2014 Tennessee Amendment 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Tennessee Constitutional Amendment: 1, commonly known as Amendment 1 or the No State Constitutional Right to Abortion and Legislative Power to Regulate Abortion Amendment, is an approved legislatively referred constitutional amendment to the Constitution of Tennessee that appeared on the ballot on November 4, 2014.[3] The amendment would ensure that Constitution of Tennessee, would not support, fund, or protect the right to an abortion.

Quick facts Results, Choice ...
Amendment 1
November 4, 2014 (2014-11-04)
Shall Article I, of the Constitution of Tennessee be amended by adding the following language as a new, appropriately designated section: Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion. The people retain the right through their elected state representatives and state senators to enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother.
Results
Choice
Votes %
Yes 729,163 52.60%
No 657,192 47.40%
Valid votes 1,386,355 100.00%
Invalid or blank votes 0 0.00%
Total votes 1,386,355 100.00%
Registered voters/turnout [1]35.97%
Yes:      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%      80–90%      90–100%
No:      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%      80–90%      90–100%
     No data
Source: Tennessee Secretary of State[2]
Close

Content

The amendment added the following to Article I of the Constitution of Tennessee:

"Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion. The people retain the right through their elected state representatives and state senators to enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother."[4]

The following is the official text from the Tennessee Secretary of State, that appeared on the ballot:

"Shall Article I, of the Constitution of Tennessee be amended by adding the following language as a new, appropriately designated section?

Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion. The people retain the right through their elected state representatives and state senators to enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother."

A vote for Amendment 1 supports ensuring the Constitution of Tennessee does not uphold most abortions and supporting the General Assembly having power to pass laws regarding the regulation of abortion.

A vote against Amendment 1 opposes this amendment and restricts the General Assembly from creating legislation or passing laws that regulate abortion.

Supporters

Governor Bill Haslam, was one of the well-known supporters of Amendment 1

Officials and politicians, mainly Republicans, voiced their opposition for the amendment, both during the vote on it in the General Assembly and when it appeared on the ballot. Pro-life organizations, such as Tennessee Right to Life and Americans United for Life, also voiced strong support for the amendment. Leslie Hunse, the education director for Tennessee Right to Life, said, "We want our constitution to go back to neutral on the issue of abortion, so we can pass some common sense regulations to protect mothers and children."[5]

"Yes on 1" was the main organization supporting the campaign, with signs and television advertisements.

Opponents

Vote NO on One Tennessee led the campaign in opposition to the ballot measure. Representatives, senators, and some faith leaders opposed the amendment. The ACLU and Planned Parenthood, among other large organizations, also opposed the amendment, and contributed large campaign contributions up to the election. Planned Parenthood organizations nationwide, spent a total of nearly $2 million, in campaign contributions opposing Amendment 1, while the ACLU donated $135,000 in opposition.[3]

State Senator Roy Herron said, "Their pitch is that this would make the constitution neutral on abortion. How would they like the Constitution neutral on the Second Amendment so legislators could outlaw the right to bear arms? How about making the First Amendment neutral?"

Nashville-based, statewide newspaper, The Tennessean, also opposed this amendment, stating, "Making any type of law immune from a court challenge is shortsighted, prejudicial — and in the case of what should be a woman's own decision about her health — downright dangerous. For those reasons, The Tennessean recommends a vote of no on Amendment 1."

General election

Endorsements

Yes on 1
State officials

Former state legislators

  • David Fowler (R), former member of the Tennessee Senate, from the 11th district

Organizations

  • Tennessee Right to Life

Notable Individuals

Vote NO on One Tennessee
State officials

Former state legislators

  • Roy Herron (D), former member of the Tennessee Senate, from the 24th district

Organizations

Polling

More information Poll source, Date(s) administered ...
Poll source Date(s)

administered

Sample

size

Margin

of error

For

Amendment 1

Against

Amendment 1

Undecided
Middle Tennessee State University[6] October 22–26, 2014 600 ± 4.0% 39% 32% 29%
Remington Research[7] September 24–25, 2014 600 ± 4.0% 50% 22% 28%
Vanderbilt University[8] April 28-May 18, 2014 1,505 ± 3.4% 23% 71% 6%
Close

Results

Precinct results
More information Choice, Votes ...
Amendment 1
Choice Votes %
Referendum passed Yes 729,163 52.60
No 657,192 47.40
Total votes 1,386,355 100.00
Source: Secretary of State of Tennessee
Close

By county

Source:[9]

