Aug 13 2011
04:38 pm

"...on a platform to reform the way education is going in Tennessee because she is a teacher, she said."

Another of Gloria's observations is that "for people who don't have tenure, I don't believe they're going to get it."

"If I was just getting out of college and looking for a job, I would not teach in Tennessee," she said.

I'd sure like to live in the Sixth, so I could cast my vote for her.

Gloria, you'll get my (modest) check soon. Thank you and best of luck!

Tamara Shepherd's picture

No "release time" for KCEA prez this year?

I meant to mention here that at this week's school board meeting, when board members voted on the Carter Elementary request, they also heard in public forum from KCEA's president (whose name escapes me right now).

She reported that, for the first year ever, the president is not being afforded "release time" to conduct her duties for KCEA. She is available to the union only after 4:15 p.m. daily.

She also reported that Knox County is the only large urban school system to have enacted this policy.

In a gesture I didn't quite understand, she also waved a check in her hand and indicated to board members that she was able to pay the school system for her "release time."

Board members did not respond to her complaint in any way except to say "thank you" at the end of her three minutes.

Possibly Gloria or someone else here can explain this issue to us more fully?

Bbeanster's picture

There is precedent for this

There is precedent for this in these state offices. There is no residency requirement other than the winner must live in the district at the time they take office. Gloria's not faking an address (eg Don Daugherty), so I'm not sure what S&A's big 'scoop' is. For someone who badmouths this blog continually he sure does seek approval here.

BHornback's picture

Gloria does NOT live in the Sixth District

EricLykins's picture

Yawn. Since Gloria is moving

Yawn. Since Gloria is moving to the sixth, I'm moving to the seventh so we won't lose a vote against Campfield.

Tamara Shepherd's picture



On the prop assessor's site, I found a "Gloria S. Johnson" at 2506 Brice Street and a "Gloria J. Johnson" at 1260 Amber Meadows Circle.

Keying both addresses in at KGIS, I found that both are in Senate District 7.

I don't profess to know where Gloria lives, nor whether she owns or rents her home.

I expect she will clear up the confusion.

(Edit: Could this situation have anything to do with legislative redistricting?)

YoungKnoxPolitico's picture

Same district as 2008

I don't think so because this is a vacancy left by someone elected in 2008. So, this election would be to represent the same district from 2008! Otherwise, you could have some people represented twice and some people not represented at all.

YoungKnoxPolitico's picture

Johnson lives in 7th.

Here is a list of federal campaign contributions where she had to list her address. The name and address match the name and address mentioned in Hornback's blog.

Owner search in KGIS shows Johnson owns the property named in Hornack's blog and it matches campaign contribution records.

glostik's picture

Glad to clear things up!

I'll be glad to clear it up for you! I do live about 1 mile outside the 6th Senate District, this is not news to me, nor to anyone who "recruited" me. I have taught for 20 years in the 6th District and spend far more time in my school community than at my own home, as anyone who knows me is aware. The law on this clearly states that you must be a resident of the county the year prior to running, and be a registered voter in the district when you serve. I have every intention of following the law! There are many communities in the 6th that I would love to make my home, and I will be picking out my favorite in the upcoming weeks. I appreciate your giving me the benefit of the doubt Tamara, and you, or anyone else wondering something, are welcome to call any time if you have questions, 660-9800. Well, not actually anytime, I am busy between the hours of 8:30-4:15 M-F, but leave a message and I will get back to you.

BHornback's picture

Thank You!

For clearing that up, Shock And Awe Reports, You Decide! I have posted that you responded.

BHornback's picture

Wait a minute

I haven't researched this one yet, however someone just commented on Shock And Awe Tenn. Code Ann. 2-14-204 (2011) Eligibility to fill vacancy

Only a qualified voter of the DISTRICT represented shall be eligible to succeed to the vacant seat.

If that's true, Gloria will have to wait until next year to run. That would give her time to pick a community to buy a home in.

R. Neal's picture

I believe TCA 2-14-204 refers

I believe TCA 2-14-204 refers to the appointment of a temporary successor by the county legislative body, not the election.

