Dakota Gov .
Lynn Frazier ( R ) in 1921 .

by Jaclyn Beran
A recall effort has been filed against Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) over his mask mandate in response to the coronavirus pandemic. The Minnesota Supreme Court will now review whether the grounds for recall stated in the petition are sufficient and meet statutory requirements. Two earlier efforts to recall Walz were dismissed by the supreme court because the petitions did not meet the legal standards to recall an elected official.
The ‘’Recall Governor Tim Walz’’ group said about the recall effort, “We are hopeful that court gives this petition the fair review it deserves, as we continue fighting on behalf of all freedom loving Minnesotans. As a reminder, the recall is about justice – forcing Walz to personally answer for the tyranny he has imposed for months on end, with no end in sight.”
As of October 1, 2020, Walz had not made a statement regarding the recall.
Minnesota is under a divided government. A state government trifecta exists when one political party simultaneously holds the governor’s office and both state legislative chambers. Republicans control the state Senate by a 35-32 margin and Democrats control the state House by a 75-59 margin. Walz was elected as Minnesota’s governor in 2018 with 53.8% of the vote.
Eighteen gubernatorial recall efforts are currently underway in 2020. Nine of those efforts are against Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D). From 2003 to 2019, Ballotpedia tracked 21 gubernatorial recall efforts. During that time, two recalls made the ballot, and one governor was successfully recalled. Former California Gov. Gray Davis (D) was recalled in 2003 and replaced by Arnold Schwarzenegger (R). In 2012, former Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) was retained in a recall election. The only other governor to ever be successfully recalled was former North Dakota Gov. Lynn Frazier (R) in 1921.
– – –
Jaclyn Beran reports for Ballotpedia.
Photo “Tim Walz” by MN Senate DFL.


thetennesseestar--2020-10-05--New Poll Suggests Richmond Mayor’s Race is Between Stoney and Gray

A new poll by the American Research Group ( ARG ) shows Mayor Levar Stoney and Councilmember Kim Gray at the top of the Richmond mayoral election .
Stoney has 37 percent of voters , while Gray has 33 percent , with a 4.5 percent margin of error .
The poll was first reported by the Richmond Free Press .
With 13 percent support , Alexsis Rodgers is barely ahead of Justin Griffin , who has 11 percent .
Tracey McLean trails with 3 percent , and 2 percent of respondents were undecided .
To win the election outright , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s nine districts ; if no candidate wins five , the top two candidates will go into a runoff election , where they can hope to pick up votes from eliminated candidates .
The telephone poll queried 540 registered voters between September 23 and 27 .
Pundit Paul Goldman said that while he thinks the poll is reliable for Richmond overall , it doesn ’ t have a big enough sample size to detect how the districts will fall .
“ Things seem basically stable .
Stoney got 37 percent when he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ based on these numbers , Griffin seems to be taking votes away from Gray , but Gray has a better chance of taking votes from Stoney ’ s districts than the other way around .
Goldman added , “ Griffin ’ s numbers are pretty high… [ It ’ s ] hard for me to believe .
But they ’ ve been a consistent thing in the polls.
” Goldman doesn ’ t think Rodgers , Griffin , or McLean will drop out .
Despite only raising $ 24,730 , Griffin is performing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has raised $ 223,196 , according to the Virginia Public Access Project .
Gray has raised $ 255,151 and Stoney has raised $ 546,983 .
The poll was commissioned by an anonymous party ; Goldman said the ARG is credible and he doesn ’ t think the poll was paid for by one of the campaigns .
“ I think I know who it is , he ’ s got a lot of money and he ’ s done that in the past , ” Goldman said .
“ He ’ s somebody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a long time making money.
” “ It ’ s not a poll that candidates do , at least what they ’ ve released , because it doesn ’ t give you any idea what you ’ re supposed to be doing.
” Goldman said candidates should be polling by demographic to help identify where to focus resources .
“ One big district could make the difference , so it ’ s very important how you spread your resources .
It ’ s a cheap investment.
” “ It does tell you Stoney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he has a lot of challengers , so that ’ s an advantage when you ’ re not popular.
” One thing is clear based on the poll , Goldman said .
“ The runoff is not going to happen .
It ’ s either going to be Gray or Stoney .
You only have the runoff when nobody wins five districts.
” Goldman added , “ Since Alexsis [ Rodgers ] and Justin [ Griffin ] can ’ t win a district , then nine districts are going to be divided up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of them ’ s got to get five.
” None of the top four candidates offered comments to The Virginia Star .
Eric Burk is a reporter at The Virginia Star and the Star News Digital Network .
Email tips to [ email protected ] Photos “ Levar Stoney ” by Levar Stoney Twitter and “ Kim Gray ” by Eric Burk/The Virginia Star .
Background Photo “ Richmond ” by Jim .

A new poll by the American Research Group (ARG) shows Mayor Levar Stoney and Councilmember Kim Gray at the top of the Richmond mayoral election. Stoney has 37 percent of voters, while Gray has 33 percent, with a 4.5 percent margin of error. The poll was first reported by the Richmond Free Press.
With 13 percent support, Alexsis Rodgers is barely ahead of Justin Griffin, who has 11 percent. Tracey McLean trails with 3 percent, and 2 percent of respondents were undecided. To win the election outright, a candidate must win five of Richmond’s nine districts; if no candidate wins five, the top two candidates will go into a runoff election, where they can hope to pick up votes from eliminated candidates. The telephone poll queried 540 registered voters between September 23 and 27.
Pundit Paul Goldman said that while he thinks the poll is reliable for Richmond overall, it doesn’t have a big enough sample size to detect how the districts will fall. “Things seem basically stable. Stoney got 37 percent when he ran the last time.”
Goldman said based on these numbers, Griffin seems to be taking votes away from Gray, but Gray has a better chance of taking votes from Stoney’s districts than the other way around. Goldman added, “Griffin’s numbers are pretty high… [It’s] hard for me to believe. But they’ve been a consistent thing in the polls.”
Goldman doesn’t think Rodgers, Griffin, or McLean will drop out. Despite only raising $24,730, Griffin is performing nearly as well as Rodgers, who has raised $223,196, according to the Virginia Public Access Project. Gray has raised $255,151 and Stoney has raised $546,983.
The poll was commissioned by an anonymous party; Goldman said the ARG is credible and he doesn’t think the poll was paid for by one of the campaigns. “I think I know who it is, he’s got a lot of money and he’s done that in the past,” Goldman said. “He’s somebody who’s been around Richmond for a long time making money.”
“It’s not a poll that candidates do, at least what they’ve released, because it doesn’t give you any idea what you’re supposed to be doing.” Goldman said candidates should be polling by demographic to help identify where to focus resources. “One big district could make the difference, so it’s very important how you spread your resources. It’s a cheap investment.”
“It does tell you Stoney’s not particularly popular, but he has a lot of challengers, so that’s an advantage when you’re not popular.”
One thing is clear based on the poll, Goldman said. “The runoff is not going to happen. It’s either going to be Gray or Stoney. You only have the runoff when nobody wins five districts.” Goldman added, “Since Alexsis [Rodgers] and Justin [Griffin] can’t win a district, then nine districts are going to be divided up between the two major candidates, so one of them’s got to get five.”
None of the top four candidates offered comments to The Virginia Star.
– – –
Eric Burk is a reporter at The Virginia Star and the Star News Digital Network. Email tips to [email protected]
Photos “Levar Stoney” by Levar Stoney Twitter and “Kim Gray” by Eric Burk/The Virginia Star. Background Photo “Richmond” by Jim.


