The incident began inside Neyland Stadium when a mother and her two daughters became “upset because a man was sitting in their section (Section B) with a mask on,” according to McReynolds’ report. “The girls were upset because they had been told they not could wear masks into the stadium and the mask was such that it was bothering them.”

McReynolds and a Knox County Sheriff’s Office deputy found the masked man and asked him to step into the portal.

“I told him masks were not allowed in the stadium and told him he would have to take it off,” McReynolds wrote. “He asked why and I again told him that masks were not allowed and he could either give the mask to me or take it off and put it away. Before I could finish my sentence he took off the mask and asked if he could keep it. I told him ‘yes’ and thanked him for complying.”

The officer noted that Campfield then re-entered the stadium area but went a different direction than his original seat.

“Curious about this odd behavior and concerned that he had misunderstood our interaction, I caught up with him in front of the concession stand in Section D,” McReynolds wrote. “I … began to tell him that I was not asking him to leave the section, just to take off his mask. Again … he interrupted and said, ‘I was just taking a walk. Is it illegal to walk around?’ I told him ‘no,’ and was surprised by his sudden confrontational attitude. … He again asked if walking around was illegal. I told him ‘no’ and again began to explain that he did not have to leave his seat, just take off the mask. He continued to ask if walking around was illegal. … Thinking that something was not right (he kept saying the same phrase over and over, would not make eye contact and kept shifting on his feet, left to right) I asked to see his ticket.”

Apparently, the rules for safety and security in this post-9/11 world that apply to the rest of us don’t apply to would-be Tennessee State Senator, Stacey Campfield.

UPDATE: More from Christian Grantham

HT: A Kleinheider Joint
FT: Devin Brady

The amendment, introduced by Senator Al Franken, would deny taxpayer dollars in the form of defense contracts to any company that asks employees to sign away their right to sue.

Their explanation? “We voted against the amendment because it was overly broad, banning arbitration in too many cases where it would benefit employees.”

Gasp! Too much benefit for employees? We can’t have that now, can we.

But this isn’t the first time we’ve seen this kind of elitism from the two gentlemen from Tennessee. They also voted for an amendment “that prohibits funds…from being used to directly or indirectly fund the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)” - an organization that fights for living and minimum wage legislation and increases, registers low- and moderate-income and minority citizens to vote, and counsels first-time home buyers.

For Senators Alexander and Corker, it’s this: “Large, national-treasury raiding and war profiteering defense contractors? Good! Working people trying to maintain a tenuous hold on the American Dream? Bad.

One question remains...

Eloquently worded below by Goldni is the question for Congressman Jim Cooper that’s on everyone’s lips. So, when you call to thank him today for his “yes” vote on the health insurance reform bill (Nashville Office: 736-5295 DC Office: 202-225-4311), you also might want to ask him,”Why yes on the Stupak Amendment?”

Congressman, I know you’re very smart and have an excellent command of legislative history. I know that you know about the Hyde Amendment of 1976, which forbids federal funding of abortion, and which is the established law in this country. I know you know that there was already a provision in the bill specifically stating that nothing in the bill could be construed as mandating or allowing for federal funding for abortion. I know you know that the Stupak amendment was unnecessary, and that even if you wanted it passed so that a few more people would vote for the final bill, your vote was not needed to make that happen. I know that you know that the whole thing would ultimately be unenforceable and would almost certainly get tangled up in legal challenges. And I know you’re generally not a fan of telling insurance companies what they can or cannot offer.

So why vote to tell them they can’t offer this one thing, especially when 85% of them offer it now with no issues and when it wouldn’t cost the government any money to allow them to continue to do so?

It’s not because you have some great love for fetuses. Your record is mostly pro-choice, but you have never demonstrated that you even particularly care about it all that much as an issue. The budgetary issues are much more salient with you, obviously. But it’s for that reason that I know that your vote for the final bill was not contingent upon this amendment passing. It wouldn’t have mattered to you one way or the other.

Are you trying to build up some “pro-life”* (a ridiculous term, I don’t know of anyone who is anti-life) credentials for your re-election bid next year in the Fifth District? That might work in Lincoln Davis’ district. I personally think that Lincoln Davis is a great representative for his district. But that’s not you anymore, and you need to remember that.