R. Neal's picture


Maybe I'm confused, but TCA 3-1-102 says: "(f) A candidate for election to the office of senator shall be required to reside in the senatorial district from which such candidate seeks to be elected for one (1) year immediately preceding the election."

Anyway, good for Gloria for stepping up to try to get a D on the ticket. It certainly is hard to recruit qualified Democrats to run in East Tennessee.

Tamara Shepherd's picture

TN Constitution

The Tennessee Constitution reads thusly on the subject:

Article II, Section 6a says "Each (senatorial) district shall be represented by a qualified voter of that district."

Article II, Section 10 says "No person shall be a senator unless he shall be a citizen of the United States, of the age of thirty years, and shall have resided three years in this state, and one year in the county or district, immediately preceding the election.

I can therefore understand Gloria's interpretation that the length of residency requirement (as in preceding the election) is broader than in elections for local office, as it appears to allow for either county or district residency.

I can also understand Gloria's suggestion that the district residency requirement (as in at the time of the election) applies only to the time at which a candidate comes to "represent" a given district.

I would be curious to know more about precedent in this question, as Betty says exists.

Tamara Shepherd's picture

TN Code

Thank you, Randy. I hadn't yet come across your citation in Code.

Yes, that appears to be narrower than what I found in the Constitution.

Following your link to TCA 3-1-102(f), it appears that the statute underwent revision in 2002, possibly to this effect?

R. Neal's picture


The Tennessee Secretary of State uses the constitution language here:


and here:



So TCA 3-1-102(f) is unconstitutional?

Tamara Shepherd's picture



I notice that in your first link the language duplicates that of the Constitution verbatim, citing a length of residency requirement relating to the "county or district," which is broad.

However, I notice that in your second link (which appears to be quite current, given its reference to January, 2010) the language does not mention any length of residency requirement relating to the "district" at all, but mentions only the "county," which is broader still.

It would seem that in order to alter any instruction available in the Constitution, a Constitutional amendment would be required?

It doesn't appear that any amendment has been adopted...

R. Neal's picture

I wonder if it's an artifact

I wonder if it's an artifact in the constitution from when there was only one county per district and one district per county? Or if that was ever the case?

I'm sure this has been decided by some court case or other. Sort of like judicial selection.

R. Neal's picture

To answer my own question

So TCA 3-1-102(f) is unconstitutional?

Apparently so. The article in today's paper said the Knox Co. Election Commission checked with the Attorney General and got an opinion that county residency is sufficient.

The article didn't cite a specific opinion, but here's one from July 2004 that thoroughly analyzes state senate residency requirements and concludes in part:

Under this provision, therefore, in order to be a candidate for the office of state senator, an individual must have resided for one year "in the county or district" immediately preceding the election. Under Tenn. Code Ann. § 3-1-102(f), "[a] candidate for election to the office of senator shall be required to reside in the senatorial district from which such candidate seeks to be elected for one (1) year immediately preceding the election." (Emphasis added). This Office has concluded that, under Article II, § 10, of the Tennessee Constitution, where a county lies in more than one senatorial district, a candidate for the office of state senator need only be a resident of the county for more than one year prior to election as qualification for any one of the state senatorial districts that are part of that county. Op. Tenn. Att'y Gen. 90-61 (May 16, 1990); State ex rel. Sonnenburg v. Gaia, 717 S.W.2d 883 (Tenn. 1986). Thus, in order to be a candidate for the office of state senator, an individual must have resided for one year in any part of a county that is part of the senatorial district. The individual is not required to have lived for a year in the part of the county that is actually in the senatorial district. To the extent that Tenn. Code Ann. § 3-1-102(f) imposes a more stringent residency requirement, it is unconstitutional.

Perhaps one of Gloria's first bills should be to amend the state law to align it with the state constitution.

Go Gloria!

reform4's picture

You mean... cough, cough.... Brian Hornback was WRONG??...

... cough...cough... (feigning heart attack...).....

Here that Elizabeth? I'm coming to join you honey!

BHornback's picture


The AG opinion is an opinion. Remember, it was an AG opinion that said Knx County term limits didn't apply. I never expected the election commission would not issue a petition for Johnson. They would rather have a judge take her off the ballot instead of themselves.