thetennesseestar--2020-10-05--TRUMPDATE: Latest From the Team Trump Virginia Campaign for October 5

Welcome to the Saturday edition of our daily Virginia Trump campaign update !
We will provide our readers with daily updates on the Trump Virginia campaign from today to November 3 ( and after…if need be ! )
.
It ’ s officially 29 days until the election on November 3 – and 26 days until early voting in Virginia closes .
The deadline to register to vote in time for the 2020 election is October 13 .
President Trump continues to receive treatment and recover from COVID-19 at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Maryland .
The president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing well , and he continues to work while in the hospital .
President Trump tweeted a four-minute video on Saturday , thanking everybody for the prayers and support and saying that First Lady Melania Trump continues to do well in her dealing with the virus .
With the president in quarantine for the next week to 10 days , the Trump-Pence campaign has organized an effort to keep the campaign rolling .
“ Operation MAGA ” is now in full-force .
Top-level members of the campaign and supporters of the president are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until he can return to the campaign trail .
The campaign will be engaged in virtual events until Wednesday , the date of the vice presidential debate between Vice President Mike Pence and Democrat nominee Kamala Harris .
“ Operation MAGA will fire up the entire MAGA universe to keep President Trump ’ s campaign at full speed until our Commander-in-Chief returns to the campaign trail , ” said Bill Stepien , Trump 2020 campaign manager .
“ Vice President Mike Pence , the First Family , our coalitions , and our grassroots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to show the real enthusiasm behind the president ’ s re-election and to show we ’ re working as hard as he always does.
” Team Trump Virginia will continue to do their part this week , knocking on doors , making phone calls , connecting with voters and registering new voters .
There will be watch parties across the state for this week ’ s vice presidential debate , and more information on those will be revealed as details become available .
Check back every day for more Trump Virginia campaign updates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ volunteer team or if you need signs email Fredericks or Justin Rice .
To Donate to our Virginia campaign click here .
For more information , or to sign up to become a volunteer , click here .
John Fredericks is the publisher and editor-in-chief of The Virginia Star .
He is also a Trump 2020 delegate and the chairman of the Trump Virginia Delegation .

Welcome to the Saturday edition of our daily Virginia Trump campaign update! We will provide our readers with daily updates on the Trump Virginia campaign from today to November 3 (and after…if need be!).
It’s officially 24 days until the election on November 3 – and 21 days until early voting in Virginia closes. The deadline to register to vote in time for the 2020 election is October 13, three days from today.
President Trump joined conservative talk radio icon Rush Limbaugh on Friday for what was touted as the largest campaign rally ever. Limbaugh, who has been diagnosed with Stage 4 cancer and had been out for most of the week receiving treatment, returned to the host seat for the special occasion. Trump surprised Limbaugh back in February at the State of the Union by awarding Limbaugh with the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
The president and Limbaugh talked about the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the president recovering from his own COVID-19 diagnosis, the media, the presidential campaign, foreign policy and more. You can watch the full video below:
There are two great events taking place in Virginia today and tonight that you don’t want to miss out on.
The Greene County Republicans are putting on their 41st annual Pig Roast. The event starts at noon and is being held at October Hill Farm. Because of the ongoing pandemic, there will be food trucks versus the traditional roasting and cutting up of the pig. Attendees can also look for speeches from candidates at the state and federal level, as well as remarks from John Fredericks, host of The John Fredericks Show and chairman of the Trump Virginia Delegation. The event is free to the public!
And tonight the Young Republican Federation of Virginia welcome Steve Bannon, former Senior Adviser to President Trump and host of War Room Pandemic, at an event at Madison on Madison Hill (323 N Madison Rd., Orange, VA 22960). Mr. Bannon has made it clear the Democrats plan to steal the 2020 election. This is a golden opportunity to hear about that and how you can work to make sure a fair election takes place on November 3. You can register for tickets to the event here.
Check back every day for more Trump Virginia campaign updates! If you want to join the volunteer team or if you need signs email Fredericks or Justin Rice.
Justin Rice: [email protected]
John Fredericks: [email protected]
To Donate to our Virginia campaign click here.
For more information, or to sign up to become a volunteer, click here.
– – –
Photo “Trump Limbaugh” by The White House.
John Fredericks is the publisher and editor-in-chief of The Virginia Star.
He is also a Trump 2020 delegate and the chairman of the Trump Virginia Delegation.


thetennesseestar--2020-10-05--60 Percent of Duluth Rally Attendees Were Not Republicans, RNC Says

The majority of attendees at President Donald Trump ’ s recent rally in Duluth , Minnesota , were not Republicans , the Republican National Committee said .
RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said 60 % of attendees were not Republicans while another 20 % were Democrats , according to data the GOP collected from voters during the event .
Additionally , 17.2 % did not vote in 2016 and 8.4 % have not voted in the last four elections .
“ Our data from the Duluth rally shows Donald Trump is still bringing in tons of new voters , ” McDaniel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
” Several Democratic mayors from the Iron Range — the region where Duluth is located — endorsed Trump for reelection last month because of his support for the logging and mining industries .
“ Lifelong politicians like Joe Biden are out of touch with the working class , out of touch with what the country needs , and out of touch with those of us here on the Iron Range and in small towns like ours across our nation , ” they said in their endorsement .
“ In this election , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but the biggest risk is our jobs , our economy , and our way of life .
President Trump delivered the best economy in our nation ’ s history , and President Trump will deliver for us again.
” The president appealed to the area ’ s historic support for the Second Amendment during his Wednesday campaign rally .
“ If he [ Joe Biden ] gets elected , the hard left will appoint radical justices who will terminate the Second Amendment .
No more guns , ” said Trump .
“ If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will shut down the Iron Range forever , ” he added .
“ It ’ s going to be gone .
They ’ re not going to be able to open it again.
” Anthony Gockowski is Editor-in-Chief of Alpha News .
He previously worked as an editor for The Minnesota Sun and Campus Reform , and reported for The Daily Caller .
Photo “ Trump Rally ” by Gage Skidmore CC BY-SA 2.0 .

