📺Watch the hearing here.⤵️ youtube.com/watch?v=QecIZ2…

Get a breakdown of the law, what the lawsuits are arguing and what this challenge means for our democracy. democracydocket.com/analysis/an-un…

Here's who will be arguing today: —Metro Council and community leaders are arguing that the law should be blocked. —The state (Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee (R), Secretary of State Tre Hargett (R) and Coordinator of Elections Mark Goins (R)) are defending the law.

The hearing has begun. Metro Council begins its opening statement: “We implore this court to enjoin this radical infringement on local sovereignty.”

Metro Council argues that although the law doesn't explicitly target Nashville, it only affects Nashville: “We all know why we're here. We all know that a council must shrink as a result of this act. One council. The Metro Nashville Council.”

Metro Council: "The act is a lose-lose for the city: either expend resources to draw a council map with half the current districts, which may be later overturned, or your council members have to serve an unconstitutional fifth year."

Metro Nashville explains the Home Rule Amendment of the Tennessee Constitution and argues that the amendment was incorporated to address “the state's legislative abusive interference in local affairs.”

Metro Council: "It is undisputed that Section 1(b) of this act affects only Metro Nashville...This provision will not, does not and will never apply to any other local government."

Metro Council: "There is no stated, or even discernible good faith reason, why the General Assembly would impose these drastic measures on a local Legislature that has existed for 60 years if the primary intent of the bill was merely to set a cap."

Metro Council: “Because Metro Nashville is likely to succeed on all three of the claims that I have described, we would ask the court to enjoin this act in full.”

Metro Council: "We are here today because the Metro Council Reduction Act is an assault on the very core of the Metropolitan Government itself."

Metro Council: "When we talk about Home Rule, we're talking about the people here in Nashville, people who made the decision about where they want to live. Some of us, like me, were born here." 1/3

Metro Council: "Many others moved here from another place because they wanted to make their communities and build a life here. This is where we live. This is where we work. This is where we raise our families and make friendships." 2/3

Metro Council: "We should be the ones to decide how big this council is and how those seats are allocated. That's what Home Rule means. The impossible timetable in this act is already causing irreparable harm and damage to the public interest." 3/3

Metro Council argues that the quick timeline to implement this law will cause chaos in Nashville's elections: “As federal courts have said in Voting Rights Act cases, a quick plan is not necessarily a good plan. And that's true here.”

Metro Council cites the Purcell Principle, which is the idea that election laws should not be changed too close to an election in order to avoid confusion for voters and election officials. democracydocket.com/analysis/the-p…

The community leaders begin opening arguments. They include religious leaders, community activists, business leaders, Metro Council members and more. All are Davidson County voters or council members.

Community leaders cite Baker v. Carr, a U.S. Supreme Court case that established one person, one vote: “When you're being treated in a constitutionally unjustifiable way vis-à-vis the other voters then you have standing to bring the claim.” supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/…

Community leaders discuss the timeline for Nashville elections under the law: "A special election after August of this year means that these voters did not get to exercise their right to vote for a new Metro Council at the end of the constitutionally prescribed four-year term."

Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee (R), Secretary of State Tre Hargett (R) and Coordinator of Elections Mark Goins (R), which we will refer to as the state, begin opening arguments.

The state argues that: "It's important to point out that there are three metropolitan governments in the state of Tennessee."

However, the other two have 20 members or fewer and are not affected by this law. Only Metro Nashville is impacted by #HB48.

The state argues that the law can be applied to all municipalities, even though it is undisputed that Nashville is the only municipality impacted by the law.

The state concedes: “I think we all acknowledge 1(b) has specific applicability to Metro Nashville because they are the only current municipal government that is not in compliance with the statute.”

The state argues that the law is severable, meaning that even if the court blocks one part of the law for violating the Tennessee Constitution, the remaining provisions of the law can still remain in effect.

The state argues that it “has an interest in making sure that its laws are enforced and are not enjoined from being enforced.”

The state argues that this lawsuit is "not a voting rights case."

But as the Metro Council and community leaders argue, the law “wages an unprecedented disenfranchisement of the voters of Metro Nashville.” democracydocket.com/analysis/an-un…

The state is discussing procedural issues and argues that Metro Council and community leaders do not have standing to bring this lawsuit because “no injury to voters’ right to vote has occurred.”

Metro Council begins its rebuttal: "This is sheer chaos. And the fact that no one knows what districts are going to move toward the Aug. 3 election is precisely the problem. It's just too late."

Metro Council: "Everybody knows that these redistricting requirements only apply to Metro Nashville."