One line from a 1941 book has stayed with me this week:

“We are only at the beginning…”

The line comes from The Redemption of Democracy by Hermann Rauschning, written during a time when democracy itself felt uncertain across much of the world.

That matters because 1941 was not a moment when democratic concerns were theoretical. Large parts of Europe had already seen how quickly political systems could change once public confidence weakened, institutions bent under pressure, and citizens began accepting certainty offered through emotion more easily than clarity offered through patience.

What stands out in older political writing is how often authors assumed ordinary citizens needed to understand slow change before it became dramatic.

Today, people often imagine democratic strain as something obvious — a major event, a constitutional crisis, a sudden break people immediately recognize. History usually looks less dramatic in real time.

More often, public habits change first.

People become less interested in understanding what offices actually do. Political language becomes more emotional than specific. Loyalty often arrives before careful comparison. Citizens begin evaluating public life through tribe before structure.

Institutions can still appear stable while civic seriousness quietly changes underneath them.

That is one reason clear answers still matter.

Not because every disagreement signals danger. Democracies are built to handle disagreement. They require it.

But democracies also depend on something less dramatic and often less discussed: citizens who still insist on understanding what they are looking at.

A governor does not hold the same power as a legislature. A sheriff does not operate like a mayor. Courts do not exist to mirror public frustration. Yet many political arguments begin with people assigning expectations to offices they do not fully understand.

That gap matters more than people think.

One reason I continue asking public officials the same questions in the same framework is because comparison often reveals more than performance. A single speech can sound strong. Side-by-side answers often show where clarity exists and where it does not.

Older democratic writers understood something simple: public systems rarely weaken because one moment changes everything. More often, citizens stop expecting enough precision before they notice the consequences of doing so.

That is why civic literacy matters long before people think it urgently does.

So the question is not only historical.

It is current:

Do democracies usually weaken suddenly, or do people notice the warning signs late?

Share Brandon Burley

I am a retired detective and criminal justice / government educator based in Tennessee. I am a commentary write for Tennessee Lookout and a weekly columnist with Knox TN Today. My work examines public policy, public safety systems and civic responsibility. My reporting and commentary have also appeared in Governing, The Arizona Capitol Times, South Florida Sun Sentinel, Police1, among other state and regional outlets.

Subscribe now

This week’s prayer requests are heavy, and I want us to hold them with care.

Some involve surgery. One involves the grief of a mother who lost her son. One involves a family carrying both medical fear and the burden of a loved one in prison.

We are not here to fix every pain with quick words. We are here to pray, remember, and carry one another before the Lord.

Scripture reminds us:

“The Lord is near to the brokenhearted and saves the crushed in spirit.”
— Psalm 34:18

This week, please pray for:

M.L.
Please pray for M.L.’s son as he undergoes neurosurgery. Pray that the surgery goes well, that the doctors and nurses have wisdom, steadiness and skill, and that her son is protected and strengthened through recovery. Pray also for peace over M.L. and the family as they wait, hope and trust through a frightening moment.

S.T.
Please pray for a mother grieving the loss of her 20-year-old son. Her grief is very heavy. Pray that the Lord would bring peace, comfort and strength for each day. Pray especially for the moments when the loss feels unbearable, and ask God to surround her with people who will love her patiently and faithfully.

K.S.
Please pray for K.S., who is facing surgery for a brain aneurysm on June 17. Pray for peace over her mind, protection over her body and a successful surgery. Please also lift up her doctor and nurses, asking that they would have wisdom, clear judgment, steady hands and compassion as they care for her.

Brad
Please also pray for K.S.’s son, Brad, who is in TDOC custody. Pray that he would be strong, that he would not lose hope, and that he would be a light to others where he is. Pray that God would protect him, guide him and remind him that his story is not over.

Let’s pray together.

If you have a prayer request, or if you would like to join the prayer list and pray for others each week, you can do that here:

theredemptionproject.news/prayer-network

You do not have to carry it alone.

-Brandon

WASHINGTON — Social Security is not projected to disappear, but the program’s latest financial report shows the nation’s largest retirement and disability insurance system is still on a path that would leave it unable to pay full scheduled benefits without action from Congress.

The 2026 annual report from the Social Security trustees projects that the combined reserves of the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance trust funds would be depleted in the third quarter of 2034 if the two funds were considered together.

At that point, continuing program income would be enough to pay 83 percent of scheduled benefits, according to the trustees.

That distinction matters.

Trust fund depletion does not mean Social Security stops sending checks. It means that, under current law, the program would no longer have enough trust fund reserves and incoming revenue to pay full scheduled benefits on time.

Social Security is funded largely through payroll taxes paid by workers and employers. Those taxes would continue to come in even after trust fund reserves are depleted.

The issue is whether that continuing revenue would be enough to cover the full benefit promises written into law. The trustees say it would not.

The program is often discussed as one system, but it is financed through two legally separate trust funds. The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund pays retirement and survivor benefits. The Disability Insurance Trust Fund pays disability benefits.

Those funds cannot actually be combined unless Congress changes the law. Still, the trustees often show a combined projection to give a broader picture of Social Security’s overall financial condition.

The retirement and survivor fund faces the earlier shortfall.

Read more

Samantha Acy knows what it feels like to be labeled.

Addict.

Inmate.

Felon.

Criminal.

For many people, those labels become permanent. They follow someone long after the jail sentence ends, long after the drug use stops, long after the person begins trying to build a different life.

But Samantha does not accept that.

“I paid my price,” she said. “Society doesn’t get to keep judging me.”

Her story is Season 1, Episode 15 of The Redemption Project.

It is a story about opioid addiction, prison, accountability, faith, reentry and the long, difficult work of rebuilding a life after everything has fallen apart.

Samantha traces the beginning of her addiction to prescribed pain medication after surgeries. Like many people caught in the opioid crisis, she did not understand at first how quickly pain pills could become something much larger.

By 2014, she says, the battle with addiction had begun.

Years later, deep in addiction, Samantha entered a relationship with a man who was also involved in drugs. During the COVID period, they traveled to Philadelphia to get heroin. By then, she says, heroin was no longer really heroin. It was fentanyl.

The details that followed were complicated, painful and tragic.

The man she cared about was later released from jail. He had been told he needed to see a cardiologist, but the pull of addiction came first. A week later, he overdosed.

Samantha was charged in connection with his death.

Originally, she says, she was facing death by delivery, endangering another person and involuntary manslaughter. At one point, she believed she was looking at 40 years to life.

Subscribe now

The case ultimately led to a sentence of three and a half to seven years.

She served three and a half.

That is the part of redemption stories people sometimes want to rush past.

But redemption does not erase consequences.

It does not pretend no one was hurt.

It does not turn accountability into a footnote.

Samantha went to prison. She served her time. She paid a legal price. And for the first year, she was angry.

She said she was constantly getting into trouble and repeatedly going to solitary confinement. Then she found a way to get an extra hour out of her cell by visiting the chaplain.

At first, it may have been about the extra hour.

Then the words started to matter.

The chaplain spoke to her. She began praying. She began reading the Bible. Slowly, something started to shift.

Samantha said she realized she did not want to remain a victim of circumstances.

She wanted to become an overcomer of them.

That line matters because it is not soft.

It is not sentimental.

It is not an excuse.

It is the kind of sentence a person says when she finally decides she is no longer going to let the worst thing she has done, or the worst thing she has lived through, write the rest of her story.

Leave a comment

Samantha began attending every program she could. She participated in religious programming. She completed trainings. She became a certified recovery specialist.

Most importantly, she made a decision.

She did not want her life, or the life of the man who died, to be in vain.

That is where her story begins to move from survival to purpose.

As she prepared for release, Samantha started working through reentry options. She wanted to go to a women’s halfway house connected to a place where she had experienced success years earlier. She says the approval process was difficult, and that parole rarely approves arrangements like that.

