Written by: Aiden Graybeal
On April 6, the House voted on three resolutions to expel Justin Jones, Justin Pearson and Gloria Johnson. Jones’s and Pearson’s expulsions prevailed, while Johnson’s failed.
Both men have been appointed by their county governments to be interim representatives. The expulsions have been widely criticized, including by editorials in this paper. They have been called unprecedented, partisan, undemocratic and racist. However, I disagree with the arguments made by the previous editorials on this subject.
The Constitution of Tennessee allows the House of Representatives and the Senate to create their own rules and enforce those rules how they see fit. These rules, or parliamentary procedure, exist so that the House can be fair and efficient in its operation. A democracy functions on its ability to have debate, to listen to minority voices and obey the will of the majority. By occupying the well and chanting over every other member, the three prevented debate.
They acted as the only voice and opinion. While they controlled the House, the assembly was governed by the three instead of by the majority. Their actions were undemocratic because they obstructed the democratic process. I will not argue that their behavior diminishes the validity of their opinion, and many Tennesseans share that opinion. But their behavior does prohibit the rest of the arguments from being made, disrupting the basics of our democracy.
Gloria Johnson was not expelled. Many have argued that Johnson, a white woman as opposed to the Black and Asian men who were expelled, was spared because of her race. However, Jody Barrett, the deciding Republican vote against expulsion, told NPR that he listened to Johnson’s attorney argue that she did not behave in the same way as Pearson and Jones. Watching video recordings of the three, it is clear that Johnson did not behave in the manner that the resolution accused her of. The three resolutions calling for the expulsion of each member were identical, whereas their actions in the videos were not. Race was not at issue in this instance.
There are three other instances of expulsions in the House’s history. In 1980, Robert Fisher was expelled for taking a bribe. In 2016, Jeremy Durham was expelled for multiple instances of sexual harassment. In the Senate, Katrina Robinson was expelled in 2022 for corruption. Typically, expulsion is reserved for cases in which a member has committed a crime outside of the chamber.
While the reasons for these expulsions are not typical, they are not without precedent, as has been claimed. Several House members were expelled in 1866 for refusing to take their seats in Nashville. They were preventing Tennessee from ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by keeping the House from reaching the minimum number of people required to meet, called a quorum. Their actions prevented the House from operating, which was the same effect that the Tennessee Three had. The precedent is there to expel.
A previous article accuses the House of acting in fear. The expulsions of these two members were not an attempt to silence an opinion, but instead to prevent that opinion from drowning out any discourse. The legislature, as an institution, has nothing to fear except a dismantling of that institution. Every time a member violates the rules, they chip away at that institution.
It is through this institution that we can make our state truly our own. But when that institution falls, we cannot govern ourselves democratically. Regardless of your opinion on the fate of Tennessee’s gun policy, the House must uphold the House. And when members of the House, by their own admission, attempt to dismantle that institution, we should all be afraid.