by Anthony Gockowski
The majority of attendees at President Donald Trump’s recent rally in Duluth, Minnesota, were not Republicans, the Republican National Committee said.
RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said 60% of attendees were not Republicans while another 20% were Democrats, according to data the GOP collected from voters during the event.
Additionally, 17.2% did not vote in 2016 and 8.4% have not voted in the last four elections.
“Our data from the Duluth rally shows Donald Trump is still bringing in tons of new voters,” McDaniel said. “Thank you, Minnesota!”
Several Democratic mayors from the Iron Range — the region where Duluth is located — endorsed Trump for reelection last month because of his support for the logging and mining industries.
“Lifelong politicians like Joe Biden are out of touch with the working class, out of touch with what the country needs, and out of touch with those of us here on the Iron Range and in small towns like ours across our nation,” they said in their endorsement. “In this election, there is a lot at stake, but the biggest risk is our jobs, our economy, and our way of life. President Trump delivered the best economy in our nation’s history, and President Trump will deliver for us again.”
The president appealed to the area’s historic support for the Second Amendment during his Wednesday campaign rally.
“If he [Joe Biden] gets elected, the hard left will appoint radical justices who will terminate the Second Amendment. No more guns,” said Trump.
“If Joe gets in, the radical left will shut down the Iron Range forever,” he added. “It’s going to be gone. They’re not going to be able to open it again.”
– – –
Anthony Gockowski is Editor-in-Chief of Alpha News. He previously worked as an editor for The Minnesota Sun and Campus Reform, and reported for The Daily Caller.
Photo “Trump Rally” by Gage Skidmore CC BY-SA 2.0.


thetennesseestar--2020-10-05--Metro Nashville’s Claim of Election Commission ‘Non-Ministerial Role’ to Keep Property Tax Referendu

Metro Nashville’s Claim of Election Commission ‘Non-Ministerial Role’ to Keep Property Tax Referendum Off Ballot Contradicted by 2004 Tennessee Supreme Court Decision: No Legal Authority to Question Constitutionality