But someone worked for her.

Someone fought for her.

And eventually, the door opened.

That part of the story is easy to miss, but it should not be.

Reentry is not just about whether someone wants to change.

It is also about whether there is a real path available when they are ready.

Housing matters.

Employment matters.

Documents matter.

Transportation matters.

Background checks matter.

People matter.

Samantha is direct about the responsibility part, too. She does not describe reentry as easy, but she also does not describe herself as helpless.

She used the resources available to her. She saved money. She found housing. She took work that was available. She started as a server at a Chinese restaurant and rode a bicycle to work in the rain, snow and cold.

She did not call off.

She kept showing up.

That work eventually led to a management role. Later, she went through the process of becoming a certified recovery specialist and began moving toward work that would allow her to help others facing addiction, recovery and reentry.

The path was not smooth.

She failed the certification test by a small margin the first time. She had to retake it. She dealt with job uncertainty, background checks and the continuing feeling that the justice system could still reach into her life and slow her progress long after she had served her time.

That is part of what makes her story important.

Samantha is not saying accountability should disappear.

She is saying accountability should not become a life sentence after the sentence is over.

That is a distinction our culture often struggles to hold.

We want people to change.

Then we make it hard for them to rent a place, get hired, rebuild trust, parent their children and contribute to the community.

We say we want successful reentry.

Leave a comment

Then we act surprised when people need a real road back.

Samantha’s story reminds us that redemption requires more than one person’s determination. It also requires doors that do not immediately close the moment someone tells the truth about where they have been.

Today, Samantha is clean and sober. She has work. She has housing. She has her family back in her life. She is a mother and grandmother. She is rebuilding with purpose.

None of that erases the past.

But it does answer the lie that the past must have the final word.

One of the strongest moments in our conversation came when Samantha talked about labels.

She said she is not going to be defined by the things others choose to call her.

“I am strong,” she said. “I am an overcomer.”

That is not denial.

That is declaration.

Samantha Acy’s story is not clean, easy or polished. Redemption rarely is.

It includes addiction.

It includes loss.

It includes prison.

It includes accountability.

But it also includes faith, work, reentry, family, recovery and the stubborn refusal to let shame become identity.

She paid her price.

Now she is choosing what comes next.

And that is why this story matters.

I am a retired detective and criminal justice / government educator based in Tennessee. I am a commentary write for Tennessee Lookout and a weekly columnist with Knox TN Today. My work examines public policy, public safety systems and civic responsibility. My reporting and commentary have also appeared in Governing, The Arizona Capitol Times, South Florida Sun Sentinel, Police1, among other state and regional outlets.

Subscribe now

WASHINGTON — A Senate committee has advanced legislation that would require the U.S. government to formally assess allegations of forced organ harvesting in China and impose sanctions on foreign persons determined to be directly involved.

At the center of the bill is a question Congress wants formally answered: Are organs being taken from people against their will inside China, and if so, what should the United States do about it?

The bill, S. 4009, is titled the Falun Gong and Victims of Forced Organ Harvesting Protection Act. It was introduced by U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, with U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., as a cosponsor. Both senators serve on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee announced June 17 that it had advanced 24 pieces of legislation, including S. 4009. The bill was considered with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, meaning the committee version would replace the earlier text if adopted by the Senate.

The legislation has not become law. It would still need to pass the full Senate, be reconciled with any House version and be signed by the president before taking effect.

The bill responds to long-running allegations that prisoners of conscience and other vulnerable groups have been used as involuntary organ sources inside China. The Chinese government has denied forced organ harvesting allegations and has said its transplant system relies on voluntary donations.

Human rights groups, lawmakers and international experts have continued to question the transparency of China’s transplant system, including reported transplant wait times, donor numbers and the treatment of prisoners of conscience.

The Senate bill is designed to address those concerns in two main ways: targeted sanctions and a formal State Department report.

Read more

Tennessee’s 6th Congressional District is part of my ongoing federal candidate comparison project, built around a simple structure: same questions, same format, same opportunity to respond.

For this race, candidates were asked five written questions about federal policy, rural and suburban pressure, congressional compromise, affordability and issues that could become sharper across the district over the next decade.

Responses were received from Mike Croley, Lore Ann Bergman and Chaney Mosley. Jon Henry initially contacted me and was later sent the same written questions. No response was received by the deadline.

The purpose of this series is not to tell voters who to support. It is to show how candidates think when they are asked the same questions about governing, policy and the district they hope to represent.

Paid subscribers receive early access to every article because their support helps make this work possible. That said, civic knowledge should remain accessible, so this article will unlock for all readers, usually within 24 hours. If you’d like immediate access and want to support independent, systems-focused journalism, consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Question 1: What federal issue affecting Tennessee’s 6th District do you believe voters talk about often but usually misunderstand once it reaches Congress?

Croley focused on the cost of living.

His answer argued that people across the district talk constantly about groceries, rent and health care, but that Congress often frames solutions as unaffordable. Croley rejected that premise. In his view, the issue is not whether money exists. It is where the federal government chooses to spend it and whose needs those spending choices serve.

That answer frames affordability as a federal-priorities problem.

Bergman answered from a different angle. She said many voters she talks to are focused heavily on gay and transgender issues, particularly bathrooms, while failing to connect daily pressures such as hospital closures, gas prices, fertilizer costs, food prices and health care access to congressional decisions.

Her answer frames the problem as political distraction.

Mosley focused on federal wage and labor policy.

He said voters often misunderstand how directly federal labor policy affects affordability in Tennessee because the state does not have its own minimum wage law. Mosley noted that Tennessee workers are covered by the federal minimum wage, which has remained $7.25 an hour since 2009. He connected that wage floor to housing, transportation, health care, child care and insurance costs, especially in growing parts of the district. He also said he supports collective bargaining and organized labor as pathways for workers to negotiate wages and benefits that better reflect local costs.

His answer frames affordability as a wage, labor and economic mobility issue.

The contrast is useful.

Croley says voters understand the pressure but are told Washington cannot afford solutions. Bergman says voters feel the pressure but are being pulled toward cultural conflict instead of the federal choices affecting daily survival. Mosley says voters may not always connect local affordability problems to federal wage and labor policy.

All three candidates point to household strain. They differ on what voters most misunderstand: Croley emphasizes federal spending priorities, Bergman emphasizes political distraction, and Mosley emphasizes the connection between federal labor policy and local affordability.

Question 2: If elected, what is one area where you believe you could produce measurable results within your first two years rather than simply support broader party goals?

Croley identified housing.

He said families across Tennessee’s 6th District are being priced out of homes in their own communities and pointed specifically to starter homes, first-time buyers and corporate ownership of housing. His proposed approach included federal incentives for local builders, pathways for first-time buyers and heavier taxes or restrictions on large-scale corporate ownership of starter homes.

That answer gives voters a measurable frame: more starter homes, more first-time buyers and fewer homes treated primarily as investment assets.

Bergman identified federal survival programs.

She pointed to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Social Security Disability, SNAP, HUD and utility assistance, saying her own experience with disability and public benefits gives her direct insight into how those systems could be improved. Her first priority, however, would be stopping cuts to those programs.

That is a different theory of measurable results.

Mosley identified workforce development through career and technical education.

He pointed to his background as a public school agriculture teacher, his current work at Middle Tennessee State University and his service as national president of the Association for Career and Technical Education. Mosley said he would work to strengthen federal workforce funding streams such as Perkins V and apprenticeship and workforce development grants through the departments of Education and Labor. He said measurable results could include credential attainment, apprenticeship participation, job placement and reductions in workforce shortages, especially in health care, skilled trades, agriculture, transportation and manufacturing.

That answer gives voters a workforce-development frame: better alignment between education, federal workforce programs and regional labor needs.

