Tennessee Amendment 1, No State Constitutional Right to Abortion and Legislative Power to Regulate Abortion Amendment (2014)

Tennessee Amendment 1
Election date November 4, 2014
Topic Abortion
Status a Approved
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin State legislature

Tennessee Amendment 1, the No State Constitutional Right to Abortion and Legislative Power to Regulate Abortion Amendment, was on the ballot in Tennessee as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 4, 2014. The ballot measure was approved.

A "yes" vote supported this constitutional amendment to: • provide that nothing in the Tennessee Constitution "secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion" and • state that the Legislature has the power to pass laws regulating abortion.

A "no" vote opposed this constitutional amendment to provide that nothing in the Tennessee Constitution "secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion" and state that the Legislature has the power to pass laws regulating abortion.

In Tennessee, a legislatively referred constitutional amendment must earn a majority of those voting on the amendment and "a majority of all the citizens of the state voting for governor.”

Overview

What did Amendment 1 change about the Tennessee Constitution?

Amendment 1 added language to the Tennessee Constitution stating that "Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion." Furthermore, the constitutional amendment said the Legislature has the power to "enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion," including for pregnancies "resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother."

Aftermath

George et al. v. Haslam et al.

Arguments

Tracey E. George, Ellen Wright Clayton, Deborah Webster-Clair, Kenneth T. Whalum Jr., and Mary Howard Hayes filed a lawsuit with the US District Court for Middle Tennessee on November 7, 2014. Plaintiffs contended that the method the state used to count election results for Amendment 1 was unconstitutional and violated Section 3 of Article XI of the Tennessee Constitution, which states that amendments must be approved “by a majority of all the citizens of the state voting for governor, voting in their favor." The state, according to the plaintiffs, only checked that the total number of votes in favor of the amendment exceeded the total number of votes for governor. However, the state did not check whether each voter who cast a "yes" vote on the amendment also voted in the gubernatorial race. According to plaintiffs, only voters who voted for governor should have had their votes on the amendment counted.

Attorneys representing the state argued that the method used to count signatures was based on an interpretation of the constitution influenced by legislative intent and long-standing practice. They asked the court to dismiss the case, a request which was denied. In response to this denial, state attorneys filed a suit against the plaintiffs in a Williamson County court in September 2015, claiming that the method of counting votes was consistent with the state constitution.

Rulings

On April 21, 2016, Williamson County Judge Michael Binkley ruled in favor of the state, declaring that votes from voters that did not cast ballots in the gubernatorial race could still be counted for the amendment. One day later federal judge Kevin Hunter Sharp ruled against the state in the original federal suit, stating that only the votes of voters who also cast ballots for gubernatorial candidates could be counted. Sharp ordered the state to recount the election results from 2014.

Judge Sharp wrote, "In this case, Plaintiffs voted for governor and against Amendment 1. Their votes, however, were not given the same weight as those who voted for Amendment 1 but did not vote in the governor's race."

Appeal

On April 26, 2016, Attorney General Herbert Slatery (R) filed an appeal of Sharp's decision with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Slatery's spokesman stated, "We obviously disagree with the federal court's decision. Simply put, deciding what vote is required to amend the Tennessee Constitution is a matter of state law to be determined by a Tennessee Court." State attorneys also asked that the recount be postponed until the appeal was decided, and to avoid placing additional burdens on election officials as they prepare for elections in August and November of 2016.

On January 9, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in a 3-0 decision, said the plaintiffs did not demonstrate how the state diluted their votes, noting, "This is not the ‘exceptional case’ that warrants federal intervention in a lawful state election process." Judge David McKeague stated, "Although the subject of abortion rights will continue to be controversial in Tennessee and across our nation, it is time for uncertainty surrounding the people’s 2014 approval and ratification of Amendment 1 to be put to rest." Judge McKeague also said, "Plaintiffs arguments amount to little more than a complaint that the campaigns in support of Amendment 1, operating withing the framework established by state law, turned out to be more successful than the campaigns against Amendment 1. Plaintiffs had the same 'freedom' as their adversaries to operate within the established framework to promote their opposition to Amendment 1." On February 28, 2018, the court issued a statement saying arguments would not be reheard.

Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case on October 1, 2018.

Election results

Tennessee Amendment 1
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		729,163	52.60%
No		657,192	47.40%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:

“

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.

”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article I, Tennessee Constitution

The ballot measure added a new section 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.

Support

Yes On 1 led the campaign in support of the ballot measure.

Supporters

Officials

• Gov. Bill Haslam (R)
• Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey (R)
• US Sen. Lamar Alexander (R)
• US Rep. Diane Black (R-6)
• Sen. Mae Beavers (R-17)
• Sen. Jim Tracy (R-14)
• Rep. Andy Holt (R-76)
• Rep. Beth Harwell (R-56)
• Rep. Bill Dunn (R-16)
• Rep. Roger Kane (R-89)
• Hamilton County Commission
• Putnam County Commission

Former officials

• Former Sen. David Fowler (R-11)

Organizations

• Tennessee Right to Life

Individuals

• Alveda King
• Jim Bob Duggar
• Bishop Richard F. Stika of the Diocese of Knoxville
• Donald Miller, Christian author

Arguments

• Dan McConchie, VP of Government Affairs at Americans United for Life: "Voters will decide whether to take back control of the abortion issue or leave it in the hands of unelected state judges... This is necessary due to the most egregious Tennessee Supreme Court decision on the issue of abortion in U.S. history that has made Tennessee an outlier in the effort to protect women and children from industry overreach and abuse. ... For those thinking that a state constitutional amendment may be overkill, in fact its need comes from the state court itself. In his dissent in Sundquist, then-Justice William Barker noted that the only way to allow the people to again, through their elected representatives, re-establish common-sense standards for abortion in Tennessee was for a constitutional amendment. ... What the Tennessee Supreme Court did in Sundquist was to eliminate the ability of the people to place virtually any common-sense limits on abortion. In doing so, the court essentially declared that abortion can only be properly exercised when it is almost completely unfettered, resulting in an abortion industry free to exploit women in virtually any way it wants."
• Leslie Hunse, the education director for Tennessee Right to Life: "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."

Campaign contributions

Total campaign cash as of October 30, 2014
Support:	$1,686,741
Opposition:	$4,254,862

As of October 30, 2014, supporters had received $1,686,741 in contributions.

PAC info:

PAC	Amount raised	Amount spent
Yes on 1	$1,664,236	$1,441,332
FACT for 1	$13,544	$0
Family Action for 1	$8,961	$0
Tennesseans for Yes on 1	$0	$0
Total	$1,686,741	$1,441,332

Top contributors:

Donor	Amount
James Gregory	$200,025
Karen Brukardt	$25,000
Wiley Russell, Jr.	$25,000
Willis J. Johnson	$25,000
Curt Sheldon	$19,754
Grace Chapel Inc.	$15,776
National Right to Life PAC	$15,000
Yes on 1, Inc.	$15,000
Tennessee Right to Life Knox County	$13,650

Campaign advertisements

See also: Tennessee Amendment 1 (2014) campaign advertisements

All campaign advertisements for campaigns in favor of the measure can be found here.

Opposition

Vote NO on One Tennessee led the campaign in opposition to the ballot measure.

Opponents

Officials

• Rep. Gloria Johnson (D-13)

Former officials

• Former Sen. Roy Herron (D-24)

Organizations

• Democratic Party of Tennessee
• Planned Parenthood
• American Civil Liberties Union
• Tennesseans for Preservation of Personal Privacy
• SisterReach

Individuals

• Rev. Adam Kelchner of Belmont United Methodist Church
• Rabbi Micah Greenstein of Temple Israel
• Rev. Rosalyn Nichols of Freedom's Chapel Christian Church
• Rachel Held Evans, Christian author

Arguments

• Former State Sen. Roy Herron (D-24): "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?"
• Vote NO on One Tennessee: "In simple terms, Amendment 1 says two things: (1) There is absolutely no right to abortion, and Politicians can pass laws for exceptions in case of rape or incest, or when a woman’s life is in danger, if they choose to. (2) There is no requirement that they do so. There is not even an exception for extreme cases like when a pregnant women needs treatment for cancer."