The 2004 Tennessee Supreme Court decision in City of Memphis v. Shelby County Election Commission that found the “ Commission exceeded its authority by refusing to place Referendum Ordinance No .
5072 on the November 2 , 2004 , ballot based upon the State Election Coordinator ’ s opinion that the Ordinance is unconstitutional , ” may blow a major hole in Metro Nashville Legal Director Bob Cooper ’ s argument made to to the Davidson County Election Commission at its September 25 meeting that “ the commission ’ s role here is not purely ministerial , ” and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that the commission can consider the form of a referendum petition and suggested that it could review the petition ’ s facial or procedural legality.
” On Monday , Cooper – who served as Tennessee Attorney General from 2006 to 2014 and is a graduate of Yale Law School – issued a legal opinion that said , in part , that “ the proposed charter amendment [ the Nashville Taxpayer Protection Act referendum that would , among other things , repeal the recently enacted 34 percent property tax increase ] is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defective in form and conflicts with Tennessee Constitution and state and local laws in [ various ] ways.
” Cooper noted that the Davidson County Election Commission decided in a thee to two vote at its September 25 meeting to “ seek a declaratory judgment from Davidson County Chancery Court on the proposed amendment ’ s legal validity and set a conditional referendum date for December 15.
” “ The Davidson County Election Commission has recruited a legal team to sue the citizens ’ group Americans for Prosperity-Tennessee ( AFP-TN ) for its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tennessee Supreme Court Justice Bill Koch will serve as lead counsel , ” as The Tennessee Star reported .
The Davidson County Election Commission is scheduled to meet again this Tuesday afternoon to make a final determination as to whether the proposed referendum will be placed on the ballot .
The Tennessee State Supreme Court ’ s ruling in that 2004 case , City of Memphis v Shelby County Election Commission , came to exactly the opposition conclusion from Cooper ’ s claim before the Davidson County Election Commission meeting on September 25 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ role here is not purely ministerial.
” “ In this expedited appeal , this Court is asked to decide whether the Shelby County Election Commission exceeded its authority by refusing to place Referendum Ordinance No .
5072 on the November 2 , 2004 , ballot based upon the State Election Coordinator ’ s opinion that the Ordinance is unconstitutional .
We hold that the Shelby County Election Commission exceeded its authority in refusing to place the measure on the ballot , ” the decision stated : The trial court in this case accurately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ministerial .
The Commission and the Coordinator respectively perform important functions vital to the maintenance and advancement of our political system .
Nonetheless , as ministerial officers , the Commission and the Coordinator have limited discretion .
Black ’ s Law Dictionary defines a “ ministerial officer ” as “ [ o ] ne who performs specified legal duties when the appropriate conditions have been met , but who does not exercise personal judgment or discretion in performing those duties.
” A “ strictly ministerial duty ” is defined as : “ A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requiring neither the exercise of official discretion nor judgment.
” Id .
at 522.3 These definitions illustrate how , as ministerial officers performing ministerial acts , the Commission and the Coordinator must implement the election laws , not determine the substantive constitutionality of ballot measures .
Without question , the Commission and the Coordinator have certain statutorily prescribed ministerial duties that allow – indeed require – them to do such things as examine ballot initiatives to determine whether signature requirements are met , determine whether submissions are timely , and determine whether candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ballot .
See Tenn. Code Ann .
§ 2-1-101 through -216 ( 2003 ) et seq .
However , these statutes do not require or even permit the Commission to refuse to include a referendum question on the ballot because the Commission believes the question to be substantively unconstitutional .
See Tenn. Code Ann .
§§ 2-12-101 through 2-12-216 ( delineating the duties of the Commission ) .
The Commission contends that it has the power and duty to make an “ initial determination ” whether the law authorizes the acts it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is true with respect to the Commission ’ s performance of its ministerial duties .
However , it is inaccurate to say that the Commission has the power and duty to perform an initial or cursory review of the substantive constitutionality of measures to be placed on the ballot for referendum .
Determining the substantive constitutionality of such measures is a function reserved for the judicial branch of government .
Furthermore , the Coordinator , an appointed , ministerial official , also lacks the statutory authority to forbid the inclusion of a referendum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opinion that the measure is substantively unconstitutional .
The Coordinator ’ s statutory duty to approve the “ form of the ballot ” does not provide authority to determine the substantive constitutionality of referendum questions , like the Ordinance at issue in this case .
At the beginning of the September 25 meeting , Cooper said , “ The commission ’ s role here is not purely ministerial .
The commission has the authority to review the legal sufficiency of a referendum petition .
In 2004 , the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The court said that the commission can consider the form of a referendum petition and suggested that it could review the petition ’ s facial or procedural legality.
” Cooper , however , provided no citation for the 2004 Tennessee Supreme Court case he mentioned during his opening comments .
The Tennessee Star asked Cooper if he could provide the case citation , but he has not responded to that request yet .
The Nashville Davidson County Metro Charter makes it explicitly clear that when it comes to election questions such as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Davidson County Election Commission ’ s duties are purely ministerial after verifying that a sufficient number of signatures have been obtained to place a referendum on the ballot : Sec .
19.01 .
– Amending Charter by resolution of council or petition and popular vote .
This Charter may be amended subsequent to its adoption in the following manner : An amendment or amendments may be proposed ( 1 ) by the adoption of a resolution by the council favoring the same and submitting it or them to the people for approval @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such resolution in the council shall be not less than two-thirds of the membership to which the council is entitled , and such resolution when adopted need not be submitted to the mayor for his or her approval ; or ( 2 ) upon petition filed with the metropolitan clerk , signed by ten ( 10 ) per cent of the number of the registered voters of Nashville-Davidson County voting in the preceding general election , the verification of the signatures to be made by the Davidson County Election Commission and certified to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ petition shall also prescribe a date not less than eighty ( 80 ) [ days ] subsequent to the date of its filing for the holding of a referendum election at which the electorate of the metropolitan government will vote to ratify or to reject the amendments proposed .
The metropolitan clerk shall immediately certify to the county commissioners of election copy of such resolution or petition and it shall thereupon be the duty of said commissioners of election to hold a referendum election with respect thereto .
The ballot shall be prepared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ description of the amendment worded so as to convey the meaning of said amendment , said description to be set forth in the original amendatory resolution , that the language of each amendment in full be posted conspicuously in the voting place and be published in a local newspaper , numbered as the same is numbered in the resolution of the council or in the petition , and to provide the voters a choice to vote “ For Ratification ” and “ Against Ratification ” of each proposed amendment .
Each proposed amendment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the votes cast at the special referendum election shall be in favor of ratification and each proposed amendment shall be rejected when a majority of said votes shall be against ratification .
Notice of said referendum election shall be given as provided by Tennessee Code Annotated , section 2-1808* , and the costs of said election shall be paid out of the general funds of the metropolitan government .
In his presentation to the election commission , Cooper subsequently referenced a 2017 Tennessee Supreme Court decision , but again did not provide the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2004 ] was affirmed in 2017 , when the Tennessee Supreme Court said that election commissions ‘ are not strictly ministerial bodies ’ and that ‘ the election code clearly gives county election commissions the authority to perform functions that are discretionary in addition to their ministerial duties , ' ” Cooper added .
As best The Star can determine , the only 2017 Tennessee Supreme Court case that dealt with the duties of a county election commission was McFarland v Pemberton , which dealt with the question of a county election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unqualified candidate from the ballot , not with the question before the Davidson County Election Commission , as to the constitutionality of the referendum .
In that case , the court ruled : This appeal addresses the authority of a county election commission to make a factual determination on the qualifications of a candidate seeking to be placed on a ballot .
In this case , the defendant filed a petition to run for circuit court judge .
A registered voter filed a complaint with the county election commission arguing that the defendant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and , consequently , should not be placed on the ballot .
The election commission held a hearing on the complaint and voted unanimously to place the defendant on the ballot .
The defendant won the election .
The plaintiff , the defendant ’ s defeated opponent in the election , filed this election contest based solely on the defendant ’ s alleged failure to meet the residency requirement .
The trial court and the Court of Appeals dismissed the complaint .
Both held that the substance of the plaintiff ’ s complaint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s administrative decision on the defendant ’ s residency , governed by the 60-day statute of limitations in Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-9-102 for a petition for a writ of certiorari .
Because the complaint was not filed within sixty days of the county election commission ’ s final decision , it was dismissed as untimely .
On appeal to this Court , we hold that , by necessary implication , the county election commission had the authority under Tennessee ’ s election statutes to hold a quasi-judicial hearing to make a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s complaint challenging the defendant ’ s residency .
We also hold that the county election commission ’ s decision to certify the defendant as a qualified candidate on the ballot was a final administrative decision subject to judicial review by common-law writ of certiorari .
The plaintiff , who had actual notice of the county election commission ’ s actions , was “ aggrieved ” by the election commission ’ s final administrative decision within the meaning of Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-9-101 and , thus , had standing to file a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Though the plaintiff ’ s complaint was styled as an election contest , the gravamen of the complaint is a request for judicial review of the county election commission ’ s decision , reviewable through a petition for a writ of certiorari and subject to the 60-day statute of limitations for such a petition .
Because the plaintiff ’ s complaint was filed well after expiration of the 60-day period , we affirm the lower courts ’ dismissal of the complaint as untimely .
The Star contacted Metro Legal Director Cooper for comment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nashville attorney Jim Roberts , who along with Americans for Prosperity for Tennessee organized the 4 Good Government group that secured the signatures for the Nashville Taxpayer Protection Act charter amendment to be placed as a referendum before the people offered his comments to The Star .
“ Bob Cooper seems to believe that somehow the Election Commission has a lot more authority than it does .
He ’ s just making that up , for lack of a better term .
Tennessee law is pretty clear .
I was already familiar with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Commission .
In that case the Supreme Court said that election commissions don ’ t have the authority to make determinations about the legality of a particular ballot initiative .
They don ’ t have that kind of authority , ” Roberts said Sunday .
“ They would be acting in a judiciary capacity if they tried to play lawyer , and they ’ re not allowed to do that .
But he [ Cooper ] says it anyway .
Because that is what he does.
” As The Star reported on Monday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court decision , Cummings v. Beeler , in his September 25 testimony before the Davidson County Election Commission : The Tennessee Star has obtained a copy of the Tennessee Supreme Court ’ s ruling in that case , which can be read in this story below .
Cummings was the Tennessee Secretary of State at the time , and the plaintiff in the lawsuit .
Beeler was the Tennessee Attorney General at the time and one of the defendants in the lawsuit .
Another defendant was the Davidson County Election Commission .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have the Court declare the rights , status , duties and obligations and other legal relations of the parties as affected by Chapter 49 of the Public Acts of 1949 .
The bill further averred that the Statute is constitutional and asked that the Court so declare , ” the Tennessee Supreme Court said in its 1949 decision , adding : The Election Commissioners , who are parties defendant to this suit have certain specific duties to perform under the Act .
They allege in their answer that there are serious doubts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Public Acts of 1949 and that these doubts were greatly strengthened by the published opinion of the Attorney General of Tennessee , rendered prior to the passage of the Act in question .
It seems to us that the question is not merely a theoretical question .
We have an Act of the legislature mandatorily requiring a State official to spend public funds to hold a special election on November 8 , 1949 .
The Secretary of State is required to spend this State money .
He must either obey the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Attorney General has previously publicly declared as unconstitutional or he must disregard the law entirely .
If the Secretary of State decides to follow the mandates of the statute and spend the public funds and then it develops that the Attorney General was correct in his opinion in holding that the law was invalid and unconstitutional , the Secretary of State would have spent public funds under the authority of a law which was illegal and without effect .
This expenditure would have been made in face of the declared official opinion of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was invalid and unconstitutional .
It would therefore clearly appear that the Secretary of State has a real interest , officially , in determining whether or not the legislation is valid before spending these public funds .
The Star asked Roberts if Cooper understands the law .
“ Well , he doesn ’ t care .
He ’ s desperately trying to keep this very popular ballot initiative off the ballot .
He will do anything .
He will say anything .
He will waste whatever money .
He doesn ’ t care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million he ’ ll spend it just to keep this off the ballot .
”