Johnson's cavalier attitude about residency speaks more to a disrespect for the rules and laws. The comments that district and boundary lines are just suggestions is wrong. If you live in Mexio or Canada just across the line should you be allowed to run for office in America because you have worked across the line for 19 years?

Anyway, you and others can launch the personal barbs all day long. I will simply continue pointing out that Johnson believes she is above and exempt TCA. You can continue with posting that Knox Countians are too stupid to vote for anyone as long as they are Republican because you are still bitter for the 4th district rejecting you.

Bbeanster's picture

You can continue with posting

You can continue with posting that Knox Countians are too stupid to vote for anyone as long as they are Republican because you are still bitter for the 4th district rejecting you.

Leaving your use of language aside and going to what appears to be the meaning of this sentence, you probably ought to attend to the beam in your own eye before you criticize Steve for losing an election. He won his party's nomination. Last time your name was on a ballot, you were overwhelmingly rejected by your own party.
And bitter? You're still trashing Haslam because of the beating he put on your man Wamp.

BHornback's picture


You lie! I haven't trashed Haslam. How about ensuring you return Campen's call instead of managing the dishonest ones campaign from your job as a Scripps writer

fischbobber's picture

Your post

Dude, get a life. No one cares.

BHornback's picture


You replied. Have a blessed day

fischbobber's picture


If your goal in life is to elicit a negative response from my individual demographic, you've just won the big prize. Consider me one of the millions that will never vote for you.

BHornback's picture


You won't have the opportunity to. In addition, you wouldn't have any way. Have a Blessed day

Mary the prez's picture

OH, brother...

In addition to the 'cavalier attitude' of your friend and colleague, Mr. Dougerty about living vs. voting in the wrong District, you guys seem to be ignoring your recently selected GOP 'Admitted Felon', now an Election Commissioner, Mr. McNutt, who voted SEVEN times in the WRONG precinct and then had the nerve to blame his crime/cavalier attitude about residency on the "little old ladies' who worked the polls in his old district. (I was proud that one of those 'little old ladies' challenged him in the paper for his accusations that he was being allowed to vote illegally by her or the other election workers.)

And further, Mr. McNutt, in his selected position will now be allowed to rule on questions of elections violations...quite a conflict of interest, it seems to me.

There is a difference between 'admitted felon' and convicted felon but not much...the former is intended to save the felon and the county the expense of convicting him in court.

BHornback's picture

It took you this long

To throw McNutt in the fray? LOL

knoxrebel's picture

Gee whiz

For God's sake, if you are going to refer to me in a derogatory manner, at least have the decency to spell my name correctly: Daugherty.

BHornback's picture


At least they still love you, in that you consume their hearts and minds and their verbal spit

Tamara Shepherd's picture


(My apology for twice editing this post to correct the spelling of "publicly" and "curiosities.")

I wonder if it's an artifact in the constitution from when there was only one county per district and one district per county? Or if that was ever the case?

I confess to being confused on that point, too.

The Constitution's Article II, Section 6 says in full:

The number of senators shall be apportioned by the General Assembly among the several counties or districts substantially according to population, and shall not exceed one-third the number of representatives. Counties having two or more senators shall be divided into separate districts. In a district composed of two or more counties, each county shall adjoin at least one other county of such district; and no county shall be divided in forming such a district.

Am I to understand that a densely populated county large enough to comprise its own district may be divided (as in Knox), but a sparsely populated county so small that it must be combined with another county to form a district may not be divided?

In my first read of that section, the two clauses I scrutinize seemed to contradict one another, unless we are to interpret the section this way?

But I want to concede, before anyone calls me on it, that I am personally someone who attaches great importance to both a candidate's residency AND length of residency.

On this question, I have previously filed a successful lawsuit, called out local candidates of both political parties, spoken before the commission, and--in the most recent instance locally of a concern in this regard--advocated in writing and quite publicly for revision to our local charter to better define and defend our local residency requirements.

You will recall that we recently learned that our local charter seems to provide, truly if curiously, that a local candidate in any election following redistricting may run for a seat outside where s/he resides and furthermore that he may avoid moving into that district he hopes to represent even following his election.