Croley is focused on housing supply and market access.

Bergman is focused on protecting and improving safety-net systems people rely on when they are already in crisis.

Mosley is focused on workforce training, career pathways and the systems that connect education to employment.

All three answers relate to affordability, but they approach it from different points in a person’s life: finding stable housing, surviving hardship or gaining the skills needed for better work.

Share

Question 3: Rural counties and growing suburban counties inside this district often face different pressures. What specific federal priority do you believe should come first when those needs conflict?

Croley said basic needs should come before expansion.

He argued that if a community lacks reliable health care, broadband or adequate housing, those needs should be addressed before federal resources shift toward expansion projects elsewhere. His answer prioritized communities being left behind over communities already managing growth.

That is a clear governing philosophy: stabilize the basics first.

Bergman answered with a broader list of shared needs: health care, affordable housing, lower gas and food prices, and good-paying jobs. She also pointed to rural areas being forgotten and residents having to drive long distances for work. Notably, she raised concerns about data centers moving into rural areas, arguing they can bring noise, pollution and rising utility costs before adequate regulations are in place.

Mosley identified foundational infrastructure.

He said the federal priority should be strengthening the systems that keep communities healthy, connected and economically functional. His list included transportation, broadband, water systems and especially health care access. Mosley said rural communities face provider shortages, hospital instability and limited health care access, while growing suburban areas face overcrowded systems, affordable housing pressure and rising demand for services. He pointed to federal tools such as USDA Rural Development, SAMHSA programs, rural health care grants, broadband expansion and Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act programs.

The overlap here is important.

All three candidates say rural communities cannot be treated as an afterthought.

Croley frames the conflict as basic needs versus expansion.

Bergman frames it as shared survival pressure across rural and urban communities, with rural areas especially vulnerable to being ignored or used for large projects without enough protection.

Mosley frames it as foundational infrastructure, arguing that rural and suburban communities both suffer when the basic systems underneath growth and stability fail.

Question 4: Congress increasingly campaigns in absolutes, but governing often requires compromise inside committee work, appropriations and negotiated bills. Where do you believe compromise is necessary, and where do you believe it becomes unacceptable?

Croley said compromise is necessary on process, details and even credit.

His answer was one of the more institutionally framed responses. He said he is willing to work with others if it produces results, but would not compromise on integrity, health care access, reproductive rights or veterans.

That answer separates method from boundary. He is willing to negotiate how something gets done, but not who gets protected.

Bergman focused heavily on federal spending priorities, military spending and foreign aid. She said compromise may be necessary on how much the United States spends on the military or provides in military aid to other countries. She distinguished between Ukraine, which she said has been defending itself from Russian aggression, and Israel’s conduct in Gaza, where she argued U.S. support should face harder scrutiny.

Where Bergman said compromise becomes unacceptable is in cutting programs used by the neediest Americans to fund projects or spending she views as unnecessary.

Mosley said compromise is necessary in the practical work of governing, including appropriations for education, infrastructure, agriculture and veterans services. He said a geographically and economically diverse district requires listening, coalition building and recognizing that progress is often incremental. Mosley pointed to his background in education, military service and family life as shaping his view that people with different priorities can work together when focused on outcomes.

His limits were constitutional rights, democratic institutions, free and fair elections and equal protection under the law. He specifically said legal recognition of marriages and families, voting rights and equal protection should not become bargaining chips in partisan negotiation.

The distinction is clear.

Croley defines unacceptable compromise around rights, health care, veterans and integrity.

Bergman defines unacceptable compromise around taking survival support away from vulnerable people.

Mosley defines unacceptable compromise around constitutional rights, democratic institutions and equal protection.

All three candidates say compromise is necessary. All three also draw lines. The difference is where they place them.

Leave a comment

Question 5: What is one issue in this district that people will likely feel much more sharply over the next decade if federal policy does not adjust now?

Croley identified rural hospital closures.

His answer focused on the “golden hour” in emergency medicine: the critical period after a traumatic injury when timely care can determine survival. Croley argued that when rural hospitals close, residents are forced to drive farther, wait longer and face more danger in emergencies. He also tied rural hospital decline to the cost of living, arguing that care becomes more expensive when it becomes harder to access.

Bergman also identified health care as the issue people will likely feel more sharply, especially when illness leads to bankruptcy, homelessness or hunger. She also pointed to Social Security, arguing that people have paid into the system throughout their working lives and depend on it for retirement and old age.

Mosley identified the loss of opportunity and community identity.

He said communities across the district already see the warning signs: hospital closures, rising housing costs, teacher shortages, limited child care access, workforce shortages and young people questioning whether they can afford to build a future where they grew up. Mosley said rural, suburban and urban communities experience these pressures differently, but they are increasingly connected. He argued that federal policy should help communities grow without losing the people, culture and local character that make them worth calling home.

Here, the answers overlap more than they diverge.

All three candidates are describing long-term stability.

Croley’s answer is geographic and systems-based: what happens when care disappears from rural communities.

Bergman’s answer is personal and economic: what happens when people cannot afford illness, disability or old age.

Mosley’s answer is community-based: what happens when health care, housing, workforce and child care pressures make it harder for families to stay rooted.

The difference is emphasis.

Croley focuses on emergency access and rural hospital decline. Bergman focuses on survival systems and the cost of illness. Mosley focuses on whether communities can grow without losing opportunity, identity and local continuity.

What the answers show so far

The clearest pattern in the TN-6 answers is that all three responding candidates are talking about basic needs, but they reach that conversation through different doors.

Croley repeatedly returns to affordability, housing, rural hospitals and federal spending priorities. His answers argue that Washington has resources, but he believes those resources are not being directed toward the daily pressures facing working families in Tennessee’s 6th District. His frame is basic-needs investment before expansion.

Bergman repeatedly returns to health care, disability, Social Security, food assistance, housing support and the lived reality of poverty. Her answers are less polished, but they are direct. She frames federal policy through survival: what happens to people when benefits are cut, hospitals close, prices rise or cultural fights distract from material needs.

Mosley repeatedly returns to workforce development, infrastructure, labor policy, community stability and the connection between education and economic opportunity. His answers are more systems-oriented, with emphasis on federal programs that already exist and how they could be better coordinated for local needs.

In simpler terms:

Croley talks about Washington as a government choosing the wrong priorities.

Bergman talks about Washington as a government risking the programs people need to survive.

Mosley talks about Washington as a government that should help communities build capacity before pressure turns into decline.

That is the value of asking candidates the same questions.

It does not tell voters who to support.

It shows voters how candidates think.

Jon Henry had not submitted responses after being sent the same questions.

The purpose of this series remains the same across each race: give voters the same questions, the same format and a clearer way to see how candidates think once campaign language meets actual governing systems.

I am a retired detective and criminal justice / government educator based in Tennessee. I am a commentary write for Tennessee Lookout and a weekly columnist with Knox TN Today. My work examines public policy, public safety systems and civic responsibility. My reporting and commentary have also appeared in Governing, The Arizona Capitol Times, South Florida Sun Sentinel, Police1, among other state and regional outlets.

Subscribe now

Education is one of the easiest budget categories to talk about broadly and one of the easiest to misunderstand.

When people hear Tennessee put money into education, the natural question is, “How much?”

A better first question is, “Which part of education?”

Education is not one line in the state budget. It includes Tennessee’s K-12 funding formula, summer learning, teacher-related costs, school choice, charter school facilities, higher education, campus buildings and other education-related programs.

Those items may all fall under the same general label. They do not all do the same thing.

Tennessee’s fiscal year 2026-27 budget document separates education into several areas, including K-12 education, higher education state-administered programs, the University of Tennessee system, state universities and community colleges, and individual higher education institutions. The table of contents places education in its own section, then breaks it into smaller parts.