The 2004 Tennessee Supreme Court decision in City of Memphis v. Shelby County Election Commission that found the “Commission exceeded its authority by refusing to place Referendum Ordinance No. 5072 on the November 2, 2004, ballot based upon the State Election Coordinator’s opinion that the Ordinance is unconstitutional,” may blow a major hole in Metro Nashville Legal Director Bob Cooper’s argument made to to the Davidson County Election Commission at its September 25 meeting that “the commission’s role here is not purely ministerial,” and that a 2004 Tennessee Supreme Court decision “said that the commission can consider the form of a referendum petition and suggested that it could review the petition’s facial or procedural legality.”
On Monday, Cooper – who served as Tennessee Attorney General from 2006 to 2014 and is a graduate of Yale Law School – issued a legal opinion that said, in part, that “the proposed charter amendment [the Nashville Taxpayer Protection Act referendum that would, among other things, repeal the recently enacted 34 percent property tax increase] is not legal and enforceable” and is “defective in form and conflicts with Tennessee Constitution and state and local laws in [various] ways.”
Cooper noted that the Davidson County Election Commission decided in a three to two vote at its September 25 meeting to “seek a declaratory judgment from Davidson County Chancery Court on the proposed amendment’s legal validity and set a conditional referendum date for December 15.”
“The Davidson County Election Commission has recruited a legal team to sue the citizens’ group Americans for Prosperity-Tennessee (AFP-TN) for its December ballot tax cut petition. Former Tennessee Supreme Court Justice Bill Koch will serve as lead counsel,” as The Tennessee Star reported.
The Davidson County Election Commission is scheduled to meet again this Tuesday afternoon to make a final determination as to whether the proposed referendum will be placed on the ballot.
The Tennessee State Supreme Court’s ruling in that 2004 case, City of Memphis v Shelby County Election Commission, came to exactly the opposite conclusion from Cooper’s claim before the Davidson County Election Commission meeting on September 25 that, “the commission’s role here is not purely ministerial.”
“In this expedited appeal, this Court is asked to decide whether the Shelby County Election Commission exceeded its authority by refusing to place Referendum Ordinance No. 5072 on the November 2, 2004, ballot based upon the State Election Coordinator’s opinion that the Ordinance is unconstitutional. We hold that the Shelby County Election Commission exceeded its authority in refusing to place the measure on the ballot,” the decision stated:
The trial court in this case accurately characterized the Commission’s duties as ministerial. The Commission and the Coordinator respectively perform important functions vital to the maintenance and advancement of our political system. Nonetheless, as ministerial officers, the Commission and the Coordinator have limited discretion. Black’s Law Dictionary defines a “ministerial officer” as “[o]ne who performs specified legal duties when the appropriate conditions have been met, but who does not exercise personal judgment or discretion in performing those duties.” A “strictly ministerial duty” is defined as: “A duty that is absolute and imperative, requiring neither the exercise of official discretion nor judgment.” Id. at 522.3 These definitions illustrate how, as ministerial officers performing ministerial acts, the Commission and the Coordinator must implement the election laws, not determine the substantive constitutionality of ballot measures. Without question, the Commission and the Coordinator have certain statutorily prescribed ministerial duties that allow – indeed require – them to do such things as examine ballot initiatives to determine whether signature requirements are met, determine whether submissions are timely, and determine whether candidates have properly qualified to be placed on the ballot. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-1-101 through -216 (2003) et seq. However, these statutes do not require or even permit the Commission to refuse to include a referendum question on the ballot because the Commission believes the question to be substantively unconstitutional. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 2-12-101 through 2-12-216 (delineating the duties of the Commission). The Commission contends that it has the power and duty to make an “initial determination” whether the law authorizes the acts it is required to perform. This contention is true with respect to the Commission’s performance of its ministerial duties. However, it is inaccurate to say that the Commission has the power and duty to perform an initial or cursory review of the substantive constitutionality of measures to be placed on the ballot for referendum. Determining the substantive constitutionality of such measures is a function reserved for the judicial branch of government. Furthermore, the Coordinator, an appointed, ministerial official, also lacks the statutory authority to forbid the inclusion of a referendum question based upon the Coordinator’s opinion that the measure is substantively unconstitutional. The Coordinator’s statutory duty to approve the “form of the ballot” does not provide authority to determine the substantive constitutionality of referendum questions, like the Ordinance at issue in this case.
At the beginning of the September 25 meeting, Cooper said, “The commission’s role here is not purely ministerial. The commission has the authority to review the legal sufficiency of a referendum petition. In 2004, the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled that a county election commission has limited discretion. The court said that the commission can consider the form of a referendum petition and suggested that it could review the petition’s facial or procedural legality.”
(You can see Cooper’s remarks starting at the 3:18 mark of the video below of the meeting)
Cooper, however, provided no citation for the 2004 Tennessee Supreme Court case he mentioned during his opening comments.
The Tennessee Star asked Cooper if he could provide the case citation, but he has not responded to that request yet.
The Nashville Davidson County Metro Charter makes it explicitly clear that when it comes to election questions such as the Nashville Taxpayer Protection Act referendum, the Davidson County Election Commission’s duties are purely ministerial after verifying that a sufficient number of signatures have been obtained to place a referendum on the ballot:
Sec. 19.01. – Amending Charter by resolution of council or petition and popular vote. This Charter may be amended subsequent to its adoption in the following manner: An amendment or amendments may be proposed (1) by the adoption of a resolution by the council favoring the same and submitting it or them to the people for approval. The affirmative vote for adoption of such resolution in the council shall be not less than two-thirds of the membership to which the council is entitled, and such resolution when adopted need not be submitted to the mayor for his or her approval; or (2) upon petition filed with the metropolitan clerk, signed by ten (10) per cent of the number of the registered voters of Nashville-Davidson County voting in the preceding general election, the verification of the signatures to be made by the Davidson County Election Commission and certified to the metropolitan clerk. Such resolution or petition shall also prescribe a date not less than eighty (80) [days] subsequent to the date of its filing for the holding of a referendum election at which the electorate of the metropolitan government will vote to ratify or to reject the amendments proposed. The metropolitan clerk shall immediately certify to the county commissioners of election copy of such resolution or petition and it shall thereupon be the duty of said commissioners of election to hold a referendum election with respect thereto. The ballot shall be prepared so as to set forth a brief description of the amendment worded so as to convey the meaning of said amendment, said description to be set forth in the original amendatory resolution, that the language of each amendment in full be posted conspicuously in the voting place and be published in a local newspaper, numbered as the same is numbered in the resolution of the council or in the petition, and to provide the voters a choice to vote “For Ratification” and “Against Ratification” of each proposed amendment. Each proposed amendment shall be ratified when a majority of the votes cast at the special referendum election shall be in favor of ratification and each proposed amendment shall be rejected when a majority of said votes shall be against ratification. Notice of said referendum election shall be given as provided by Tennessee Code Annotated, section 2-1808*, and the costs of said election shall be paid out of the general funds of the metropolitan government.