More information County, Yes ...
County Yes No Total votes
% # % #
Anderson 50.54% 9,213 49.46% 9,016 18,229
Bedford 59.98% 4,634 40.02% 3,092 7,726
Benton 58.61% 2,188 41.39% 1,545 3,733
Bledsoe 62.97% 1,660 37.03% 976 2,636
Blount 54.01% 16,364 45.99% 13,934 30,298
Bradley 68.87% 14,122 31.13% 6,384 20,506
Campbell 62.14% 4,008 37.86% 2,442 6,450
Cannon 62.82% 1,833 37.18% 1,085 2,918
Carroll 66.08% 4,142 33.92% 2,126 6,268
Carter 64.78% 7,026 35.22% 3,820 10,846
Cheatham 53.72% 4,738 46.28% 4,081 8,819
Chester 75.88% 2,615 24.12% 831 3,446
Claiborne 59.17% 3,138 40.83% 2,165 5,303
Clay 62.85% 939 37.15% 555 1,494
Cocke 60.64% 4,286 39.36% 2,782 7,068
Coffee 57.81% 6,695 42.19% 4,887 11,582
Crockett 69.03% 2,013 30.97% 903 2,916
Cumberland 60.39% 9,885 39.61% 6,484 16,369
Davidson 33.65% 46,717 66.35% 92,098 138,815
Decatur 63.01% 1,443 36.99% 847 2,290
DeKalb 61.68% 2,282 38.32% 1,418 3,700
Dickson 54.25% 5,726 45.75% 4,829 10,555
Dyer 64.32% 4,651 35.68% 2,580 7,231
Fayette 58.71% 6,144 41.29% 4,320 10,464
Fentress 68.67% 2,262 31.33% 1,032 3,294
Franklin 56.74% 5,473 43.26% 4,172 9,645
Gibson 71.50% 7,989 28.50% 3,184 11,173
Giles 57.23% 3,194 42.77% 2,387 5,581
Grainger 61.64% 2,552 38.36% 1,588 4,140
Greene 61.60% 8,043 38.40% 5,014 13,057
Grundy 63.72% 1,530 36.28% 871 2,401
Hamblen 66.31% 7,530 33.69% 3,825 11,355
Hamilton 49.01% 39,817 50.99% 41,421 81,238
Hancock 63.92% 606 36.08% 342 948
Hardeman 49.87% 2,464 50.13% 2,477 4,941
Hardin 67.35% 3,385 32.65% 1,641 5,026
Hawkins 63.54% 6,667 36.46% 3,825 10,492
Haywood 48.68% 1,683 51.32% 1,774 3,457
Henderson 75.33% 3,805 24.67% 1,246 5,051
Henry 56.28% 4,013 43.72% 3,118 7,131
Hickman 58.13% 2,653 41.87% 1,911 4,564
Houston 48.62% 864 51.38% 913 1,777
Humphreys 55.47% 2,324 44.53% 1,866 4,190
Jackson 63.20% 1,635 36.80% 952 2,587
Jefferson 61.92% 6,509 38.08% 4,003 10,512
Johnson 63.95% 2,029 36.05% 1,144 3,173
Knox 48.33% 50,635 51.67% 54,124 104,759
Lake 68.57% 650 31.43% 298 948
Lauderdale 55.82% 2,254 44.18% 1,784 4,038
Lawrence 73.40% 6,549 26.60% 2,374 8,923
Lewis 63.39% 1,797 36.61% 1,038 2,835
Lincoln 72.99% 4,394 27.01% 1,626 6,020
Loudon 56.50% 8,319 43.50% 6,405 14,724
Macon 68.04% 2,272 31.96% 1,067 3,339
Madison 62.66% 14,508 37.34% 8,647 23,155
Marion 53.92% 3,389 46.08% 2,896 6,285
Marshall 54.81% 3,318 45.19% 2,736 6,054
Maury 57.61% 11,038 42.39% 8,121 19,159
McMinn 65.89% 7,060 34.11% 3,654 10,714
McNairy 63.48% 3,399 36.52% 1,955 5,354
Meigs 58.64% 1,293 41.36% 912 2,205
Monroe 61.78% 6,172 38.22% 3,819 9,991
Montgomery 50.70% 14,841 49.30% 14,433 29,274
Moore 65.53% 1,158 34.47% 609 1,767
Morgan 62.66% 2,317 37.34% 1,381 3,698
Obion 76.58% 4,937 23.42% 1,510 6,447
Overton 63.75% 2,624 36.25% 1,492 4,116
Perry 53.75% 760 46.25% 654 1,414
Pickett 64.70% 1,083 35.30% 591 1,674
Polk 60.02% 2,142 39.98% 1,427 3,569
Putnam 61.74% 9,380 38.26% 5,813 15,193
Rhea 67.51% 4,069 32.49% 1,958 6,027
Roane 54.33% 7,381 45.67% 6,204 13,585
Robertson 56.69% 8,070 43.31% 6,165 14,235
Rutherford 56.26% 31,688 43.74% 24,634 56,322
Scott 66.38% 2,032 33.62% 1,029 3,061
Sequatchie 62.12% 1,935 37.88% 1,180 3,115
Sevier 61.59% 11,827 38.41% 7,375 19,202
Shelby 37.10% 69,292 62.90% 117,472 186,764
Smith 61.77% 2,697 38.23% 1,669 4,366
Stewart 55.42% 1,647 44.58% 1,325 2,972
Sullivan 59.24% 19,700 40.76% 13,553 33,253
Sumner 59.42% 22,658 40.58% 15,476 38,134
Tipton 58.28% 7,101 41.72% 5,084 12,185
Trousdale 56.00% 887 44.00% 697 1,584
Unicoi 63.34% 2,481 36.66% 1,436 3,917
Union 56.00% 1,675 44.00% 1,316 2,991
Van Buren 60.50% 928 39.50% 606 1,534
Warren 62.69% 4,921 37.31% 2,929 7,850
Washington 57.71% 15,515 42.29% 11,367 26,882
Wayne 69.50% 1,914 30.50% 840 2,754
Weakley 71.77% 5,152 28.23% 2,026 7,178
White 65.49% 4,047 34.51% 2,133 6,180
Williamson 56.57% 34,422 43.43% 26,425 60,847
Wilson 57.12% 17,346 42.88% 13,021 30,367
Total 52.60% 729,163 47.40% 657,192 1,386,355
Close

