Amendments that will be on the ballot

[BigK]

Again, that's not true.

1. The governor does not appoint them from scratch. A committee selects three and gives the gov a choice among those selections. He can reject all three, and they give him three more, at which time he must select one of those. However, that committee has recently gone defunct, so if the ballot resolution fails, not sure what will occur.

2. We already have the retention election by the voters.

3. It is true that if the amendment passes, the gov's nominee will have to be approved by both houses of the legislature. This is perhaps the best part of the thing. I guess. And yes, the retention ballot remains.

- OS

Between what I've read and how it has been explained by 3 or 4 guys on 99.7 WTN, this is as accurate a description of the current process as I've heard. Our state constitution calls for a popular election of these judges, but it hasn't been done in decades.

Furthermore, popular elections for judges sounds worse to me. I'd be surprised if 1 in 20 voters know enough about any prospective judge to make an informed decision. The rest will end up voting based on which trial-lawyer funded judge they see the most commercials for on TV. Not to mention the out of state money someone else mentioned. It'll be damn near impossible to get a good conservative judge or one that's tough on crime to be elected if this fails.

I'd much rather see my elected governor choose, his selection be approved by my elected congress, and I still get to vote not to retain in 8 years than to see the decision rest on the shoulders of an ignorant voting populace who only know what they saw in commercials. They already do that with other elected officials and at least they have an R or a D beside their name to give you some remote clue how they'll act in office. Edited October 17, 2014 by BigK

[Oh Shoot]

Between what I've read and how it has been explained by 3 or 4 guys on 99.7 WTN, this is as accurate a description of the current process as I've heard. ..

 

Well, actually, I was wrong .. that was the way it has been done for a long time, but what I missed was that we have had two of them appointed after the Judicial Nominating Commission went defunct. I didn't notice the dates of the committee's "sunset" vs their appointments, but SteelHarp covered that is his point 2 in post above.

 

And sure enough, Gov. was allowed to simply appoint them with no one else's approval.

 

But my main point that started this was that the opposition to the amendment is crying that it will prevent us from voting for the judges, and we already don't, so that's laughable. If the amendment fails, it will take gawd knows what kind of litigation to actually cause election of the judges, and will likely continue just as now, with no oversight from the legislature.

 

- OS

Edited October 17, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Oh Shoot]

....

2.) The system where the Governor has appointed one of 3 Nominees is known as the (unconstitutional) "Retention-election Statue", which is at the core of this controversy. 

However, that nominating system which was sunsetted (terminated) by members of the Legislature this past year, resulted in the bizarre appointment of 2 of the five Supreme Court judge, Bivens and Kirby, who bypassed this past August judicial election altogether. Get it? They BYPASSED the Election... and this is the USA.

 

Good catch on that part... I had missed the timing of actual date of the Judicial Nominating Commission going defunct before these last two justices were appointed.

 

But I don't get the part about them "bypassing the election". We haven't elected supreme/appellate judges since 1971 or before, and the retention elections are only after each 8 year term. The fact that the Commission has sunsetted, with alternate rules still in place by statute, would indicate that without a change in law,  the Gov's sole discretion on appointments would just continue right along if the ballot initiative is defeated. No?

 

- OS

Edited October 17, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[DaveTN]

YES on 1, planned parenthood supports a No vote. If you're against Abortion vote yes, for abortion vote no.

I don’t see it that way. The bill (if approved) would simply amend the Constitution to allow the legislature to do whatever they like on the abortion issue.

They could ban abortion totally even in cases of rape or where the mother’s life is in danger, or they could allow all abortions unrestricted.

No matter what your beliefs are on abortion; this is a roll of the dice.

I don’t base my interpretations on how some other group wants to vote. Edited October 17, 2014 by DaveTN

[BigK]

I don’t base my interpretations on how some other group wants to vote.

I feel the "any enemy of my enemy is my friend " rule couldn't possibly be better applied to any group than Planned Parenthood, if you're Pro-Life.

As far as the proposed amendment goes, You touched on the 2 points I don't trust either side about. An over-zealous conservative congress could cause the death of a young woman by outlawing her ability to get a life-saving abortion AND any liberal congress (zealous or not) seems to want to remove all restrictions and regulations.

edit/add: This amendment only sounds good now, while there's a fairly conservative congress, but that could change with the wind in the next election. This state is historically conservative, but it's also historically democrat. Edited October 17, 2014 by BigK

[Mike.357]

I just don't see how this is that big of a threat to the package stores. We have plenty of liquor stores in Florida that seem to do quite well. Bob will still have the lowest prices in town.