In his presentation to the election commission, Cooper subsequently referenced a 2017 Tennessee Supreme Court decision, but again did not provide the case citation.
“This holding [in 2004] was affirmed in 2017, when the Tennessee Supreme Court said that election commissions ‘are not strictly ministerial bodies’ and that ‘the election code clearly gives county election commissions the authority to perform functions that are discretionary in addition to their ministerial duties,'” Cooper added.
As best The Star can determine, the only 2017 Tennessee Supreme Court case that dealt with the duties of a county election commission was McFarland v Pemberton, which dealt with the question of a county election commission’s authority to remove an unqualified candidate from the ballot, not with the question before the Davidson County Election Commission, as to the constitutionality of the referendum.
In that case, the court ruled:
This appeal addresses the authority of a county election commission to make a factual determination on the qualifications of a candidate seeking to be placed on a ballot. In this case, the defendant filed a petition to run for circuit court judge. A registered voter filed a complaint with the county election commission arguing that the defendant did not reside in the judicial district and, consequently, should not be placed on the ballot. The election commission held a hearing on the complaint and voted unanimously to place the defendant on the ballot. The defendant won the election. The plaintiff, the defendant’s defeated opponent in the election, filed this election contest based solely on the defendant’s alleged failure to meet the residency requirement. The trial court and the Court of Appeals dismissed the complaint. Both held that the substance of the plaintiff’s complaint was a challenge of the election commission’s administrative decision on the defendant’s residency, governed by the 60-day statute of limitations in Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-9-102 for a petition for a writ of certiorari. Because the complaint was not filed within sixty days of the county election commission’s final decision, it was dismissed as untimely. On appeal to this Court, we hold that, by necessary implication, the county election commission had the authority under Tennessee’s election statutes to hold a quasi-judicial hearing to make a factual determination to resolve the voter’s complaint challenging the defendant’s residency. We also hold that the county election commission’s decision to certify the defendant as a qualified candidate on the ballot was a final administrative decision subject to judicial review by common-law writ of certiorari. The plaintiff, who had actual notice of the county election commission’s actions, was “aggrieved” by the election commission’s final administrative decision within the meaning of Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-9-101 and, thus, had standing to file a petition for a writ of certiorari. Though the plaintiff’s complaint was styled as an election contest, the gravamen of the complaint is a request for judicial review of the county election commission’s decision, reviewable through a petition for a writ of certiorari and subject to the 60-day statute of limitations for such a petition. Because the plaintiff’s complaint was filed well after expiration of the 60-day period, we affirm the lower courts’ dismissal of the complaint as untimely.
The Star contacted Metro Legal Director Cooper for comment but did not received a response.
Nashville attorney Jim Roberts, who along with Americans for Prosperity for Tennessee organized the 4 Good Government group that secured the signatures for the Nashville Taxpayer Protection Act charter amendment to be placed as a referendum before the people offered his comments to The Star.
“Bob Cooper seems to believe that somehow the Election Commission has a lot more authority than it does. He’s just making that up, for lack of a better term. Tennessee law is pretty clear. I was already familiar with City of Memphis v Shelby County Election Commission. In that case the Supreme Court said that election commissions don’t have the authority to make determinations about the legality of a particular ballot initiative. They don’t have that kind of authority,” Roberts said Sunday.
“They would be acting in a judiciary capacity if they tried to play lawyer, and they’re not allowed to do that. But he [Cooper] says it anyway. Because that is what he does.”
As The Star reported on Monday, Cooper also cited a 1949 Tennessee Supreme Court decision, Cummings v. Beeler, in his September 25 testimony before the Davidson County Election Commission:
The Tennessee Star has obtained a copy of the Tennessee Supreme Court’s ruling in that case, which can be read in this story below. Cummings was the Tennessee Secretary of State at the time, and the plaintiff in the lawsuit. Beeler was the Tennessee Attorney General at the time and one of the defendants in the lawsuit. Another defendant was the Davidson County Election Commission. “The purpose of the suit was to have the Court declare the rights, status, duties and obligations and other legal relations of the parties as affected by Chapter 49 of the Public Acts of 1949. The bill further averred that the Statute is constitutional and asked that the Court so declare,” the Tennessee Supreme Court said in its 1949 decision, adding: The Election Commissioners, who are parties defendant to this suit have certain specific duties to perform under the Act. They allege in their answer that there are serious doubts as to the validity of Chapter 49 of the Public Acts of 1949 and that these doubts were greatly strengthened by the published opinion of the Attorney General of Tennessee, rendered prior to the passage of the Act in question. It seems to us that the question is not merely a theoretical question. We have an Act of the legislature mandatorily requiring a State official to spend public funds to hold a special election on November 8, 1949. The Secretary of State is required to spend this State money. He must either obey the mandatory provisions of this law which the Attorney General has previously publicly declared as unconstitutional or he must disregard the law entirely. If the Secretary of State decides to follow the mandates of the statute and spend the public funds and then it develops that the Attorney General was correct in his opinion in holding that the law was invalid and unconstitutional, the Secretary of State would have spent public funds under the authority of a law which was illegal and without effect. This expenditure would have been made in face of the declared official opinion of his official legal adviser that the law was invalid and unconstitutional. It would therefore clearly appear that the Secretary of State has a real interest, officially, in determining whether or not the legislation is valid before spending these public funds.
The Star asked Roberts if Cooper understands the law.
“Well, he doesn’t care. He’s desperately trying to keep this very popular ballot initiative off the ballot. He will do anything. He will say anything. He will waste whatever money. He doesn’t care. Even if it costs $10 million he’ll spend it just to keep this off the ballot.”


