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?

Read more

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

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.

This is not a scientific poll.

That needs to be said clearly at the beginning, because public trust matters more than a flashy headline.

What follows is a survey of willing participants who responded to questions about Tennessee’s 2026 governor’s race, candidate preferences, issue priorities and candidate resi…

Read more

Many Tennessee voters may not realize they are skipping the election that actually decides their local government.

Not the general election.

The primary.

That reality quietly surfaced again and again while reviewing election data from more than 50 Tennessee counties representing more than 2 million registered voters and more than 360,000 ballots cast.

In county after county, the local primary did not appear to function as a preliminary round before the “real” election.

It appeared to function as the real election itself.

That changes how Tennessee’s turnout numbers should be understood.

Because in many counties, voters are not choosing between two fully competitive parties in November. They are choosing between factions, personalities and local power structures months earlier inside a dominant-party primary. Once that primary ends, the outcome for many offices is effectively settled.

And many voters may not fully understand how much power is being decided in those races.

Sheriffs.

School boards.

County commissions.

Trustees.

County clerks.

Registers of deeds.

Road supervisors.

County mayors.

These offices rarely dominate national headlines. But they shape taxes, schools, budgets, infrastructure, public safety, jail operations, zoning, local records and daily governance across Tennessee.

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

Get 15% off forever

Read more

Urban Tennessee does not vote one way.

It does not disengage one way.

It does not organize power one way.

That may be one of the most important lessons emerging from Tennessee’s county election data.

When people talk about voting patterns, they often reach for easy categories: urban and rural, red and blue, high turnout and low turnout. Those categories may help start a conversation, but they do not explain what is actually happening inside Tennessee’s largest counties.

Shelby, Davidson, Hamilton and Knox counties all represent major urban or urban-centered civic ecosystems. But the election data suggests they are not simply larger versions of the same political structure.

They are different civic worlds.

Shelby County reported 577,527 registered voters, 89,893 ballots cast and 16% turnout. Based on countywide proxy races, Democratic primary participation appeared to dominate, with roughly 74,454 Democratic votes compared with about 13,722 Republican votes.

That is not just turnout.

That is a civic structure.

Get 20% off forever

Read more

In county after county across Tennessee, the warning signs were hiding in plain sight.

“No Candidate Qualified.”

Write-in only.

Uncontested.

At first, those phrases can feel administrative. Technical. Easy to skim past while looking at election results.

But after reviewing election data from more than 50 Tennessee counties representing more than 2 million registered voters and more than 360,000 ballots cast, those phrases began revealing something larger and far more serious.

Some Tennessee communities do not simply appear to have a turnout problem.

They may have a candidate pipeline crisis.

That distinction matters because democracy weakens long before Election Day if fewer people are willing to step forward and run.

The warning signs appeared repeatedly.

Carroll County showed broad stretches of offices with “No Candidate Qualified” across county commission, school board, trustee, road supervisor and clerk races. Bradley County showed a highly active Republican primary alongside a Democratic ballot that was structurally thin across multiple offices. Campbell County displayed similar patterns. Gibson County revealed extensive write-in and uncontested conditions despite meaningful participation in a sheriff’s race.

The party structure changed county to county.

The pattern did not.

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.

Read more

The 2028 presidential election is still far away.

That has not stopped people from trying to read the early signs.

A new national registered-voter poll from Overton Insights gives one of those early looks. It asked voters about possible 2028 Republican and Democratic presidential primary fields, head-to-head primary matchups and a possible general election matchup between Republican JD Vance and Democrat Gavin Newsom.

The numbers are interesting.

They are also easy to overread.

That is the first thing to remember.

An early presidential poll does not tell us who will win a nomination two years from now. It does not know which candidates will run, which candidates will drop out, what the economy will look like, what world events will intervene, what endorsements will matter or what voters will care about when the campaign actually arrives.

But an early poll can still be useful.

It can show party mood.

It can show name recognition.

It can show which factions may already be forming.