 

I never buy my wine at Publix. It's expensive.

 

you misread me or I was not clear.

 

Money spent in big grocery stores leaves TN.    Money spent at your local wine store stays where you spent it.   Which is better?

[Hozzie]

you misread me or I was not clear.

 

Money spent in big grocery stores leaves TN.    Money spent at your local wine store stays where you spent it.   Which is better?

 

I don't see much difference acutally other than the profits go to a primary owner(s) in TN.  This isn't affecting the little man so to speak.  I suspect the supply chain isn't much different between a grocery store and the private business so I don't see a huge issue as that money is going to the same place.  As Erik stated, it seems to me that in places where both exist, the liquor/wine stores still do pretty well. 

 

For me it is about convenience.  I don't see a big enough issue to not approve it.  I just wish I had the right to vote for it.  Because I live in unincorporated Franklin I can't even vote on it.  Mike, I realize you are close to the situation, but I think people are more worried about making it easier for themselves vs. giving a most likely well off owner a bit more money.  I know a few people who own liquor stores and none of them are hurting.  I don't think this will make or break them.

 

In many ways this is exactly equivalent to the buy online vs. LGS argument or even using amazon vs local stores.  People always go for convenience and price most of the time.

Edited October 17, 2014 by Hozzie

[mikegideon]

you misread me or I was not clear.

 

Money spent in big grocery stores leaves TN.    Money spent at your local wine store stays where you spent it.   Which is better?

 

Actually, most grocery store revenue goes into operating that grocery store, so it doesn't all leave. Salaries, taxes, etc. stay here. Not saying you shouldn't support local business. Just saying that they only rake off a small fraction of the total sales revenue as profit. AFIK, when it comes to whiskey and wine, none of the local stuff is legal :)

Edited October 17, 2014 by mikegideon

[Mike.357]

at the end of the day there is profit.   That money leaves the state.  That is all I am saying.

 

I have heard that 20% is the expected loss in sales to package stores.   20% of our business is a lot.  For small stores it might be the back breaker.  Certainly we will have less employee's down the road.

 

I don't see it not being voted for in metropolitan areas.  Outlying counties may be questionable,

 

I imagine costs will go up,  The start up to service grocer's will be enormous to distributor's.  They need more square footage of warehouse and more trucks,  Someone will be paying for that.

[gun sane]

Just what kind of wine do the grocers want to sell?  It probably won't be over $10/bottle.  Thunderbird and Ripple will be heavily discounted at Walmart.  If you're a connoisseur, you'll still go to the package stores. 

[Randall53]

at the end of the day there is profit.   That money leaves the state.  That is all I am saying.

 

I have heard that 20% is the expected loss in sales to package stores.   20% of our business is a lot.  For small stores it might be the back breaker.  Certainly we will have less employee's down the road.

 

I don't see it not being voted for in metropolitan areas.  Outlying counties may be questionable,

 

I imagine costs will go up,  The start up to service grocer's will be enormous to distributor's.  They need more square footage of warehouse and more trucks,  Someone will be paying for that.

 

I was just going to ask where the Big Box Grocery Stores will get their wine? Will it be from local distributors, or come in on their trucks from God knows where? If so, then that would also cut into the local distributors pocket book also.

[btq96r]

at the end of the day there is profit.   That money leaves the state.  That is all I am saying.

 

I have heard that 20% is the expected loss in sales to package stores.   20% of our business is a lot.  For small stores it might be the back breaker.  Certainly we will have less employee's down the road.

 

I don't see it not being voted for in metropolitan areas.  Outlying counties may be questionable,

 

I imagine costs will go up,  The start up to service grocer's will be enormous to distributor's.  They need more square footage of warehouse and more trucks,  Someone will be paying for that.

 

Pretty much.  For the grocery stores, the potential profit in this not happening isn't enough for them to close stores or lay off employees.  In their grand accounting, it could be as small as a rounding error.