Over the last couple of months and even within the past few days, I have been trying to follow up with the commission office on the convention of a Charter Review Committee which I had previously understood was to take place this summer, in order to revise our local charter after the most recent redistricting but before the upcoming county election.

I remain keenly interested in seeing this local commission convened and this charter revision proposed to voters.

I do note a distinction between curiosities in our state Constitution and curiosities in our local charter. Our Constitution clearly provides that a successful candidate must live in his district if elected, while our local charter, garbled as it is, does not appear to require this of a successful candidate in any election following redistricting.

I also note a distinction between Gloria Johnson's manner of addressing this question with voters in her potential state race and previous local candidates' manner of addressing it in their races. Gloria has been perfectly candid in revealing her residency and her interpretation of applicable law, while other of our local candidates have set up answering machines parked on card tables in empty apartments, or else argued in support of nonsensical interpretations of law.

I was delighted to learn of Gloria's candidacy this past weekend and I hope we soon learn of an interpretation of the letter of the law that affords her the opportunity to serve in this office.

My own personal and unsolicited opinion, though, is that even if we learn of this allowable interpretation, in order to subscribe to the spirit of the law, Gloria should promptly move into the district she hopes to represent.

Such that the means may also justify the ends.

YoungKnoxPolitico's picture

Petitions picked up from Election Commission

From the Knox County Election Commission


B Harmon's picture

Word from Gloria...

Word from Gloria...


Tamara Shepherd's picture


Perhaps one of Gloria's first bills should be to amend the state law to align it with the state constitution.

So that...?

R. Neal's picture

So that we won't have a law

So that we won't have a law on the books that is unconstitutional?

Tamara Shepherd's picture


Another, more reasonable, solution exists to Tennessee's having "a law on the books that is unconstitutional."

Since the Constitution provides inadequate instruction to ensure candidates' district residency (in the same way that our local charter is inadequate for that purpose), and since TCA 3-1-102 appears to be unconstitutional by virtue of providing more stringent instruction than that available in the Constitution, a Constitutional amendment is needed to provide that instruction.

Just as no rationale exists locally for providing that any and all district-level commission or school board candidates may run from districts other than their own in any election following redistricting, no rationale exists for exacerbating this circumstance of the state's Constituion potentially disenfranchising voters.

This matter is not a partisan one--but with regard to our local Democratic party, it is "deja vu all over again."

R. Neal's picture

The law is easier to fix than

The law is easier to fix than the constitution. In the mean time they should be consistent, otherwise we waste time on issues like this and lawsuits etc.

Tamara Shepherd's picture


Please let me add that over the last couple of days I have had difficulty letting go of my excitement over Gloria's candidacy, but I must.

Peace out.

YoungKnoxPolitico's picture

"State election officials,

"State election officials, relying in part on a pair of state attorney general's opinions, have held that her candidacy is valid as long as she is a resident of the 6th Senate District by the date of the general election — Nov. 8."

rikki's picture

Kudos to Cliff Rodgers for

Kudos to Cliff Rodgers for making a good call on this issue. The logic seems a bit stilted, but in the direction of more democracy, not less. I would expect this interpretation for a Republican candidate but feared it might be denied a Democrat. This is a good sign that Rodgers is fair-minded and not partisan.

For me the ultimate factor in residency questions is that voters are free to reject anyone they feel is an imposter. That does tend to be the result when someone tries to fake residency like Tamara described. Johnson is trying to comply with the law rather than evade it, and voters can decide whether they think she represents them.

District borders are arbitrary lines that often have little relation to physical or social boundaries, and giving them more credence than arbitrary lines deserve is a mistake.
Unlike historical boundaries, which can also be arbitrary but tend to have social if not physical significance, senate districts are changed every ten years with the census. They can transcend the arbitrary into the absurd, and Sixth Dist. voters might feel the shape of their district is more of an insult than someone who has taught their children running to represent them in Nashville.

Better to err on the side of voter choice than restraint.

cwg's picture

The atty general actually

The atty general actually issued a ruling about this in 2004. It's nothing specific to Johnson. I'll have a blog post with the whole thing tomorrow.