Campaign contributions

As of October 30, 2014, opponents had received $4,254,862 in contributions.

PAC info:

PAC	Amount raised	Amount spent
Vote No on One Tennessee, Inc.	$4,238,831	$3,781,389
Tennessee Students Voting No on 1	$13,931	$13,647
Women Matter - Northwest Tennessee	$2,100	$1,926
Total	$4,254,862	$3,796,962

Top contributors:

Donor	Amount
Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest	$800,000
Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino Counties/PPOSBC Action Fund	$275,000
Planned Parenthood Pacific Northwest	$250,000
Planned Parenthood of Middle and East Tennessee	$239,500
Planned Parenthood Northern California Action Fund	$201,200
Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts	$200,000
American Civil Liberties Union	$135,000
Planned Parenthood Advocates Mar Monte	$50,000

Campaign advertisements

See also: Tennessee Amendment 1 (2014) campaign advertisements

All campaign advertisements for campaigns in opposition to the measure can be found here.

Media editorials

See also: Endorsements of Tennessee ballot measures, 2014

Opposition

• The Tennessean said, "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."

Polls

See also: Polls, 2014 ballot measures

Tennessee Amendment 1 (2014)
Poll	Favor	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
Middle Tennessee State University 10/22/2014 - 10/26/2014	39%	32%	29%	+/-4.0	600
Remington Research 9/24/2014 - 9/25/2014	50%	22%	28%	+/-4.0	600
Vanderbilt University 4/28/2014 - 5/18/2014	23%	71%	6%	+/-3.4	1,505
AVERAGES	37.33%	41.67%	21%	+/-3.8	901.67
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Background

Planned Parenthood v. Sundquist

In Planned Parenthood v. Sundquist, the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled that multiple laws regulating abortion violated the state constitution, including:

• A requirement that second-trimester abortions be performed in hospitals as opposed to clinics.
• A 48-hour waiting period before receiving an abortion.
• A requirement of physician-only counseling before an abortion is performed.
• An exemption to requirements only in circumstances where a woman’s life is threatened.
• A mandate to prove residency.

The Tennessee Supreme Court held that these abortion laws violated the state constitution:

“

Accordingly, we must determine whether the scope of the right of procreational autonomy is broader than the analogous right of reproductive freedom protected by the United States Constitution. The Tennessee Supreme Court has already noted that these rights spring from common constitutional roots -- the concept of liberty reflected in the state and federal constitutions... The United States Supreme Court’s “reproductive rights” decisions are not binding on this court in this case because the challenge to Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-15- 201, -202 is based on the Constitution of Tennessee... They can, however, provide helpful guidance for our decision… we should favor a construction of the Constitution of Tennessee that is harmonious with analogous provisions in the United States Constitution.

”

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the Tennessee Constitution

The Tennessee General Assembly was required to approve the amendment in two successive sessions. In the first session, the measure required a simple majority for approval. In the second session, the proposed amendment needed to earn a two-thirds vote for approval.

During the first session, SJR 127 was approved by the Tennessee Senate on March 23, 2009. The amendment was approved by the Tennessee House of Representatives on May 23, 2009. During the second session, SJR 127 was approved by the Tennessee Senate on April 18, 2011. The amendment was then approved by the Tennessee House of Representatives on May 20, 2011.

Senate vote (1st Session)

March 23, 2009

Tennessee SJR 127 Senate Vote
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		24	75.00%
No		8	25.00%

House vote (1st Session)

May 18, 2009

Tennessee SJR 127 House Vote
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		76	77.55%
No		22	22.45%

Senate vote (2nd Session)

April 18, 2011

Tennessee SJR 127 Senate Vote
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		24	75.00%
No		8	25.00%

House vote (2nd Session)

May 20, 2011

Tennessee SJR 127 House Vote
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		76	80.95%
No		18	19.15%

See also

2014 Measures

• 2014 Measures
• Abortion policy on the ballot
• 2014 legislative sessions

Tennessee

• Tennessee ballot measures
• Tennessee ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• Senate Joint Resolution 0127 (2014)