thetennesseestar--2020-10-06--Commentary: The Harris Administration’s Radical Agenda

Kamala Harris seeks the ( almost ) highest office in our great land , the most powerful position in the free world .
Freudian slip that Harris referred to a future “ Harris administration ” at a virtual roundtable in Arizona last month ?
Maybe she missed that her name is in the VP slot or maybe she doesn ’ t understand that “ me too ” refers to the movement advocating for sexual harassment victims and not “ she too ” for president .
Either way , no time like the present to explore who Kamala Harris is despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look critically at her record .
The media isn ’ t curious and dare anyone raise any questions , cries of misogyny abound .
So , does that mean democrats are misogynists ?
They resoundingly rejected Harris during the presidential primaries .
Her poll numbers dropped to single digits and even her native state of California rejected Harris for president when likely Democratic primary voters , by 61 % to 24 % , thought Harris should quit .
Harris ’ allegiance to “ me too ” is predicated on what is expedient for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rushed to judgment with Blasey-Ford ’ s unsubstantiated allegations , brutally attacking nominee Kavanaugh in front of the cameras while monetizing her performance by posting thousands of fundraising ads off the Kavanaugh hearings .
She even used an edited video to play “ gotcha ” with Kavanaugh except she got caught .
Then , lest we all forget , primary candidate Harris was unequivocally indignant when declaring she believed Biden ’ s sexual harassment accusers and said they should be heard .
“ I believe them , and I respect them being able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ courage to do it.
” There were at least eight in number , including Tara Reade , whose accusations against Joe Biden are too appalling to write here and apparently too much for 60 Minutes voters in the United States , but fine to air on 60 Minutes Australia .
Once selected as Biden ’ s VP running mate , voila , Harris abandoned Reade , sanctimoniously standing by her man Joe .
And speaking about changing positions when good for her , recall how Harris attacked Biden for his civil rights record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden kept , and calling out Biden ’ s objection to busing .
Not an issue now that Harris is Biden ’ s running mate .
Will the real Kamala Harris please stand up .
Harris touts her time as a prosecutor but she sides with the anarchists destroying our cities , intimidating and hurting innocent citizens , breaking the law and causing mayhem .
She refers to them as “ a movement that is fueled by the diversity , the beautiful diversity , of [ those ] demanding change and justice … @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everyone beware because they aren ’ t going to stop before election day in November and they are not going to stop after election day … they should not let up and they should not.
” Not exactly the law and order , safety first leadership this country needs at the moment .
Let ’ s be honest , though , Harris isn ’ t worried since she has secret service protection and is well-protected by armed security when in the Capitol .
The demonstrators also happen to be Biden-Harris voters no doubt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and “ impact ” of BLM , claiming it “ has been the most significant agent for change within the criminal justice system.
” Yet , she ignores its violent and destructive actions , and she turns her back on the fact that BLM is an anti-Jewish hate group .
As Professor Dershowitz aptly stated , BLM engages in a “ war on the Jewish people.
” Recall Harris ’ visit with Jacob Blake , Sr. in Kenosha .
After the meeting , she called his an “ incredible family.
” Honestly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jews ; “ [ a ] Jew can ’ t tell me s*** period , ” “ [ t ] he Jewish media picks who is a terrorists and is not , ” “ I ’ m with Farrakhan 100 , ” “ [ w ] arning for Jews in Pittsburgh no warning for gunman in Kentucky ” an incredible family ?
More examples exist but you get the drift .
He also posted a photograph of a white Jesus floating in a toilet bowl .
It also doesn ’ t bother Harris @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party of anti-Semites .
AOC , Omar , Talib , Pressley and others don ’ t even hide their prejudice .
Harris proudly stands with them as she did with the six speakers at the Democrat National Convention who are fans of Louis Farrakhan .
( He ’ s the one who calls Jews “ termites ” and Hitler a “ very great man.
” ) That her husband is Jewish is convenient but not probative .
Just look at the radical Jewish organization J Street .
Virulently anti-Israel , J Street held @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Street , Harris supports the disastrous Obama-Biden Iran deal that gave the world ’ s largest sponsor of terrorism the path to nuclear weapons .
She said Trump ’ s shredding of the Iran deal was a “ huge misstep ” and that she would re-join it .
Like J Street , her Senate votes make clear she doesn ’ t oppose the Boycott , Divest , and Sanction ( BDS ) movement or place high priority on security assistance to Israel .
There ’ s a lot more about Harris that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American people .
Here are some additional highlights of what Harris has in store for our country if the Democrat party takes over .
Brace yourself because these are radical and destructive : significantly higher taxes ( referring to AOC ’ s 70-80 % top taxes rates as “ bold ideas ” ) , single payer socialized medicine ( aka the Bernie Sanders $ 32 trillion plan ) , the elimination of private insurance ( telling Americans , “ let ’ s move on ” ) , passage of the Green New Deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” version , as she says ) , the end of fracking , open borders with government-funded health care for illegal aliens , and sanctuary cities .
The list goes on and on .
Kamala Harris , whether as vice president or , as she “ faux paxed , ” at the top of the ticket , is unacceptable .
She is radical in her positions and cagey in hiding them .
She is driven by a radical agenda that is out of step with the values of our exceptional country .
Ours @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anarchy and violence are acceptable , where the federal government engulfs us , dictates our health decisions , and governs our daily lives .
This is Kamala Harris and this is today ’ s Democrat party .
Rejecting her doesn ’ t amount to misogyny .
It means we wish to preserve the exceptionalism that is America .
Julie Strauss Levin is a proud American and attorney who loves her country .

