The Tennessee Constitution says, “If the people shall approve and ratify such amendment (to the Tennessee Constitution) by a majority of all the citizens of the state voting for Governor, voting in their favor, such amendment shall become a part of the Constitution.”
In 2014, an amendment concerning abortion was on the ballot, placed there by the legislature. It received 729,163 yes votes and 657,192 no votes. The state government declared that it had passed. The number of votes for Governor was 1,353,728; half of that number is 676,864.
Some opponents filed a federal lawsuit, saying the measure did not pass because the state did not show that a majority of people who actually voted for Governor had voted for the amendment. In order to show this, each ballot would have needed to be re-counted, to disregard votes on the amendment from people who abstained from voting for Governor. In other words, these voters take the meaning of the Tennessee Constitution to refer to particular voters. These voters won in U.S. District Court, but in January 2018, the Sixth Circuit reversed and said the measure passed.
Here is the cert petition. A great deal of the petition focuses on the procedural issue of whether it was wrong for the state officials to have filed their own lawsuit in state court, to get a favorable ruling on their side, instead of letting the federal court handle the case. The case is George v Haslam, 18-76 (although in the lower courts it was called George v Hargett).
OBVIOUSLY – A STATE constitution involved
The opponents should have intervened in the STATE court and raised all USA Const issues.
RE —
“If the people shall approve and ratify such amendment (to the Tennessee Constitution) by a majority of all the citizens of the state voting for Governor, voting in their favor, such amendment shall become a part of the Constitution.”
people / all the citizens of the state = ACTUAL Voters — super-bad drafting of the text
voting in their favor = approve and ratify such amendment — more bad drafting — duplication
— date of text ??? — before voters in many early States had requirements that the Voters must approve State const. amdts. ???
TN — ex part of NC — State 15 in 1796 — ie early State.
What was FIRST State to require Voters approval of State const amdts ??? — ie have SOME Democracy in the State regimes — TN ???
What was FIRST State to have Voters have petitions for State const amdts ??? — ie have MORE Democracy in the State regimes.
General problem
— the moron lawyers in State Court cases fail to properly claim USA law violations
— USA Const, laws, treaties.
Sometimes due to bogus plaintiffs — ie agents of the defendants —
ie RIGGED cases as in rigged gerrymanders.
More moron stuff –
the USA Courts give ANY respect to such State Courts —
many having appointed State super-hack so-called judges —
hack relatives of State Guvs, party hack lawyers, etc.