That is the first lesson for readers.

The word “education” is too broad to explain what the budget actually funds

Paid subscribers receive early access to every article because their support helps make this work possible. That said, I believe civic knowledge should remain accessible, so this article will unlock for all readers in 24 hours. If you’d like immediate access — and want to support independent, systems-focused journalism — consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Read more

One of the most common sources of frustration in public life is simple:

People expect one office to do what another office actually controls

Governors, sheriffs, courts, legislatures — each has different authority.

But those differences aren’t always widely understood.

So expectations rise… and then reality doesn’t match them.

That gap creates frustration.

Not always because something went wrong, but because the structure wasn’t clear in the first place.

Share

So I ask my students:

Which office do people misunderstand the most?

Get 20% off forever

I finally did it.

The Redemption Project now has a merch shop.

That sentence still feels a little weird to write, because I did not start TRP to sell shirts, hats, mugs or playing cards. I started it to tell redemption stories, explain civic systems, host better conversations, highlight good work and help people think more clearly about public life.

But somewhere along the way, this project became something bigger than a podcast.

It became a community.

It became a classroom.

It became a place for redemption stories, civic literacy, public interviews, Tennessee issues, faith conversations, teacher resources and a whole lot of “can we please slow down and think before we react?”

So yes, we now have merch.

But I wanted it to be more than slapping a logo on a shirt.

The first major collection is the Freedom 250 Collection, built around America’s 250th anniversary in 2026. The designs include vintage Americana, patriotic shirts, America 250 graphics, eagles, fireworks, racing-inspired artwork, Marine Corps history and red-white-and-blue designs that actually look like something I would wear.

Some of the shirts are fun.

Some are civic.

Some are bold.

Some are just plain America.

We also have TRP supporter gear, hats, logo items and more collections coming around faith, civic clarity, media literacy, teacher gear and Tennessee good work.

Every purchase helps support The Redemption Project’s work: redemption stories, civic education, public-interest interviews, classroom explainers, Tennessee reporting and the ongoing effort to build something thoughtful in a very loud world.

No pressure. Truly.

But if you like the work we are doing and want to support it — or if you just want a patriotic shirt that does not look like it was designed in five minutes by a fireworks stand — the shop is live.

You can check it out here:

https://the-redemption-project-shop.fourthwall.com/

And if you order something, send me a picture when it comes in. I want to see which designs people actually like.

Thank you for supporting The Redemption Project.

Clarity over outrage.

Redemption over cynicism.

Good work still matters.

I am a retired detective and criminal justice / government educator based in Tennessee. I am a commentary write for Tennessee Lookout and a weekly columnist with Knox TN Today. My work examines public policy, public safety systems and civic responsibility. My reporting and commentary have also appeared in Governing, The Arizona Capitol Times, South Florida Sun Sentinel, Police1, among other state and regional outlets.

Subscribe now

Jay Martinez doesn’t tell his story to shock people.

He tells it because it’s true—and because for years, no one asked him why before deciding who he was.

Jay grew up in El Paso, Texas, on the American side of the border. He was the oldest sibling in a house where fear arrived every Friday night with the sound of breaking glass and his father’s drinking. When the violence started, Jay did what kids in unstable homes often do: he adapted.

He hid his brothers and sisters in closets. He stood between his father and his mother. He learned early that love sometimes looked like endurance.

By thirteen, Jay wasn’t in school anymore. He was cleaning, cooking, parenting, and stealing groceries so the lights wouldn’t get shut off. When local gang members noticed the police constantly being called to his house, they offered him protection.

Family, they said.
Loyalty.
Safety.

Jay accepted.

What followed wasn’t a dramatic fall—it was a gradual hardening. Theft became routine. Guns became familiar. Violence became currency. He carried weapons before he understood them. He shot at houses. He enforced territory.

Then came the moment that split his life in two.

Subscribe now

During a drive-by, Jay was told to fire—but two little girls stepped into view. He refused. That refusal earned him a beating, scars carved into his body, and a permanent reminder of the choice he made that night.

The violence didn’t stop. It spread.

His mother was nearly killed when rivals fired into their home with a shotgun meant for Jay. That was the moment she begged him to go with her to a Christian pastor—something she’d once mocked.

At fourteen, Jay accepted Christ.

But redemption didn’t come clean or straight.

He went back to the streets. Became a father too young. Drifted deeper into organized crime. Ran drugs across state lines. Manufactured meth. Built connections that eventually tied him to cartel operations. Power followed. Money followed. Sleep disappeared.

Jay didn’t want the life anymore—but he didn’t know how to leave it.

When federal agents finally arrested him, Jay felt something unexpected: peace. He was tired of running

.

Facing a 25-year federal sentence, Jay made a decision that cost him protection and comfort. He refused to cooperate falsely. He refused to lie. He told the truth about his life—violence, racism, abuse, addiction, and childhood trauma he had never spoken aloud.

In prison, Jay changed slowly and deliberately. He read Scripture. Worked out. Spoke to youth groups inside the system. Mediated conflicts not with force, but with humility. Men who once feared him now trusted him.

After twelve years, Jay walked free.

Today, he lives in Tennessee. He’s married. A licensed tattoo artist. A preacher on street corners and in schools. He carries boxes of clothes and food in his car because he never knows when God will tell him to pull over.

Jay doesn’t claim perfection. He claims obedience.

“I’ll fail you,” he says. “But Jesus won’t.”

His story isn’t about gangs or cartels or prison.

It’s about what happens when a man stops running—and finally tells the truth.

Share

I am a retired detective and criminal justice / government educator based in Tennessee. I am a commentary write for Tennessee Lookout and a weekly columnist with Knox TN Today. My work examines public policy, public safety systems and civic responsibility. My reporting and commentary have also appeared in Governing, The Arizona Capitol Times, South Florida Sun Sentinel, Police1, among other state and regional outlets.

Subscribe now

Tennessee’s 2nd Congressional District is part of my ongoing federal candidate comparison project, built around a simple structure: same questions, same format, same opportunity to respond.

The goal is not debate clips or campaign theater.

The goal is direct voter comparison.

For this race, candidates were asked three written questions about federal policy, congressional process and issues that are often discussed locally but shaped heavily by Washington.

At publication time, Tim Burchett’s campaign had been contacted but had not submitted responses. Adam Heimerman could not be reached through a campaign website, campaign email or other publicly available campaign contact information I could verify.

Paid subscribers receive early access to every article because their support helps make this work possible. That said, I believe civic knowledge should remain accessible, so this article will unlock for all readers usually in 24 hours. If you’d like immediate access — and want to support independent, systems-focused journalism — consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Get 15% off forever

Barnett focuses heavily on congressional process, corporate influence, health care, housing and infrastructure.

Fine focuses heavily on constitutional checks and balances, war powers, TVA oversight, energy costs and federal transportation funding.

That contrast matters because congressional campaigns often sound broad on the surface. The more useful question is what candidates think Congress can actually do once campaign language reaches committees, appropriations, oversight hearings and federal agencies.

Question 1:
What federal issue affecting East Tennessee do you believe voters talk about often but usually misunderstand once it reaches Congress?

Barnett’s answer focused less on one isolated policy and more on how Congress itself works.

She argued that voters understand Congress is broken, but may not always see where legislation actually dies. In her framing, many issues with broad public support fail long before a final floor vote. Bills can be delayed, buried or stopped in committee, sometimes by members or chairs influenced by the industries those bills would regulate.

That is a process answer more than a slogan answer.

It also gives voters a clear sense of how Barnett wants to frame the race: not simply Democrat versus Republican, but constituents versus concentrated corporate power. Her refusal to take corporate PAC money fits directly into that argument.

Fine answered from a different direction. He focused on congressional responsibility to check presidential power, especially in relation to war powers and foreign policy.