Is there a budget issue in here that I’m missing? This does not amount to taxpayer money going to fund abortion, it would still be private insurance companies offering coverage at their expense, and private individuals purchasing insurance through the exchange would still be using their own money. However, at this time I’d like to renew my objection to the provision in the Senate bill that DOES allow for federal funding for Christian Science prayer treatments.

So, why?

And, might I add, the Stupak Amendment will do absolutely nothing to reduce the number of abortions in the United States. It will, however, take away a potential life-saving treatment for more than half the population of the country. If legislators truly wanted to curtail the number of abortions in the US, they would work on curtailing the number of unintended pregnancies by increasing federal funding for comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education in the classroom and through public and private health agencies.

*We’re all pro-life.

UPDATE from the comments: Ruth Marcus writing in the Washington Post:

Going into Saturday’s debate on the House health-care bill, the measure included provisions designed to maintain the status quo against federal funding for most abortions. It took steps to ensure that federal subsidies to purchase insurance wouldn’t be used to pay for abortion coverage. It required that every exchange include one plan that did not cover abortions, so that no one would be forced to subscribe to a plan that violated anti-abortion beliefs. That wasn’t enough for the anti-abortion crowd, including the Catholic bishops. So House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was backed into a corner, facing the loss of anti-abortion Democrats unless she acceded to an amendment offered by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) that effectively prevents insurance companies participating in the new insurance exchanges from covering abortions. It passed, 240 to 197, with 64 Democrats voting in favor.

Under the Stupak amendment, no plan that accepts people eligible for federal subsidies is permitted to cover abortions. It’s hard to imagine a plan participating in the exchange that refuses to accept people with subsidies, since the vast majority of people in the exchanges will receive subsidies. Therefore, no abortion coverage in the exchange — except to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest. If you are a woman whose health is endangered by a pregnancy, you’ll have to pay for an abortion out of pocket. Same if you are carrying a fetus with severe birth defects.

Stupak supporters argue that women will still be able to obtain abortion coverage by purchasing a separate rider to the policies. As if people plan ahead to have abortions. As if insurance companies will go to the trouble — and risk the controversy — of providing such riders.

According to Cooper’s office, and confirmed by Marcus’s analysis, it was either the Stupak amendment or no passage of the bill. Cooper’s choice is understandable. What’s sad - and what I most hate about this game - is that he was forced to make it.

Does your health insurance cover exploding craniums due to maddening and unexplained selfishness?

So we’ve been talking a lot about how the Republicans leading the charge against health security for all Americans already have health care coverage. Good health care coverage. It’s the classic, “I got mine, screw you guys” scenario.

But this weekend we learned, when several of the tea party protesters were treated during an event in D.C., that while some of us are languishing in a system designed to screw us out of everything we’ve ever worked for, members of Congress not only have solid health care coverage - they also have a backup. A BACKUP!

Yep. Members of Congress have affordable health care coverage. Twice.

From Joe Powell:

As a few thousand folks lined up to hear the Republican congressmen (most of whom were absent from actual committee votes on public policy) last week, some of those anti-healthcare bill protesters needed some emergency medical help from - gasp!! - government operated medicine providers.

One person suffered a heart attack and several others also needed medical care — all of it provided by government medical personnel. Other protesters denouncing government-run healthcare likewise benefited from a service they despise, though none refused medical assistance from the Office of Attending Physicians [OAP] who are always on hand to treat elected officials.

And how does the OAP work?

Members of Congress do not pay for the individual services they receive at the OAP, nor do they submit claims through their federal employee health insurance policies. Instead, members pay a flat, annual fee of $503 for all the care they receive. The rest of the cost of their care, sources said, is subsidized by taxpayers.

Last year, Congress appropriated more than $3 million to reimburse the Navy for staff salaries at the office. Next year’s budget allocates $3.8 million for the office, including more than half a million dollars to upgrade the Office’s radiology suite. Sources said additional money to operate the office is included in the Navy’s annual budget.

In 2008, 240 members paid the annual fee, though some sources say congressmen who didn’t pay the fee were rarely prevented from using OAP services.

The arguments against affordable health insurance from Bachman, Pence, King et. al. wouldn’t be so gag-worthy if they would just give up their health insurance. And the backup plan.

Tre Hargett is lucky it was Judge Perkins and not Judge Judy.

All good news from a ruling last week that rejected a plea for the court to step in and “compel” Secretary of State Tre Hargett and State Election Coordinator Mark Goins to implement the Tennessee Voter Confidence Act, a.k.a. the paper ballot bill (which they have been fighting hard against, for some reason).

