Thread by @IsErinThere

So I've seen some people question whether or not the House can legally expel @VoteGloriaJ, @brotherjones_ and @Justinjpearson, and by what authority can they do it, so I did a little research (because I'm chronically working, apparently).
🧵

As stated in all three resolutions seeking to expel the so-called #TennesseeThree (or is it #Tennessee3?) cite Article II, Section 12 of the Tennessee Constitution:

According to the Permanent Rules of Order for the 113th General Assembly (capitol.tn.gov/Archives/House…) the Speaker is charged with maintaining "order and decorum" in the House (Sec. 2)

That section also reads, "The Speaker will have the authority to set other guidelines for decorum."

NOW. The House rules state if anybody is "unruly" in the gallery or the lobby, the Speaker (or whoever is chairing the House at the time) can call for said gallery or lobby to be cleared out (Sec. 4)

This is why the gallery keeps getting cleared out, for those who wonder why that keeps happening and asking if it's legal (yes, per the Rules).

If I understand these Rules correctly, I *think* Sec. 18 is where we start getting into the particulars in the resolutions - the "charges" against. This section has the "avoid all personalities" clause.

Now Sec. 19 is honestly where I would have thought this whole discussion would go: censure.
"...Such member shall be liable to the censure of the House" if they continue to transgress the Rules.

Sec. 35 is another one of the charges against Johnson.
"Members shall not enter any meeting...with props or personal displays of any kind that may be used as a visual aid for the advocacy of, or, in opposition to, any legislation or political message whatsoever."

As a side bar, I'm wondering if legislators wearing colored ribbons or anything other than their General Assembly pins would thus be considered a "visual aid" for the "advocacy of" or "opposition to" legislation OR a political message...But I digress.

Then Sec. 41 is a single sentence that says members "Shall not" crowd around or near the clerk's desk.
Legal language trick here: SHALL = HAVE TO DO IT. MAY = DON'T HAVE TO DO IT
So crowding the Clerk's desk is a no-no.

SO. Can the House expel these 3 Democrats for their actions last Thursday? Long answer is they have the Rules that say they can, though it's worth noting that only the Constitution stipulates the expulsion provision, and "expel" occurs in it only the once.

Long answer cont. Given that the House can set its own rules, there's an argument that says they can, though politics is all about perception.
Some Republican lawmakers have already spoken out about expelling the #Tennessee3, but due to the supermajority, they still could.

The adopted Rules only explicitly mention censure, not expulsion, so there's also an argument to be made for due process.
The only other disciplinary measure refers to indicted members:

That's what I was able to do with a little Googling and screenshotting, folks. We'll definitely have more for you tomorrow on @WKRN #TNLeg23

Now, from House press liaisons, when someone is expelled, they lose their seat for this session.
If you go by the resolutions (using Hulsey's on @brotherjones_ as reference: capitol.tn.gov/Bills/113/Bill…) it would declare the seat "vacant."

When a vacancy in a legislative seat appears, the county commission of that former legislator's home can appoint someone to serve in that seat.
After the session is over, there can be a special election.
As long as the expelled member hasn't been convicted, they can run again.

But has anyone ever been expelled and run a successful reelection campaign? No idea at this point, but it points to No.

Could be conceivable that both Nashville and Memphis would reelect both Jones and Pearson. Knoxville may be a bigger fight for Johnson.

But any scenarios bandied about right now are speculative.

Contact your reps and see where they're landing on the issue. Tell them where you're landing. Discuss it.