His answer tied the issue directly to daily household pressure. He argued that elected officials in Washington have failed to hold the president accountable and connected that failure to higher gas prices, fertilizer shortages and grocery costs. Fine also criticized the refusal to allow a House vote on the War Powers Resolution.

That answer is less about congressional procedure inside committees and more about constitutional oversight.

The contrast is useful.

Barnett says voters misunderstand how congressional process and campaign finance can block popular legislation before the public ever sees a final vote.

Fine says voters are watching daily costs rise without recognizing how congressional failure to check executive action can affect those costs.

Both answers are about accountability, but they locate the problem in different places.

Barnett points to corporate influence and committee bottlenecks.

Fine points to constitutional checks and balances, war powers and congressional unwillingness to confront the executive branch.

Question 2:
Congress often campaigns on broad national promises, but members ultimately vote through committees, appropriations and negotiated bills. What is one area where you believe you can realistically produce measurable results over the next term?

Barnett identified health care as the area where she believes measurable results are most realistic.

Her answer began with a broad critique of the health care system, but then moved into specific federal levers. She said she would work to restore Affordable Care Act premium tax credits, lift the cap on medical residencies and increase Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates in rural areas.

That matters because those are not just campaign themes. They point to identifiable federal mechanisms.

ACA premium tax credits affect monthly insurance costs. Residency caps affect physician supply. Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates affect whether providers can afford to serve rural communities. Those federal decisions can shape whether East Tennessee residents experience health care as available, affordable and geographically reachable.

Fine identified energy costs through TVA oversight.

His answer argued that a first-term House member from Tennessee’s 2nd District can use federal authority to pressure TVA because TVA is a federal corporation. He pointed to oversight hearings on residential rate structures, federal appropriations for weatherization programs and energy efficiency block grants for rural counties.

That is a different kind of answer.

Barnett’s answer is centered on health care access and affordability.

Fine’s answer is centered on household energy costs and federal utility oversight.

Both candidates chose issues voters feel directly in monthly bills. But they chose different systems.

Barnett is looking at insurance premiums, physician supply and rural provider reimbursement.

Fine is looking at electric bills, TVA rate structures and federal energy efficiency funding.

That distinction matters because it shows where each candidate believes a member of Congress can realistically apply pressure early.

Barnett’s theory is that Congress can make health care more stable through targeted federal health policy.

Fine’s theory is that Congress can lower household costs by using oversight and appropriations to push TVA and energy-efficiency programs.

Question 3:
What issue in East Tennessee is often treated as local, but in reality cannot improve meaningfully without federal involvement?

Barnett pointed to affordable housing and infrastructure.

Her answer connected rapid growth, rising housing costs, rent pressure, traffic, potholes and utility needs. That framing is important because East Tennessee often discusses those issues locally, but many of the tools that shape them involve federal dollars, federal incentives or federal infrastructure policy.

Barnett specifically pointed to federal incentives that could reduce red tape in already developed urban and suburban areas, while also protecting farmland and natural areas. She also emphasized career and technical education funding to train the construction and energy workforce the region needs.

That places her in a growth-management lane.

She is not simply saying East Tennessee needs more housing. She is arguing that housing, infrastructure, workforce development and land protection are linked. That kind of answer treats growth as something that must be managed across systems rather than left entirely to local reaction.

Fine focused more specifically on traffic congestion along I-40 and I-75 through Knoxville.

His answer argued that the region’s traffic pressure cannot be solved meaningfully without major federal transportation involvement. He pointed to federal highway funding, grants through the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and surface transportation reauthorization as essential tools for maintaining and modernizing major corridors.

Fine also rejected tolls as a solution, arguing that voters should not have to pay tolls on roads their tax dollars already support.

Here again, the contrast is clear.

Barnett frames East Tennessee’s local pressures as a combined housing, infrastructure, workforce and land-use problem.

Fine frames one of the region’s most visible daily frustrations — interstate congestion — as a federal transportation funding problem.

Both answers recognize that East Tennessee’s growth is outpacing existing systems.

Barnett emphasizes affordability and long-term community capacity.

Fine emphasizes transportation corridors, federal highway dollars and the practical experience of residents stuck in traffic every day.

What the answers show so far

The clearest divide in these answers is not simply ideological.

It is institutional.

Barnett repeatedly returns to Congress as a place where corporate influence, committee control and federal policy design shape whether ordinary people see relief. Her answers emphasize health care, housing, infrastructure, workforce training and campaign finance as connected parts of a larger accountability problem.

Fine repeatedly returns to Congress as a body that should exercise stronger constitutional oversight and more direct federal leverage. His answers emphasize war powers, TVA, energy bills and transportation funding as areas where Washington has either failed to act or could act more directly.

In simpler terms:

Barnett talks about Congress as a system that has been captured or slowed by corporate influence.

Fine talks about Congress as a system that has failed to use the authority it already has.

Both candidates identify household costs as central. But they locate those costs in different systems.

Barnett sees health care, housing and infrastructure as the pressure points.

Fine sees war powers, energy costs and transportation funding as the pressure points.

That is the value of asking candidates the same questions.

It does not tell voters who to support.

It shows voters how candidates think.

At publication time, Tim Burchett had not submitted responses. Adam Heimerman could not be reached through a campaign website, campaign email or other verifiable campaign contact information.

Additional responses may be added if received before publication is finalized.

The purpose of this series remains the same across each race: give voters the same questions, the same format and a clearer way to see how candidates think once campaign language meets actual governing systems.

I am a retired detective and criminal justice / government educator based in Tennessee. I am a commentary write for Tennessee Lookout and a weekly columnist with Knox TN Today. My work examines public policy, public safety systems and civic responsibility. My reporting and commentary have also appeared in Governing, The Arizona Capitol Times, South Florida Sun Sentinel, Police1, among other state and regional outlets.

Subscribe now

Polls are useful when they help citizens see public opinion more clearly.

They are dangerous when they become weapons.

That is the central lesson from this series on the new national registered-voter poll from Overton Insights.

Over the past several days, the poll has offered a window into how voters are thinking about gas prices, 2028 presidential politics, teachers’ unions, sports betting, university athletics funding, data centers, artificial intelligence, public figures, primary participation, political violence, the military draft and public trust.

Those are very different issues.

But together, they point toward a larger civic picture.

Voters are economically pressured.

They are skeptical of large institutions.

They are uneasy about new technology.

They are cautious about some public spending choices.

They are divided by party, but not on every issue.

They are already forming early impressions about 2028, but those impressions are not final.

And they are living in a public environment where trust is fragile and information moves faster than understanding.

That is what the poll helps show.

But it does not show everything.

Paid subscribers receive early access to every article because their support helps make this work possible. That said, I believe civic knowledge should remain accessible, so this article will unlock for all readers in 24 hours. If you’d like immediate access — and want to support independent, systems-focused journalism — consider becoming a paid subscriber.

The poll shows pressure in daily life

One of the clearest findings in the poll involved gas prices.

A large share of registered voters said recent gas price changes had affected their regular spending habits. That matters because people often experience politics through daily pressure before they think about policy details.

Voters may not study energy markets.

They may not know every cause behind fuel prices.

They may not separate federal authority, state taxes, oil production, refining capacity, global markets and private-sector decisions.

But they know what it costs to fill the tank.

That is why gas prices become politically powerful.

They are visible.

They are repeated.

They are personal.

The poll also found that gas prices were affecting how many respondents viewed the Republican Party. That does not prove gas prices will decide an election. It does not prove voters understand every cause behind fuel costs.

But it does show that household pressure can become political pressure.

That is a useful civic warning.

The economy is not only measured in charts.

It is measured in whether ordinary people feel they can make it through the week.

The poll shows skepticism toward some public spending choices

The poll also found strong opposition to directing tax dollars to public university athletic departments.