Analysis

The results for Amendment 1 revealed a significant urban-rural divide across Tennessee. While major urban centers showed the most concentrated opposition to the measure, the amendment found its strongest support in the rural regions of the state. Specifically, the band of rural counties located between the Nashville and Memphis metropolitan areas. Similarly, East Tennessee remained a stronghold for the "Yes" vote, with the exceptions of Knox and Hamilton counties, which saw higher levels of opposition than their more rural neighbors.[10] Notably, the only rural counties to vote in opposition were Haywood and Hickman in West Tennessee and Houston in Middle Tennessee; at the time these areas were characterized as ancestral Democratic strongholds where some Democrats continued to hold local offices.[11]

The geographic split was further defined by the influence of suburban and exurban counties. In Shelby and Davidson counties, the "No" vote defeated "Yes" by a 64–36 margin; however, these two population centers accounted for only 27% of the statewide electorate.[12] The amendment's success was heavily bolstered by the six suburban counties surrounding Nashville—including Williamson, which had the state's highest turnout at 44.6%—which together provided approximately 40% of the statewide "Yes" margin. Despite the "No" campaign outspending the "Yes" side by a 3-to-1 margin in the final month, the measure passed amid a low-turnout midterm environment where grassroots and church-based mobilization in rural areas proved decisive.[13]

Political analysts noted that because the 2014 gubernatorial and U.S. Senate races were largely non-competitive, the amendment became the primary driver for "true believer" voters who may not have otherwise participated in the midterm. Experts suggested the amendment might not have passed in a higher-turnout presidential election year where the electorate is typically more left-leaning.[14] Notably, this amendment had more votes cast than the governor and Senate election.[15]

Lawsuit regarding counting of votes

George et al. v. Haslam et al.

In 2014, Tracey E. George, along with 4 others, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for Middle Tennessee, alleging that the state's method of counting votes for the amendment was unconstitutional. They argued that the state violated the Tennessee Constitution by not ensuring that voters who supported the amendment also voted in the gubernatorial race. The state's defense claimed their approach was based on constitutional interpretation and historical practice. The court denied the state's request to dismiss the case. In response, state attorneys filed a counter-suit in a Williamson County court, asserting that their vote-counting method aligned with the state constitution.[16][17]

Judge Kevin H. Sharp

On April 21, 2016, Williamson County Judge Michael Binkley sided with the state, allowing votes from individuals who didn't participate in the gubernatorial race to be counted for the amendment. However, the next day, federal judge Kevin H. Sharp ruled against the state in the original federal lawsuit. He stated that only votes from individuals who also voted for gubernatorial candidates should be considered valid for the amendment. Judge Sharp emphasized the inequality in weighing votes, where those who voted against Amendment 1 and for governor were not given the same significance as those who voted in favor of the amendment but did not participate in the governor's race. Consequently, Sharp ordered the state to recount the 2014 election results.[18][19]

On April 26, 2016, Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery appealed Sharp's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, asserting that the matter of determining the required vote to amend the Tennessee Constitution should be decided by state law and Tennessee courts. State attorneys requested a postponement of the recount until the appeal was resolved, citing the need to avoid additional strain on election officials preparing for upcoming elections. On January 9, 2018, the Sixth Circuit, in a unanimous decision, stated that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate how the state had diluted their votes, emphasizing that federal intervention in a lawful state election process was unwarranted. The court concluded that the controversy surrounding the 2014 approval of Amendment 1 needed resolution. The plaintiffs then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case on October 1, 2018.[20][21]

See also

References

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI