“There's not anything that can be said that's going to sway us one way or the other because what we have to do is basically just approve the ballot,” said Commission Chair Dewey Branstetter. The chair went on to explain that the commission’s role is simply "ministerial” before opening up public comment.
Jon Cooper, an attorney with Holland & Knight representing Decline to Sign, which opposes the proposed ban on racing at the fairgrounds, acknowledged that the referendum language clearly outlines the ban but questioned the validity of the petition process.
“We have multiple examples of canvassers throughout the process misleading voters to get signatures by saying that Metro had already decided to tear down the racetrack and that this is going to get affordable housing in its place,” said Cooper. “I’ve submitted to Mr. Kyle, for the record, approximately one hour of video footage showing multiple instances of these falsehoods.”
John Spraggins, a local attorney and president of Care for Nashville, a group supporting the referendum, argued that the video should be stricken from the record. “That’s not really relevant to what this commission is considering today,” he said.
Councilmember Olivia Hill raised concerns about voter clarity after being approached four separate times to sign the petition.
“Each time I was approached [they] said, ‘Hey, would you like affordable housing in Nashville?’ and I said, ‘Sure!’” explained Hill. “And they're like, ‘Just sign this petition.’”
“I understand that your duty today is very ministerial in nature, but I do think it's one of the first steps during this entire process where something has been made crystal clear and truthful to the voters of Nashville,” said MNPS School Board member and former Metro Council member Zach Young, reiterating that the referendum would only end auto racing at the fairgrounds.
For funsies, Chair Branstetter asked legal counsel what would have happened if the commission had rejected the referendum language. Legal explained that the body would have been required to provide its exact reasoning. “And then we'd end up in Chancery Court on the other end,” said Branstetter, underscoring the justification for the body’s decision.
Top Stories

No comments:
Post a Comment