That does not mean voters dislike college sports.

It means many voters appear skeptical when the issue is framed as public money going to athletic departments.

A person can love college football and still question whether tax dollars should support athletics.

A person can support universities and still ask whether money should go to academics, affordability, workforce training, roads, health care or public safety instead.

Budget questions are not only about whether something has value.

They are about priority.

That is one of the broader lessons of the poll: voters may support an institution in general while still questioning a specific use of public money.

That kind of distinction matters in every budget debate.

The poll shows education politics are complicated

Teachers’ unions were another example.

The topline showed more support than opposition for teachers’ unions overall. But the party divide underneath that topline was sharp.

Democrats were strongly supportive.

Republicans were much more opposed.

Independents leaned supportive in this poll.

That tells us the issue cannot be reduced to a single slogan.

For some voters, teachers’ unions may mean protecting teachers, strengthening public education and improving working conditions.

For others, they may mean political power, resistance to reform or distrust of education institutions.

Both perceptions exist in the public conversation.

The poll does not tell us which education policies voters would support in detail. It does not settle questions about vouchers, teacher pay, school funding, accountability, collective bargaining or local control.

But it does show that education remains one of the places where public sympathy and institutional distrust collide.

Share

The poll shows cross-party skepticism exists

Sports betting was one of the clearest examples of overlap across party lines.

Republicans, Democrats and independents all showed more opposition than support for legalized sports betting in their state.

That does not mean they oppose it for the same reasons.

A conservative voter may focus on faith, family stability or moral concern.

A liberal voter may focus on addiction, corporate exploitation or consumer harm.

An independent voter may simply dislike how deeply gambling has been woven into sports culture.

Same answer.

Different reasoning.

That is one of the most useful civic lessons in the entire series.

Party labels matter.

They do not explain everything.

Sometimes voters from different political backgrounds arrive at similar positions through different values, experiences or concerns.

That is why identical questions matter. They help reveal where the public actually overlaps and where the reasoning may differ.

The poll shows local backlash can scramble politics

Data centers may be one of the most important future-facing findings in the poll.

A large majority of respondents opposed a new data center being built in their community.

That kind of issue does not always follow normal partisan lines.

A data center can raise concerns about land use, electricity demand, water use, tax incentives, noise, infrastructure, local control, environmental impact, corporate power and whether communities are being asked to carry costs for benefits that flow elsewhere.

That is why the issue matters.

Technology may feel abstract until the physical infrastructure arrives nearby.

Then the question changes.

It is no longer just about innovation.

It is about land, utilities, public process and trust.

A data center is not just a tech facility.

It is a local trust test.

That kind of politics may become more common as artificial intelligence, energy demand and economic development projects place more pressure on local communities.

The poll shows AI unease is real

The AI and automation numbers were also important.

Voters were more likely to view AI and automation as a net negative than a net positive, while many said the positives and negatives are roughly equal.

That is not the same as saying voters reject all technology.

People may use AI tools and still distrust what AI means for jobs, schools, privacy, authenticity, misinformation, surveillance or human judgment.

The public may not be asking for a ban.

It may be asking for boundaries.

That is a serious governance question.

Who regulates AI?

Who is accountable when automated systems cause harm?

How should schools handle AI use?

How should employers disclose it?

How should political deepfakes be handled?

How should government agencies use or limit algorithmic tools?

The poll does not answer those questions.

But it shows that public confidence is not automatic.

Technology should not be above public questions simply because it is new.

Share

The poll shows 2028 is visible, but not settled

The 2028 presidential numbers drew attention, as early presidential numbers always do.

On the Republican side, JD Vance led the full field, while Marco Rubio led Vance in a head-to-head matchup.

On the Democratic side, the field looked more scattered, with several candidates clustered and no dominant front-runner in the full-field question. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez led Gavin Newsom in a head-to-head test, while Newsom led Vance in a hypothetical national general-election matchup.

Those numbers are interesting.

They are not destiny.

A poll in May 2026 cannot tell us who will run, who will drop out, who will raise money, who will win debates, what the economy will look like, what crises will emerge or what voters will care about in 2028.

Early polling can show party mood, name recognition, faction strength and uncertainty.

It cannot freeze the future.

That is why readers should treat early presidential polling as a temperature check, not a prophecy.

The poll shows favorability is more than popularity

The favorability numbers for public figures also offered a useful lesson.

Favorability is not just about whether people like someone.

It is about familiarity, polarization, media exposure, party identity and what a public figure represents in the minds of voters.

Some figures were well known and deeply polarizing.

Some were unknown to large shares of voters.

Some had similar topline numbers but very different party breakdowns underneath.

That is why favorability polling should be read carefully.

A person can be underwater overall and still strong with one audience.

A person can be unknown nationally and still influential online.

A person can become a symbol before most people fully understand their record or views.

The poll does not tell us whether any public figure is right or wrong.

It tells us how voters perceived them at a moment in time.

That is useful.

It is limited.

The poll shows trust is fragile

The political violence question may have been the most concerning from a civic trust standpoint.

Respondents were divided over whether recent attempts on President Donald Trump’s life were genuine or staged, and the answers split sharply by party.

That finding is not only about Trump.

It is about public trust.

When citizens interpret political violence through partisan identity, media exposure and institutional suspicion, the country has a deeper problem than disagreement.

Democracy can survive fierce debate.

It struggles when citizens no longer share enough trust to evaluate reality together.

That does not mean people should blindly accept every official statement.

Skepticism has a place.

But disciplined skepticism is different from reflexive disbelief.

Disciplined skepticism asks for evidence.

Reflexive disbelief starts with the assumption that any unwanted fact must be fake, staged or manipulated.

When every fact becomes tribal property, self-government weakens.

The poll shows the draft remains politically heavy

The military draft question showed broad opposition to compulsory military service under the scenario presented.

That does not mean Americans oppose the military.

It means support for national defense does not automatically translate into support for forced military service.

A draft is one of the strongest claims government can make on a citizen’s life.

It raises questions about war powers, fairness, citizenship, national obligation, family sacrifice and trust in political leaders.

Even among Republicans, the poll showed division rather than overwhelming support.

That finding matters because it reminds us that public support for government power has limits.

Citizens may support strength.

They may still resist compulsion.

Support for the military is one thing.

Trusting political leaders with compulsory service is another.

The poll shows primaries deserve more attention

The poll’s primary participation question offered another reminder: primary voters are not always the same as general election voters.

That matters because primaries often shape the choices everyone else receives later.

In some states, districts or counties, the primary may effectively decide the election.

In others, it may narrow the field or push candidates toward certain messages before the general election begins.

Primary electorates can differ by gender, age, religious participation, ideology and motivation.

That means candidates may campaign differently in primaries than in general elections.

It also means voters who wait until November may sometimes be entering the process after the most important decision has already been made.

That is especially relevant in places where one party dominates local or state politics.

In many places, the primary is where public power is first filtered.

What the poll does not show

For all its usefulness, the poll has limits.

It does not predict 2028.

It does not explain every voter’s reasoning.

It does not prove what Tennessee voters specifically think on every issue.

It does not turn small crosstabs into stand-alone polls.

It does not replace election results.

It does not tell us whether public opinion will stay the same.

It does not show how people would answer if questions were worded differently.

It does not tell us how views might change after campaigns, events, legislation, lawsuits or economic shifts.

It is a snapshot.

A useful snapshot.

But still a snapshot.

That is why the methodology matters.

The poll surveyed registered voters across the United States. It was conducted online after peer-to-peer text invitations, used a voter-file sample and reported weighted results. Like all survey research, it is subject to possible nonresponse bias, coverage limitations, measurement error, weighting effects and question-wording or order effects.

That does not make the poll invalid.

It makes it a poll.

Every public-opinion tool has strengths and limits.

