Well, It is Tennessee, After All

A judge in US state Tennessee has ruled that an anti-gay amendment vote may proceed, even though legislators failed to meet a deadline laid out in the state Constitution.

Under Tennessee rules, a constitutional amendment must pass two legislative sessions before facing a public vote.

After an amendment passes the first session, lawmakers must publish a legal notice six months prior to the next election. The rule is meant to ensure that the public can take the amendment into account before electing the next legislature.

In 2004, the state’s General Assembly advanced a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. But instead of posting notice in May, it waited until June 20, missing the deadline by roughly six weeks.

While it may appear to be a technicality, it is in fact a clear-cut violation of state law and should have been enough to invalidate the amendment and send the lawmakers back to square one. [...]

Citing the “unusual and unique facts of this case”, Lyle wrote that the “extensive” media and Web site coverage meant that “the proposed amendment was actually, although not officially, published well in advance of the six-month window required by the Constitution”.

The notion that blog discussions and newspaper articles could substitute for a specific step in the amendment process did not sit well with the ACLU, which promised to appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court.

“Constitutional requirements are not technicalities,” said ACLU Tennessee Executive Director Hedy Weinberg in a written statement.

“They were put in place because amending the Constitution is a very serious decision. (source)

I was shocked by this story. I thought that the procedure of amending a state constitution would be followed to the letter. And I wouldn’t be surprised if the ACLU looses this case. I wish I could put more faith in the lawmakers in Tennessee, but they want this to happen. So, it’s going to happen, whether the amendment is “technically” correct or not.

What boggles my mind is that this means that anything I say, along with other bloggers and websites that publish information, is in effect giving notice of pending legislation or amendments, if you believe Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle. And, the chancellor is using that to say that missing the deadline, although a technical problem, is not enough to stop this amendment.

Also, one would think that there would be a very special procedure for publishing this “legal notice” with very specific information about what the amendment will do. Relying on websites to be do what the legal system should be doing is ludicrous.