Tamara Shepherd's picture


The atty general actually issued a ruling about this in 2004. It's nothing specific to Johnson. I'll have a blog post with the whole thing tomorrow.

Just to clarify, Cari, AGs issue "opinions" and judges issue "rulings."

(Although it's entirely possible some judge's ruling exists out there, too.)

Randy has linked that 2004 AG opinion above, in this thread.

cwg's picture

I missed that yesterday. I

I missed that yesterday. I had already contacted the state on Monday, but someone was sick so I didn't any info until late yesterday.

Tamara Shepherd's picture

Just for the record

I do not dispute Cliff Rodgers' call on Johnson's candidacy, nor Greg Mackay's call on Daugherty's candidacy.

My point is simply that both the Tennessee Constitution and the Knox County Charter should be amended to protect against the possibility of voter disenfranchisement.

And perhaps, further, that I hope to find--now and into the future--that successful candidates for public office will also be disposed to afford voters this protection.

Tamara Shepherd's picture


One last thought on legislative intent:

WRT state law, the existence of TCA 3-1-102 tells us that it was that legislative body's intent to close a loophole in the Constitution's Article II, Section 10 that inexplicably allows candidates to choose from which of two districts within their county they would like to run for office.

Since our state legislators failed to propose and pass a Constitutional amendment, though, they essentially went about establishing their intent in the wrong way.

Similary, WRT local law, the existence of a reference to the election immediately following reapportionment within our Charter's Article II, Section 2.03 tells us that it was that legislative body's intent to open a loophole--just for that election--to exempt from a one year length of residency requirement just any candidate who had not moved, but whose district had nevertheless been changed less than one year earlier.

Since our local legislators inexplicably removed that requirement for that election for all candidates, whether or not they had moved and whether or not their districts had been changed less than one year earlier, they essentially went about establishing their intent in the wrong way, too.

But in both these instances we still understand legislators' intent.

And we know it was NOT their intent to be ridiculous.

So we would be honest and fair to help them to correct their administrative errors, rather than to look for some manner in which we can derive personal benefit from them.

Rachel's picture

And we know it was NOT their

And we know it was NOT their intent to be ridiculous.

You sure about that? Sometimes it's hard to tell.

Tamara Shepherd's picture


They’re nearly always accidentally ridiculous.


Tamara Shepherd's picture


Let me reiterate that midway through this continuum of law--that is, prior to either a ruling from the Supreme Court of Tennessee or a Constitutional amendment from the state legislature--I don't find that Gloria has tried to "exempt" herself from TCA.

Rather, the problem is that at this juncture a 2004 AG opinion concludes there is not yet any instruction in TCA that may guide.

That is, whether or not it makes any sense, a possible interpretation of the Constituion at Article II, Section 10 truly does exist that truly could suggest just some candidates in just some counties may arbitrarily choose from which of two districts they care to run for office, so any subsequent instruction in TCA is inadequate to guide to the contrary.

One of two things must happen next: Either the SCoT must rule to state the founders' intent previously WRT Article II, Section 10, or the state legislature must adopt a Constitutional amendment to state their own intent in the matter going forward.

To borrow and expand on Brian's analogy of what happened WRT the SCoT's ruling in the term limits question, namely that it ran contrary to the AG's earlier opinion, I think it's very likely a SCoT ruling in this residency question would also run contrary to the AG's earlier opinion.

The reason I suggest this is that in the SCoT's 2007 ruling on the validity of our Knox County Charter, the Court concluded that our Charter was invalid, but that citizens’ 1987 vote to enact it had nevertheless expressed our intent to establish a charter form of government and had therefore resulted in a “de facto” system of that sort ever since.

Similarly and at the same time, the Court also concluded that citizens’ 1994 vote to enact term limits for our local officeholders adequately expressed our intent to establish that provision, too, irrespective of any earlier procedural missteps by our local legislative body to establish the charter form of government that would allow it.

It seems likely, then, that if and when the SCoT should hear this residency question relating to candidate qualification for the state legislature, they would necessarily weigh the intent of a couple of past votes in that matter, too.