The responsible reader holds both in mind.

The better way to use polls

The worst way to use a poll is as a weapon.

My side is right.

Your side is finished.

This proves everything.

Anyone who disagrees is ignoring the data.

That kind of poll reading makes public conversation worse.

The better way is to use polls as tools.

What does this result suggest?

What question was asked?

Who was surveyed?

When was it conducted?

What does the topline show?

What do the crosstabs suggest?

Are the subgroup numbers strong enough to lean on?

What does the poll not measure?

What other data would help?

What should citizens watch next?

Those questions make polling more useful and less theatrical.

They also help readers avoid being manipulated by campaigns, commentators or social media accounts that cherry-pick numbers to fit a story they already wanted to tell.

The larger civic lesson

The Overton poll is useful because it shows a public that is not as simple as the loudest voices suggest.

Voters are polarized, but not on everything.

They are skeptical, but not always for the same reasons.

They are anxious about the future, but not all in the same way.

They are economically pressured, but not always clear on who or what they blame.

They are exposed to information constantly, but not always given time to understand it.

That is the world citizens are trying to navigate.

Polling cannot solve that problem.

But good polling can help us see it more clearly.

The goal is not to bow down to every number.

The goal is not to dismiss every number either.

The goal is to become the kind of reader who can hold two thoughts at once:

This data is useful.

This data has limits.

That is the posture a healthy civic culture needs.

Less certainty.

More discipline.

Less spin.

More evidence.

Less weaponizing.

More understanding.

Subscribe now

The takeaway

The Overton poll does not tell citizens what to think.

It gives them a set of public signals to examine.

Gas prices show household pressure.

Sports betting and university athletics funding show skepticism about money, risk and public priorities.

Data centers and AI show concern about technology, infrastructure and trust.

Teachers’ unions show how public sympathy and institutional distrust can collide.

Favorability numbers show how media ecosystems turn people into symbols.

Primary participation shows how elections can be shaped before November.

Political violence and the draft show how deeply trust matters when government power or public safety is on the line.

None of that is the whole story.

But it is part of the story.

And for citizens, that is where the work begins.

Not with a poll number that proves your side right.

Not with a headline that gives you permission to stop thinking.

But with the harder civic habit of asking what the evidence shows, what it does not show and what questions still need to be asked.

That is how polls become useful.

Not as weapons.

As tools for understanding the country we are actually living in.

Source basis: Overton Insights national poll toplines, Overton Insights crosstabs and The Redemption Project polling series.

I am a retired detective and criminal justice / government educator based in Tennessee. I am a commentary write for Tennessee Lookout and a weekly columnist with Knox TN Today. My work examines public policy, public safety systems and civic responsibility. My reporting and commentary have also appeared in Governing, The Arizona Capitol Times, South Florida Sun Sentinel, Police1, among other state and regional outlets.

Subscribe now

A state budget can look like one large number.

That is usually how people hear about it. Tennessee passed a budget worth a certain number of billions. Education received this much. Roads received that much. Health care received another amount.

But that is not really how a budget works.

Tennessee’s budget is not one pile of money sitting in Nashville waiting to be divided up. It is a legal spending plan built from different funding sources, categories, timelines and restrictions.

Some money is controlled by the state. Some comes from the federal government. Some is recurring. Some is one-time. Some pays for daily operations. Some pays for construction. Some is transferred into reserves. Some is tied to specific programs.

That is why the headline number is never enough.

The budget bill for this cycle is SB 2690/HB 2631. According to the Tennessee General Assembly’s bill page, the appropriations act covers expenses for state government for the fiscal years beginning July 1, 2025, and July 1, 2026. It includes state operations, aid, obligations, capital outlay, debt service, emergency and contingency spending, and restrictions on how appropriations may be obligated and spent.

That description is broad because the budget itself is broad.

It covers more than the programs people usually argue about. It funds the basic operation of state government. It supports departments, agencies and public institutions. It pays certain state obligations. It provides money for buildings, repairs and infrastructure. It authorizes debt service. It includes contingency authority. It also places legal boundaries around how public money can be used.

So when someone says, “The budget spends money on education,” that may be true, but it is not specific enough.

Does that mean the school funding formula? Teacher pay? Summer learning? School choice? Charter facilities? Higher education? College buildings? Capital maintenance?

Those are all education-related. They are not the same thing.

Paid subscribers receive early access to every article because their support helps make this work possible. That said, I believe civic knowledge should remain accessible, so this article will unlock for all readers in 24 hours. If you’d like immediate access — and want to support independent, systems-focused journalism — consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Read more

A Tennessee homeowner opens a property tax bill and sees a charge from the county, the city or both.

What that homeowner does not see is a statewide Tennessee property tax.

That has been true for decades. Tennessee’s proposed amendment language says the state imposed a property tax until 1949, when the Legislature repealed it. But the absence of a current state property tax is not the same thing as a constitutional ban.

That distinction is why Tennessee voters are expected to see a proposed constitutional amendment on the November 2026 ballot that would prohibit the state from taxing property. The proposal would amend Article II, Section 28 of the Tennessee Constitution, the section that governs property taxation in the state.

Before voters decide whether they support or oppose the amendment, the first question is simple:

What would actually change?

At its core, the amendment is not about eliminating property taxes in Tennessee.

It is about

preventing state government from imposing a state-level property tax in the future.

What Tennessee’s Constitution currently says

Article II, Section 28 of the Tennessee Constitution begins by stating that “all property real, personal or mixed shall be subject to taxation,” while allowing the Legislature to create certain exemptions. The same section classifies property for taxation purposes, including real property, tangible personal property and intangible personal property.

In plain English, Article II, Section 28 is the constitutional foundation for Tennessee’s property tax system.

The University of Tennessee County Technical Assistance Service says Tennessee’s Constitution requires taxation according to value, while the General Assembly determines the method for establishing value to ensure uniform and equal taxation.

That matters because property taxes in Tennessee are currently local taxes. Counties and municipalities use them to fund local services, including schools, public safety, infrastructure and other government operations.

The proposed amendment does not remove that local taxing authority.

Subscribe now

What the amendment would change

The proposed amendment would add language to the first sentence of Article II, Section 28.

The current language says:

“In accordance with the following provisions, all property real, personal or mixed shall be subject to taxation, but the Legislature …”

The proposed amendment would change that opening language to say:

“In accordance with the following provisions, all property real, personal, or mixed shall be subject to taxation, but the Legislature shall not levy, authorize, or otherwise permit any state tax upon such property, and the Legislature …”

That is the core change.

In plain English, the amendment would constitutionally block the state from creating a statewide property tax.

It would not prohibit counties or cities from levying local property taxes.

It would not freeze property assessments.

It would not cap local property tax increases.

It would not reduce an existing county or municipal property tax bill.

That distinction is likely where voter confusion will happen.

A voter may hear “property tax amendment” and assume the proposal affects the property tax bill they already receive. Structurally, this amendment is aimed at a different question: whether Tennessee should permanently prohibit a state-level property tax.

Share

Why the 1949 history matters

The resolution states that Tennessee imposed a state property tax until 1949 and that the Legislature repealed the state property tax that year.

That history helps explain the purpose of the amendment.

Supporters are not responding to an existing state property tax. There is no current statewide property tax being collected in Tennessee.

Instead, the amendment is designed to prevent a future General Assembly from creating one.

That makes this less about immediate tax relief and more about long-term constitutional restraint.

The practical question for voters is not, “Will this lower my property tax bill next year?”

The more accurate question is, “Should Tennessee permanently remove state government’s ability to impose a property tax in the future?”

Leave a comment

What would stay the same

If the amendment passes, local property taxes would still exist.

Counties and municipalities would still levy property taxes under Tennessee’s existing local tax structure. The current property tax system would still involve appraisals, assessment ratios, local rates and local government decisions. The Tennessee Comptroller explains that property taxes are calculated using appraised value, assessment ratio, assessed value and the tax rate.