It can show where uncertainty remains.

It can show whether voters are thinking about the next election through loyalty, ideology, electability, personality or simple familiarity.

That is how this poll should be read.

Not as a prediction.

As an early temperature check

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

The Republican field: Vance leads the full field, Rubio leads head-to-head

Read more

Read more

Tennessee is often described as a state that does not vote.

The numbers can support that argument. Turnout in many local elections is low. In some counties, it is astonishingly low. But after reviewing election data from more than 50 Tennessee counties, representing more than 2 million registered voters and more than 360,000 ballots cast, the simpler explanation starts to break down.

The numbers do not lie. But they may be hiding several deeper truths.

This project began with a straightforward question: How many people voted in Tennessee’s county primary elections, and how did that compare with prior cycles? The answers quickly revealed something larger. County by county, the data showed that turnout is not shaped by one factor. It is shaped by ballot competition, civic identity, candidate recruitment, local trust, race visibility and whether voters believe participation can meaningfully affect the outcome.

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

Read more

Last night, The Redemption Project hosted a live Tennessee gubernatorial roundtable.

The goal was simple: give voters a fair, structured conversation where candidates answere…

Read more

Read more

What three Tennessee counties reveal about how differently local democracy can function inside the same state

One of the most interesting patterns emerging from Tennessee’s May primary election data is that counties with relatively similar turnout percentages can operate politically in completely different ways.

That reality becomes clearer when comparing Bedford, Williamson and Decatur counties.

At first glance, the numbers may not appear dramatically different.

Share

Bedford County reported turnout around 13 percent. Williamson County reported turnout near 14 percent. Decatur County reported turnout around 10 percent and indicated turnout decreased compared to the previous comparable election cycle.

But structurally, those elections looked nothing alike.

That distinction matters because turnout percentages alone rarely explain how engaged voters actually are. The more useful civic question is often whether voters believed the races on their ballot were competitive enough for participation to matter.

Bedford County illustrated one version of Tennessee’s local political environment.

The county reported roughly 4,031 ballots cast out of approximately 31,035 registered voters. But looking deeper into the ballot structure revealed something important: many races lacked meaningful competition altogether.

Across multiple offices, no candidate qualified. Some races existed largely through write-in campaigns. Many Democratic contests lacked candidates entirely. Several Republican races were effectively uncontested as well.

The Republican county mayor primary generated more than 3,200 votes while the Democratic county mayor race consisted entirely of write-in participation.

The practical result is an election environment where many voters may reasonably conclude outcomes are largely predetermined before Election Day begins.

Williamson County represented a very different model.

The county reported approximately 26,325 ballots cast out of roughly 188,856 registered voters, producing turnout near 14 percent. County officials also noted turnout was approximately 3 percent higher than the previous comparable May primary cycles.

Unlike Bedford County, Williamson featured numerous contested county commission

Read more

At first glance, rural development appears to fall below the top tier of issues in this dataset.

In the initial breakdown, nearly 30% of respondents rated it as “Moderately Important.”

Compared to other issues—where “Critical” and “Very Important” responses dominate—that number suggests a lower level of urgency.

But that interpretation only holds if the rest of the data is ignored.

In the full dataset, drawn from 2,807 respondents across all 95 Tennessee counties, the distribution tells a more complete story:

• 816 respondents rated rural development as “Moderately Important.”

Read more

As additional responses are analyzed, a pattern has begun to take shape across multiple policy areas.

Education policy and funding drew 43% of respondents rating it as “Critical.”
Healthcare access and affordability followed closely at nearly 44% “Critical.”
Jobs and the state economy registered 47% as “Very Important.”
Infrastructure and transportation came in at nearly 39% “Very Important.”

Those figures suggest attention distributed across several areas of governance.

Gun policy presents a different pattern.

Read more

Read more

Get more from The Redemption Project in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

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

As responses continue to come in, several issues are beginning to separate from the rest.

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.

Read more

Read more