I think the SCoT would conclude that in drafting our Tennessee Constitution it was the intent of our founders to acknowledge rather incidentally at Article II, Section 10 that some counties would be spilt into two voting districts, while others would not be. I do not think the Court would conclude from delegates’ subsequent vote on the Constitution that it was their intent to inexplicably allow just some candidates in just some counties, namely just those large enough to be split into two districts, to arbitrarily choose from which of two possible districts they cared to run for office.

Similarly if 100 plus years later, I think the Court would also conclude that the legislature’s 2002 vote to pass TCA 3-1-102 expressed even more clearly that it was their intent to close a longtime loophole at Article II, Section 10, no matter that that body also made a procedural misstep when they failed to propose any Constitutional amendment to do it.

So this is the line of thought that leads me to conclude that Gloria’s candidacy does not at this juncture constitute any legal breach, may possibly constitute an ethical breach, but certainly constitutes a lapse in adequate consideration of the consequence of EVERY state candidate attempting to qualify for state office in the manner she does--which surely we agree would result in an electoral clusterfuc* of epic proportion.

rikki's picture

but certainly constitutes a

but certainly constitutes a lapse in adequate consideration of the consequence of EVERY state candidate attempting to qualify for state office in the manner she does--which surely we agree would result in an electoral clusterfuc* of epic proportion.

I don't agree with that. First of all, the circumstances causing this problem are not present everywhere in the state, only in counties large enough to be divided into multiple senate districts. More important, however, have you looked at the Sixth District? The shape of that district is your clusterf*k of epic proportions. It's half of Farragut, half of Bearden, SoKno, East Knox Co, Halls, half of Powell and half of North Knoxville. It's a stupid, arbitrary line that splits neighborhoods and communities.

The clusterf*k of epic proportions happens every ten years when we spindle, fold and mutilate our communities into gerrymandered aberrations.

BHornback's picture

The last redistricting was accomplished

By the Democrats in the legislature 2001 ish! So your cluster is a Democrat cluster. You are wrong, it does not include any portion of Farragut. It ends at Concord precinct (the county portion between the City of Knox and Town of Farragut) all of the Town of Farragut belongs to State Senator Stacey Campfield

Tamara Shepherd's picture


A (Democratic) friend offered a right pithy assessment of Gloria’s candidacy in fewer words:

“This is a Kamikaze mission.”

reform4's picture

But it's important to try

All races ought to be contested races, it's good for our democracy. It's good for all voters to cast party loyalties aside and review the quality of each candidate. This isnt SEC football, after all.

BHornback's picture

That Steve Drevik

We can agree on, every race should be contested. A contest doesn't have to be a D to and R. It can be R to R; or R to D; R to D to I. You get the idea?

Mary the prez's picture

Go, Glo!

Go, GLO!

Tamara Shepherd's picture


Rikki, the idiom that comes to mind WRT your post is "the means don’t justify the ends."

How shall we define a “community?”

Can we also rationalize, say, allowing a candidate living in some county comprising a single voting district to run from a contiguous county comprising another single voting district, simply because it's close by?

Can we make an argument for allowing a candidate living in any East Tennessee voting district to run from any other East Tennessee voting district, contiguous or not, simply because both such districts lie in a given region?

Maybe we can make an argument for allowing any candidate living anywhere in the state to run from any district contained within our state's borders, given that we all share some level of common interests and concerns that bind us as residents of Tennessee?

Carried to its extreme, this response you suggest is viable in combating "gerrymandered" voting districts is one that would just exacerbate some problems with which we already contend, like too few candidates emerging from the one district, too many candidates from another, candidates so disengaged from the "community" that they don’t know its needs or desires, and candidates who harbor some agenda not associated with the "community’s" needs or desires at all.

It would introduce a new problem, too, in that it would create a need for the citizenry to check homes sales on the MLS before they head to the polls, lest their intended votes be for naught.

And I won’t even ask, rhetorically, if we should give the citizenry as wide a berth in choosing where they may cast their votes for candidates.