by Julie Strauss Levin
Kamala Harris seeks the (almost) highest office in our great land, the most powerful position in the free world. Freudian slip that Harris referred to a future “Harris administration” at a virtual roundtable in Arizona last month? Maybe she missed that her name is in the VP slot or maybe she doesn’t understand that “me too” refers to the movement advocating for sexual harassment victims and not “she too” for president.
Either way, no time like the present to explore who Kamala Harris is despite that we’re not supposed to look critically at her record. The media isn’t curious and dare anyone raise any questions, cries of misogyny abound.
So, does that mean democrats are misogynists? They resoundingly rejected Harris during the presidential primaries. Her poll numbers dropped to single digits and even her native state of California rejected Harris for president when likely Democratic primary voters, by 61% to 24%, thought Harris should quit.
Harris’ allegiance to “me too” is predicated on what is expedient for her. She was outraged by and rushed to judgment with Blasey-Ford’s unsubstantiated allegations, brutally attacking nominee Kavanaugh in front of the cameras while monetizing her performance by posting thousands of fundraising ads off the Kavanaugh hearings. She even used an edited video to play “gotcha” with Kavanaugh except she got caught.
Then, lest we all forget, primary candidate Harris was unequivocally indignant when declaring she believed Biden’s sexual harassment accusers and said they should be heard. “I believe them, and I respect them being able to tell their story and having the courage to do it.” There were at least eight in number, including Tara Reade, whose accusations against Joe Biden are too appalling to write here and apparently too much for 60 Minutes voters in the United States, but fine to air on 60 Minutes Australia. Once selected as Biden’s VP running mate, voila, Harris abandoned Reade, sanctimoniously standing by her man Joe.
And speaking about changing positions when good for her, recall how Harris attacked Biden for his civil rights record, offended by the segregationists whose company Biden kept, and calling out Biden’s objection to busing. Not an issue now that Harris is Biden’s running mate. Will the real Kamala Harris please stand up.
Harris touts her time as a prosecutor but she sides with the anarchists destroying our cities, intimidating and hurting innocent citizens, breaking the law and causing mayhem. She refers to them as “a movement that is fueled by the diversity, the beautiful diversity, of [those] demanding change and justice … They are not going to stop and everyone beware because they aren’t going to stop before election day in November and they are not going to stop after election day … they should not let up and they should not.” Not exactly the law and order, safety first leadership this country needs at the moment.
Let’s be honest, though, Harris isn’t worried since she has secret service protection and is well-protected by armed security when in the Capitol. The demonstrators also happen to be Biden-Harris voters no doubt.
Harris praises the “brilliance” and “impact” of BLM, claiming it “has been the most significant agent for change within the criminal justice system.” Yet, she ignores its violent and destructive actions, and she turns her back on the fact that BLM is an anti-Jewish hate group. As Professor Dershowitz aptly stated, BLM engages in a “war on the Jewish people.”
Recall Harris’ visit with Jacob Blake, Sr. in Kenosha. After the meeting, she called his an “incredible family.” Honestly, would you describe someone who said of Jews; “[a] Jew can’t tell me s*** period,” “[t]he Jewish media picks who is a terrorists and is not,” “I’m with Farrakhan 100,” “[w]arning for Jews in Pittsburgh no warning for gunman in Kentucky” an incredible family? More examples exist but you get the drift. He also posted a photograph of a white Jesus floating in a toilet bowl.
It also doesn’t bother Harris just a bit that hers is the party of anti-Semites. AOC, Omar, Talib, Pressley and others don’t even hide their prejudice. Harris proudly stands with them as she did with the six speakers at the Democrat National Convention who are fans of Louis Farrakhan. (He’s the one who calls Jews “termites” and Hitler a “very great man.”) That her husband is Jewish is convenient but not probative. Just look at the radical Jewish organization J Street. Virulently anti-Israel, J Street held a fundraiser for Biden-Harris. Like J Street, Harris supports the disastrous Obama-Biden Iran deal that gave the world’s largest sponsor of terrorism the path to nuclear weapons. She said Trump’s shredding of the Iran deal was a “huge misstep” and that she would re-join it. Like J Street, her Senate votes make clear she doesn’t oppose the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction (BDS) movement or place high priority on security assistance to Israel.
There’s a lot more about Harris that is worrisome and should be worrisome to the American people. Here are some additional highlights of what Harris has in store for our country if the Democrat party takes over. Brace yourself because these are radical and destructive: significantly higher taxes (referring to AOC’s 70-80% top taxes rates as “bold ideas”), single payer socialized medicine (aka the Bernie Sanders $32 trillion plan), the elimination of private insurance (telling Americans, “let’s move on”), passage of the Green New Deal (the “most aggressive and progressive” version, as she says), the end of fracking, open borders with government-funded health care for illegal aliens, and sanctuary cities.
The list goes on and on. Kamala Harris, whether as vice president or, as she “faux paxed,” at the top of the ticket, is unacceptable. She is radical in her positions and cagey in hiding them. She is driven by a radical agenda that is out of step with the values of our exceptional country. Ours is not a country where thuggery, anarchy and violence are acceptable, where the federal government engulfs us, dictates our health decisions, and governs our daily lives. This is Kamala Harris and this is today’s Democrat party. Rejecting her doesn’t amount to misogyny. It means we wish to preserve the exceptionalism that is America.
– – –
Julie Strauss Levin is a proud American and attorney who loves her country.


thetennesseestar--2020-10-06--Nashville Mayor John Cooper’s Restaurant Police Cite Two Downtown Bars For Having Too Many Customers

Informants reportedly helped Nashville Mayor John Cooper ’ s restaurant police cite two downtown bars over the weekend .
WSMV reported that a task force cited Dogwood and Rebar , both on Division Street , on Saturday for having too many patrons , including on the patio .
The task force had members from Metro Public Health Department , the Metro Nashville Police Department and the Metro Beer Board .
The task force checked on Dogwood again on Sunday .
The task force was already on the prowl , but WSMV quoted two citizens who complained about the crowds , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Both bars had to temporarily close , Fox 17 News said .
Cooper continues to limit restaurants and bars to 50 percent capacity despite massive evidence virtually clearing them of having any role in the spread of COVID-19 .
His administration is in Phase Three of reopening .
Dennis Ferrier of Fox 17 News has been documenting Cooper ’ s overreach .
Last week , he reported that only 146 of Davidson County ’ s 25,000-plus coronavirus cases were tied to bars and restaurants , or less than one-half of one percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ferrier said the Tennessee Hospitality Association reported that In June and July , Nashville restaurant numbers were down 41 percent compared to the remainder of the state being down 12 percent .
When Cooper announced at a July 2 press conference that he was shutting down all the city ’ s bars for 14 days and reducing restaurant capacity from 75 percent to 50 percent , due to “ record ” cases of COVID-19 traceable to restaurants and bars , he apparently knew that his own health department said very few cases were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported .
Jason M. Reynolds has more than 20 years ’ experience as a journalist at outlets of all sizes .

Informants reportedly helped Nashville Mayor John Cooper’s restaurant police cite two downtown bars over the weekend.
WSMV reported that a task force cited Dogwood and Rebar, both on Division Street, on Saturday for having too many patrons, including on the patio. The task force had members from Metro Public Health Department, the Metro Nashville Police Department and the Metro Beer Board. The task force checked on Dogwood again on Sunday.
The task force was already on the prowl, but WSMV quoted two citizens who complained about the crowds, one of whom apparently contacted the authorities.
“I mean it’s appalling to me. I went over there to take a picture to report it to the health department,” said Nashville resident Andi McKeller. “Respect people’s health protect people abide by the rules.”
Both bars had to temporarily close, Fox 17 News said.
Cooper continues to limit restaurants and bars to 50 percent capacity despite massive evidence virtually clearing them of having any role in the spread of COVID-19. His administration is in Phase Three of reopening.
Dennis Ferrier of Fox 17 News has been documenting Cooper’s overreach. Last week, he reported that only 146 of Davidson County’s 25,000-plus coronavirus cases were tied to bars and restaurants, or less than one-half of one percent, as The Tennessee Star reported.
Ferrier said the Tennessee Hospitality Association reported that In June and July, Nashville restaurant numbers were down 41 percent compared to the remainder of the state being down 12 percent.
When Cooper announced at a July 2 press conference that he was shutting down all the city’s bars for 14 days and reducing restaurant capacity from 75 percent to 50 percent, due to “record” cases of COVID-19 traceable to restaurants and bars, he apparently knew that his own health department said very few cases were connected to those industries, The Star reported.
– – –
Jason M. Reynolds has more than 20 years’ experience as a journalist at outlets of all sizes.