What you will

In 2006, Tennessee voters chose to add two amendments to the state constitution: one that more strictly defined the state definition of marriage, and another that allowed the General Assembly to create legislation that would in turn enable local governments to enact property tax freezes for persons on fixed incomes.

The amendments appear on the ballot just like candidates for office (and judicial retention questions) during a general election. The process of getting them there is designed broadly to reflect the will of the people through their representatives: both houses of the General Assembly must pass a bill that creates the amendment, in two legislative sessions. So, for example, were a constitutional amendment bill to be introduced in the upcoming 2011-12 session, it would have to

• pass with a constitutional majority in the House of Representatives;
• and pass with a constitutional majority in the Senate;
• and then endure the same two tests in the 2013-14 session;
• and of course the final decision would still remain with the voters in the next available general election (2014 in this sample scenario).

Oh deer. Here come those crappie lobbyists.

The Legislature has offered a new amendment that has made it past the requisite hurdles, thus you and I will vote it up or down this fall. This amendment would clarify the Constitution to specifically enumerate the rights of Tennesseans to hunt and fish. A Nashville television reporter on Thursday briefly examined the amendment and its proponents. Earlier this month, Richard Simms wrote about it in Chattanoogan.com’s Outdoors section. Here is the language of the proposed amendment:

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.

While it would be rare to find anyone opposed to the right to hunt and fish, there have been questions concerning the amendment’s necessity. To some observers, it doesn’t seem very likely that the Legislature would pass any law that would outlaw either of these time-honored traditions. And any governor worth his or her buckshot would surely veto it straight away (though our state government does have a weak veto). Lastly, the ensuing outrage would soon restore powder to the muzzle-loaders, and have reels again singing in the lake breezes. In other words, our rights to hunt and fish are likely secure with or without this amendment.

Nevertheless, the choice will be on the ballot in the upcoming election. In order for the amendment to pass, 50 percent plus one of those who cast a vote for governor must vote “Yea.” Though the two are not counted together, if you do not cast a vote in the gubernatorial election, your vote on the amendment is not counted toward the outcome.