Existing tax relief and freeze programs would also remain separate issues. For example, Tennessee voters approved a 2006 constitutional amendment allowing the General Assembly to authorize local option property tax freeze programs for certain taxpayers 65 and older.

That is important because voters may mix several property tax debates together.

There is a difference between banning a state property tax, limiting local property tax increases, freezing taxes for eligible seniors, changing assessment rules or expanding tax relief.

This amendment addresses only the first issue.

Subscribe now

Why people may view the amendment differently

Supporters are likely to view the amendment as a taxpayer protection measure.

From that perspective, Tennessee has operated without a state property tax for decades, and the amendment would make sure that remains true. It would create a constitutional firewall preventing future lawmakers from adding a state property tax on top of existing local taxes.

Critics or cautious voters may look at the issue differently.

They may ask whether a state should permanently remove a future revenue option from its constitution, especially during a long-term emergency, fiscal crisis or major shift in state needs.

That does not mean voters must support a state property tax. It means the amendment raises a broader governing question about flexibility.

Constitutional amendments do not simply express a preference. They bind future governments.

That is why the issue should be considered carefully, even if the current political instinct is easy.

Why constitutional amendments matter differently

A normal law can be passed, amended or repealed by the Legislature.

A constitutional amendment is different.

In Tennessee, a proposed amendment must pass one General Assembly by majority vote, then pass the next General Assembly by a two-thirds vote. It must then go to voters at the next general election in which a governor is chosen.

Senate Joint Resolution 1 states that House Joint Resolution 81 passed the 113th General Assembly by the required majority and that SJR 1 passed the 114th General Assembly by the required two-thirds vote before being submitted for the November 2026 general election.

That process matters because constitutional amendments are meant to make durable structural changes, not temporary policy adjustments.

This amendment would not change the property tax bill most Tennesseans currently receive from their local government.

It would change what future state governments are constitutionally allowed to do.

At its core, the amendment asks Tennessee voters a narrow but important question:

Should the Tennessee Constitution permanently prohibit the state from imposing a property tax?

That is different from asking whether local property taxes are too high, whether assessments are fair or whether homeowners need more tax relief.

Those are real debates, but they are not the direct question this amendment places before voters.

The direct question is whether Tennessee should turn its long-standing practice of not levying a state property tax into a permanent constitutional rule.

Leave a comment

I am a retired detective and criminal justice / government educator based in Tennessee. I am a commentary write for Tennessee Lookout and a weekly columnist with Knox TN Today. My work examines public policy, public safety systems and civic responsibility. My reporting and commentary have also appeared in Governing, The Arizona Capitol Times, South Florida Sun Sentinel, Police1, among other state and regional outlets.

Subscribe now

References

Tennessee Constitution, article II, section 28.

Tennessee Constitution, article XI, section 3.

Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury. (n.d.). How to figure your tax bill.

Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury. (n.d.). Property Tax Freeze.

Tennessee General Assembly. (2025). Senate Joint Resolution 1, 114th General Assembly.

University of Tennessee County Technical Assistance Service. (n.d.). Property taxes.

Favorability numbers look simple.

Favorable.

Unfavorable.

Never heard of them.

Heard of them, but no opinion.

Four boxes. One table. Easy headline.

But public opinion is rarely that clean.

A new national registered-voter poll from Overton Insights asked voters about several public figures, including Candace Owens, Spencer Pratt, Erika Kirk, Ben Shapiro, Hasan Piker, Graham Platner and James Fishback.

The results are useful.

They are also a reminder that favorability numbers can hide as much as they reveal.

A public figure can be well-known and disliked.

Another can be unknown to most voters.

Another can be popular with one group and deeply unpopular with another.

Another can look similar in the topline while having a completely different coalition underneath.

Favorability is not a scoreboard.

It is a map of familiarity, emotion and political identity

Paid subscribers receive early access to every article because their support helps make this work possible. That said, I believe civic knowledge should remain accessible, so this article will unlock for all readers in 24 hours. If you’d like immediate access — and want to support independent, systems-focused journalism — consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Favorability is not the same as popularity

Read more

Read more

Artificial intelligence is often discussed as if the future has already arrived.

New tools.

New efficiencies.

New platforms.

New ways to write, search, automate, summarize, create, teach, diagnose, monitor, edit and decide.

But public opinion does not appear fully sold on the idea that AI and automation are makin…

Read more

Read more

Most political coverage treats candidates like celebrities, brands or team captains.

This series treats them more like applicants.

Public office is not a crown. It is a temporary contract position with the people. Voters are not simply choosing a side. They are deciding who should be hired for a specific job, with specific powers, responsibilities and limits.

The first congressional comparison project in this series focuses on Tennessee’s 1st Congressional District, where applicants were asked to answer the same three questions under the same response conditions and formatting standards.

The goal is not debate clips or campaign slogans.

The goal is direct voter comparison.

Each applicant was asked to provide written responses capped at 200 words per answer so voters could evaluate how each campaign approaches federal policy, committee-level governing realities and issues specific to East Tennessee.

At publication time, responses had been received from Kristi Burke and Herman Garcia.

Additional responses may still be added from other campaigns before final publication updates.

Paid subscribers receive early access to every article because their support helps make this work possible. That said, I believe civic knowledge should remain accessible, so this article will unlock for all readers usually in 24 hours. If you’d like immediate access — and want to support independent, systems-focused journalism — consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Question 1:
What is one federal policy affecting Tennessee right now that you believe voters in this district are not paying enough attention to, but should be?

The first answers immediately showed two very different approaches to federal responsibility.

Read more

Primary elections are easy to misunderstand.

Many voters think of them as warmups.

They are not.

In many races, especially in states, districts or counties where one party dominates, the primary may be the most important election. Sometimes it effectively decides who will hold office before the general election ever arrives.

That is why primary participation matters.

A new national registered-voter poll from Overton Insights asked respondents which party primary they planned to vote in. Overall, 39% said they planned to vote in the Republican primary. Forty-eight percent said they planned to vote in the Democratic primary. Thirteen percent said they did not plan to vote in either primary.

That does not predict who will vote in any specific state.

It does not tell us exactly what Tennessee primary turnout will look like.

But it does remind us of a basic civic truth: the people who vote in primaries are not always the same as the people who vote in general elections.

And that difference shapes politics

Primaries are not just party paperwork

A primary election helps decide which candidate a political party will send to the general election.

That sounds simple.

The practical effect can be enormous.

If a district heavily favors one party, then winning that party’s primary may be more important than winning the general election. The general election may still happen, but the real competition may have already occurred months earlier.

That means a smaller group of voters can shape the choices available to everyone else later.

This is not a conspiracy.

It is the structure.

Low-turnout primaries can give highly motivated voters an outsized role in choosing nominees, setting policy direction and deciding which candidates are viable.

Citizens should not ignore primaries just because the ballot looks preliminary.

In many places, the primary is where public power is first filtered.

The gender split was sharp

The Overton poll found a noticeable gender split in planned primary participation.

It does not prove how they will vote in a general election.

It does not mean men or women are politically uniform.

But it does show that primary electorates may differ sharply by gender, at least in this national sample.

Campaigns do not only ask who supports them.

They ask who is likely to show up in the election that actually matters for their nomination.

If the primary electorate is different from the general electorate, candidates may speak differently, prioritize different issues or use different messages during the primary season.

That can affect the entire race.

Paid subscribers receive early access to every article because their support helps make this work possible. That said, I believe civic knowledge should remain accessible, so this article will unlock for all readers in 24 hours. If you’d like immediate access — and want to support independent, systems-focused journalism — consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Age also changes the picture

The poll also showed differences by age.

Read more