 

For a local package store, it would be a much bigger hit percentage wise if they lost some of their business to a grocery store.  Some might go out of business depending on location and if their liquor sales and top end wine can keep them afloat or not.  One of my local wine and spirits stores is in the same shopping area as a Walmart.  And I think we all know what happens to a small business when Walmart opens in the same shopping area and offers the same products.

 

 

I'm actually torn on this one and haven't decided which way to vote yet.  I don't want to see local business' hurt and understand the value argument of keeping more money in the community, but I also think the prohibition makes for an unfair market practice. 

Edited October 17, 2014 by btq96r

[Chucktshoes]

I'm actually torn on this one and haven't decided which way to vote yet. I don't want to see local business' hurt and understand the value argument of keeping more money in the community, but I also think the prohibition makes for an unfair market practice.

I'm not torn about it. It isn't the place of the government to be picking winners and losers in the market.

[macville]

I'm actually torn on this one and haven't decided which way to vote yet.  I don't want to see local business' hurt and understand the value argument of keeping more money in the community, but I also think the prohibition makes for an unfair market practice. 

 

Bingo, you hit it squarely on the head. Right now liquor stores have a unfair market because they don't have that much competition (I would call it a monopoly.) I don't get such protection for the small business I own, so why should they? I don't need to pay 20% more for wine from a liquor store when I know exactly what I want. If I want a suggestion, I will go to a liquor store and pay a little more for better service and selection. Otherwise, I rather just buy my wine while I am at Kroger. At the same time, I think liquor stores should be able to sell more than just wine and liquor and store owners should be able to own multiple stores in the state. I freely admit that they are getting shafted somewhat by their own government sponsored monopoly. It's not the government's job to make things fair (equal outcomes), but to protect the free market (everyone has equal opportunity.)

[Mike.357]

Just what kind of wine do the grocers want to sell?  It probably won't be over $10/bottle.  Thunderbird and Ripple will be heavily discounted at Walmart.  If you're a connoisseur, you'll still go to the package stores. 

 

they will sell a lot of the same wines that are the backbone of package stores.   Who buys Thunderbird and Ripple?  Is it still in the market? 

[Mike.357]

I was just going to ask where the Big Box Grocery Stores will get their wine? Will it be from local distributors, or come in on their trucks from God knows where? If so, then that would also cut into the local distributors pocket book also.

 

Grocer's will be subject to the same laws that govern purchasing wine for retail sale as the package stores.   Of the seven wine distributor's in East TN there are none currently with enough trucks to service their current accounts and the soon to be added grocer's.   Depending on the distributor's portfolio they made need 10 or 12 more trucks to service new routes.   That is an incredible start up expense.  A couple of them have built new warehouse facilities in the last couple of years.   Some of the others will end up selling off brands or selling off their license to larger distributors in the state.  

It will result in higher prices to pay for that.    There will be a one time bump in sales and revenue.  Overall wine sales will remain fairly static.   It is a big pill to swallow.

 

This is how the law is currently written.

 

But as we all know once Wine in Grocery Stores is in place by referendum,  the rules can all be changed by the legislature, leaving the voter out of the picture.   There are already efforts underway to change a lot of what is in the current deal.

 

Sooner or later I suspect the local distributor's will get cut out of some deals.  

[Mike.357]

 I don't need to pay 20% more for wine from a liquor store when I know exactly what I want. If I want a suggestion, I will go to a liquor store and pay a little more for better service and selection. Otherwise, I rather just buy my wine while I am at Kroger. At the same time, I think liquor stores should be able to sell more than just wine and liquor and store owners should be able to own multiple stores in the state. I freely admit that they are getting shafted somewhat by their own government sponsored monopoly. It's not the government's job to make things fair (equal outcomes), but to protect the free market (everyone has equal opportunity.)

 

Liquor stores as of July 1 2014 can sell pretty much anything they want to now.   

 

The trade off is not really good.  Beer and pop have poor markup.  But it is what it is.  

 

You will not pay 20% more for wine at a liquor store than at a grocery store.  As the law is written now grocer's must mark their product up at 20% minimum.   Wine shops can sell it for cost if they so choose.  Though no one stays in business long by selling product at cost.  Wine stores typically work on a margin of 30%. Liquor markup is less.  Sale items have less than 10% profit.    I don't know as a fact but I guess when all is said and done liquor stores make 10%.    