No, in the interest of ensuring that all are represented fairly and equally, at some point we must abandon this notion that an "arbitrary" voting district line may be ignored because it separates us from kindred spirits among voters elsewhere.

To the extent that any "gerrymandered" voting district lines incite candidate behavior of the sort under discussion, we are more forthright to dedicate to the process that creates those lines with a goal of tackling the problem.

There exists inadequate defense, though, for us to stand outside that process and throw rocks, or to launch any stealth campaign with a goal of circumventing the problem.

Mary, I didn’t support McNutt’s appointment, either, but the adage that comes to mind WRT your post is “two wrongs don’t make a right.”

I’m sure we three will rally again sometime soon in our shared agreement on some other topic.

Meanwhile, I’m ready to move past this one.

Mary the prez's picture

Thanks, Tamara, and Rikki!

again I say, Go Glo! Her leadership experience, knowledge of public education and how it is being sold to the 'for-profit' system, her integrity, her reputation as one of Knox County's best and most qualified and dedicated educators....all this more than qualifies her to run for this seat.

And she will keep her promise to live in our 6th District before Election day, November 8. Heck, she can move in with us until then....but she will have to board her Dogs...I am allergic!

YoungKnoxPolitico's picture

Gloria Fails!

Gloria fails to recognize how those who support "Race to the Top" also support ending tenure, using tests for at least 50% of teacher evaluations, and using programs such as Teach for America "teachers" to replace educated, trained, and experienced classroom teachers!

JHayes's picture

My feelings

My feeling on all of this, is many of the regular commentors on this blog beat up Don Daugherty about not living in the district at the time of announcing, but no one has really done the same to Gloria. I think that in general is a little messed up. I honestly don't think she should get a pass. Whether she says she is going to move into the district before Election Day or not, its just bad politics in my book.

To add to that, I also believe it does nothing for our party for someone to jump in the race when they know they are going to get beat to death, (If anyone believes this isnt going to happen, then you are not educated on this district) It makes it more embarrassing when that person is the face of the party in Knox County.

My opinion (for what it is worth), I think she should withdraw and save the local democratic party the embarrassment.

rikki's picture

My position during

My position during Daugherty's run was the same as it is now: voters can protect themselves from the affront of being represented by someone who lives on the other side on an arbitrary line by NOT VOTING FOR THAT PERSON. There is no need for strict residency requirements unless you prefer to govern as if citizens are helpless and incurably uninformed.

My point about arbitrary lines that get redrawn every 10 years has only been rebutted by inane partisan finger-pointing and by appeals to fixed, permanent borders. You're certainly not going to persuade me to respect gerrymandered borders by talking about real borders nor by talking about an even graver insult to our democracy -- political parties.

Certainly it's embarrassing to the local Democratic party that the only candidate they can muster for this seat has to move into the district, but that embarrassment is not a result of Johnson's actions nor her willingness to pack up her things and find a new home; it's a result of inaction on the part of many others.

JHayes's picture

So True

I agree with everything you have said.

I do believe that the Chairman of KCDP getting steamrolled in November however does nothing for our much outnumbered party in Knox County. It just makes us look worse in my opinion. I will vote for Gloria because I am a Democrat, but she is not conservative enough to pull ANY Republican voters and almost none of the moderates will vote for someone as liberal as she is.

It's unfortunate. I wish there was going to be a different outcome, but there won't be.

reform4's picture

There's something to be said for..

... for running just to get your positions out there and potentially influence the other candidates. Otherwise the craziness is unchecked.

YoungKnoxPolitico's picture

Gloria Fails!

Gloria makes 1200 a year as party chair. Gloria has made huge claims of her effectiveness at organizing and huge claims about having the best events, highest voter turnout, and most active voluntees in the history of the party in Knox County. But, Gloria is not to be held responsible for failing to find a candidate to run? The fact is Gloria and the TNDP completely FAILED in this race. Now, it appears they are failing on message, too. No candidate + no message = FAIL for KCDP party chair, Gloria Johnson.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

This question is used to make sure you are a human visitor and to prevent spam submissions.


TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

State News

Local .GOV

Wire Reports

Lost Medicaid Funding

To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

Search and Archives