There was some previous discussion here about this very scenario.

This seems like the most informed observation:

(link...)

There's more debate before and after that.

Should be interesting, especially if the outcome is a definitive court ruling on how this is supposed to work.

... especially if the outcome is a definitive court ruling on how this is supposed to work.

Constitution of the State of Tennessee

Article XI--Miscellaneous Provisions

Section 3. Any amendment or amendments to this Constitution may be
proposed in the Senate or House of Representatives, and if the same shall be agreed to by a majority of all the members elected to each of the two houses, such proposed amendment or amendments shall be entered on their journals with the yeas and nays thereon, and referred to the General Assembly then next to be chosen; and shall be published six months previous to the time of making such choice; and if in the General Assembly then next chosen as aforesaid, such proposed amendment or amendments shall be agreed to by two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, then it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to submit such proposed amendment or amendments to the people at the next general election in which a governor is to be chosen. And if the people shall approve and ratify such amendment or amendments by a majority of all the citizens of the state voting for governor, voting in their favor, such amendment or amendments shall become a part of this Constitution. When any amendment or amendments to the Constitution shall be proposed in pursuance of the foregoing provisions the same shall at each of said sessions be read three times on three several days in each house.

The Legislature shall have the right by law to submit to the people, at any general election, the question of calling a convention to alter, reform, or abolish this Constitution, or to alter, reform or abolish any specified part or parts of it; and when, upon such submission, a majority of all the voters voting upon the proposal submitted shall approve the proposal to call a convention, the delegates to such convention shall be chosen at the next general election and the convention shall assemble for the consideration of such proposals as shall have received a favorable vote in said election, in such mode and manner as shall be prescribed. No change in, or amendment to, this Constitution proposed by such convention shall become effective, unless within the limitations of the call of the convention, and unless approved and ratified by a majority of the qualified voters voting separately on such change or amendment at an election to be held in such manner and on such date as may be fixed by the convention. No such convention shall be held oftener than once in six years.

That's how it's supposed to work, and it isn't at all confusing. Make it so.

I don't think this is going anywhere, and as much as I hate amendment 1, I'm not sure I want it to. Has anybody considered the possible consequences that this might nullify other amendments to the state Constitution?

Okay, I overlooked a Consitutional clause I copied and pasted above that says if the Convention approach to amendment is chosen, voters may approve or deny the proposed amendments "at an election to be held in such manner and on such date as may be fixed by the convention."

Glossed over that too quickly.

So, looking just at this Wiki recap (sorry, can't immediately find a better source), it says that TN never put any amendment on the ballot except via the Convention process until 1998, when the legislative process was used for the very first time.

Wiki says our proposed amendments introduced via the legislative process since 1998 have been as follows:

1998-"Victims' Rights Amendment", which required prosecutors to stay in touch with crime victims and their families, explain to them how purported offenses involving them were to be prosecuted, and notify them when persons who had committed crimes against them were being scheduled for parole or release, among other provisions. Passed.

1998- The other amendment removed the word "comfortable" from the requirements for minimum standards for prisons. Passed.

2002=Repeal of a constitutional ban on all lotteries. Passed.

2002-Would have eliminated a constitutional provision that set $50 (a large sum in 1870 when the provision was enacted) as the maximum allowable fine for violation of a municipal ordinance. Instead, it would have allowed the legislature to set limits on the fines that municipalities could enact. Failed.

2006- The Tennessee Marriage Protection Amendment passed (ugh).

2006- Proposal to authorize the legislature to enact legislation allowing counties and municipalities to exempt people over 65 from property tax increases. Passed.

2010- "The citizens of this state shall have the personal right to hunt and fish, subject to reasonable regulations and restrictions prescribed by law. The recognition of this right does not abrogate any private or public property rights, nor does it limit the state's power to regulate commercial activity. Traditional manners and means may be used to take non-threatened species." Passed, but whatever.

*If* a court were to void the Amendment 1 vote and *if* doing so would invalidate these other six amendments to have passed in recent years, as well, it still doesn't appear that chaos would ensue (with the possible exception of the amendment to have lifted the ban on gambling to pave the way for our state lottery).

And isn't it possible that we could see a ruling to void Amendment 1 without retroactive effect to these six recent amendments?

Dunno, but I'm pleased this group (is it PP?) is giving it a stab.

Translation: We lost and can't deal with it.

don't feed the troll

And if they could do this and checked the ballots it'd be the same result.

Actually, the troll raises a good, if unintended, point. Politics has become a game with ill-defined concepts of winning and losing. Apparently that moron, and I assume he is a he, believes he won something because the side he annonymously, and possibly only electronically, supported got more votes. Ignoring the fact that if the goals of the groups that wanted this are successful, it will almost certainly have the effect of inflating the welfare rolls and could well result in an increase in crime. It would (ignoring the predictions for the 2045 Singularity and the concommittant Post Scarcity economy) increase the wealth divide which is the source of much of the social tension in this nation and the world.

So we are back to the politics of the Civil War wherein rich, amoral White slave and landholders convinced a bunch of poor, ignorant, Whites to go get their limbs and asses blown off so as to potentially increase the holdings of the rich Whites. In this case we could be looking at huge social unrest, riots and such, which would serve the same basic purpose as the Civil War did/was supposed to. As is historically appropriate, the poor Whites think they won something with the vote on "1" just as I am sure they did with votes to secede.

It would appear that someone besides the POTUS is playing the "Long Game" and their unwitting minions are incapable of a coherent analysis and understanding of history so as to understand their roles.