[gun sane]

they will sell a lot of the same wines that are the backbone of package stores.   Who buys Thunderbird and Ripple?  Is it still in the market? 

 

Just so you know, Mike....I pulled the lever against the grocers.   Now if I can't get my sangria at a decent price...... :grouchy:

[cjohnson44546]

Please vote NO on amendment 2.

 

For years, judges have been given their jobs unconstitutionally.

 

This needs to be changed...

 

Some people want to change the constitution, and take all power away from the voters.

 

Others want to give the power back to the voters, the way the constitution is written.

 

If you vote YES on Amendment 2, you are tying the hands, and preventing anyone from getting the voting power back to the people.

 

There are many politicians who want to, and WILL get this power back to the voters the way the constitution reads... but to stop them, the control freaks who don't want the people to vote are trying to get a constitutional amendment through first to stop them.  They are basically lying about what the amendment means, and trying to fool the voters into giving away their right to vote on judges.

[bersaguy]

I have read this thread 3 times and still draw a blank of what to vote for and all I know now is I need a drink..............jmho

[gun sane]

I have read this thread 3 times and still draw a blank of what to vote for and all I know now is I need a drink..............jmho

 

Here's how I voted and why:

 

Amend. 1--Yes, because every organization that admitted or even smelled of Democrat is against it.

 

Amend. 2--Yes, because whatever voice you give to the people, the political bastards are going to skew it to suit themselves anyway.

 

Amend. 3--Yes, to make sure they can't threaten us with an earned income tax, but they'll bleed us dry with sales and property taxes.

 

Amend. 4--Yes, because it's a crying shame that our vets come back disabled and we have to pass the hat for their care.  Give these heroes what they need.

 

Grocers selling wine--No, because it'll make Mike 357's day if they can't.

Edited October 18, 2014 by gun sane

[cjohnson44546]

 

Amend. 2--Yes, because whatever voice you give to the people, the political bastards are going to skew it to suit themselves anyway.

 

So they will skew it anyways... so you vote to just give up and give them all the power anyways?  makes sense...

[gun sane]

So they will skew it anyways... so you vote to just give up and give them all the power anyways?  makes sense...

 

As OS has reported, the governor and legislature have been seating the judges anyway for the last several decades and we have the vote to keep them or chuck them.  Very few, if any, have been tossed by popular election.  However, we still retain the right to elect our governor and legislature, so it's not as if we have a limited voice.

 

I also don't live with the fantasy that today's voters are of the same intellectual or moral caliber that they were in the golden era when all was seemingly right with this country and we were united in pride for our nation.  You can buy votes by giving out free cell phones and EBT cards today or get a riot started merely by saying that it's happening.  Perhaps when citizens once again think responsibly and common sense becomes more common, then we can confidently believe that we can elect a government of, by and for the people rather than at the people.

[Oh Shoot]

Yeah, I'm fairly ambivalent about election of judges to begin with.

 

It's bad enough that our system demands that prospective office holders have to spend many times more money to be elected than the job pays, but it seems especially bizarre that the same would be demanded of judges, who are supposed to be non-partisan to begin with.

 

Hell, for the first time AFAIK, they had to raise big bucks just to defend in the retention election that's already in place.

 

I have little confidence that judges being elected by the citizenry results in any higher quality makeup of the TN SCOTUS/appellate judiciary and consequently better "justice" at all.

 

So I'm gonna go ahead and vote yea on #2.

 

- OS

[macville]

Liquor stores as of July 1 2014 can sell pretty much anything they want to now.   

 

The trade off is not really good.  Beer and pop have poor markup.  But it is what it is.  

 

You will not pay 20% more for wine at a liquor store than at a grocery store.  As the law is written now grocer's must mark their product up at 20% minimum.   Wine shops can sell it for cost if they so choose.  Though no one stays in business long by selling product at cost.  Wine stores typically work on a margin of 30%. Liquor markup is less.  Sale items have less than 10% profit.    I don't know as a fact but I guess when all is said and done liquor stores make 10%.    

Well, currently we pay a lot more for wine than if I go over the line to GA. And I don't think the 20% will stand very long because it's not equal protection under the law. I am actually surprised it hasn't been challenged yet, but am guessing that the stores are waiting until it's voted okay by people in the counties before they start pushing against that.