While the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, it did rule that, contrary to what Mr. Hargett has been saying, the Tennessee Voter Confidence ACT does NOT require 2005-only standards for machines.

In addition, the court said that the law must be implemented by November 2010 and that the Secretary of State is under a legal obligation to do so tout de suite.

Even more good news is all the attention this case - which is ultimately about secure and accurate elections for all Tennesseans - is receiving from the media.

Nationally, the preeminent election integrity activist and blogger, Brad Friedman - who, by the way, has been with Tennesseans fighting for secure and accurate elections from the beginning - wrote up a thorough synopsis:

The ruling appears to be a victory for the plaintiffs nonetheless, as Perkins ruled the state’s argument/delay tactic that there were no currently certified voting machines that meet the law’s mandate for systems that are federally certified to 2005 standards. Trouble is, the law contains no such mandate. The judge determined that the law does not require new systems meet 2005 standards — there are currently none certified to that standard — and that systems meeting the 2002 federal standards are perfectly legal.

The Voting News blog also covered the hearing.

WSMV-TN Channel 4 in Nashville taped the entire hearing and posted a story on its website and Jackson Baker wrote about it for the Memphis Flyer. Baker’s piece artfully acknowledges what those of us fighting for secure and accurate elections in Tennessee understand as the next threat - delaying implementation of the TVCA as Republican legislative priority (as stated by Lt. Governor and gubernatorial candidate, Ron Ramsey):

While Hargett’s statement would appear to be guardedly compliant with the Act and Thursday’s ruling, the references to “current law” and to the prospect that “this debate will continue in the next legislative session” would seem to validate the fears of TVCA supporters that Hargett and Goins mean to postpone any effort to implement the TVCA in the hope that the General Assembly, meeting in January, will amend the Act, negate it, or postpone the date of its implementation.

Tom Humphrey at the Knoxville News Sentinel has both the news and a follow up from a statement by Dick Williams of plaintiff Common Cause:

Optical scan voting systems are now the most widely used voting method in the nation, and are used by over 60% of the nation’s voters.

“Nothing is more important than having verifiable ballots,” said Dick Williams of Common Cause Tennessee. “There is no good reason for running the 2010 elections with systems that are vulnerable to error and don’t allow a recount or an audit,” Williams said.

…

Following the hearing, Attorney Gerard Stranch for the Plaintiffs said: “The ball is now in the defendants court, hopefully, they will have greater respect for the will of the Court than they did for the will of the legislature.”

Stranch is right, the ball is in the Secretary of State’s court. But don’t expect him to quietly follow along with the will of the people. Rather, he will drag his feet until January counting on Ramsey and the Republican-led legislature to repeal the act.

Last month Jeff Woods at the Scene nailed down the most obvious follow-up question to ask of Mr. Hargett and Mr. Goins, “Why else…would Republicans fight so hard to stop an obvious good-government election reform that only a year ago enjoyed broad bipartisan support?”

In light of recent events, and as they will undoubtedly continue to drag their feet, the answer is more important and relevant now than ever before.

Cooperators are standing by.

The House of Representatives is voting on the health care bill tomorrow. Jim Cooper must be called. And so must your Congressman.

Here’s the plea from Writer/Filmmaker/Speaker Molly Secours, who just came back from meetings with representatives in Washington:

Just got back from D.C. with a group of self-employed and small business owners to talk with representatives about the bill coming up for a vote. The stories from small business owners across the country were startling and devastating….

Taking time out to meet us in the hallway Rep. Cooper listened to the doctor and the man who may have to close his business because of exorbitant healthcare costs. The man reiterated that reform must stimulate competition and allow everyone access to insurance and, most importantly, needs to happen now–not next year. Patients are dying, employees are leaving or being layed off.

Rep. Cooper listened intently and assured them he was committed to working with others that are determined to make healthcare reform a reality–including a public option.

With Cooper there were no shiny smiles, slaps on the back, donuts or biscuits and gravy, just some good old fashion respect and humility. Cooper doesn’t feign to have all the answers and he has taken alot of hits on both sides of the political aisle.

Today the AARP and AMA (American Medical Association) backed HR3962 (The Affordable Health Care For America Act) being voted on this Saturday. TN Rep. Jim cooper is a heavy hitter in this game…and NEEDS to hear from as many people as possible with just 3 words:

Robust Public Option.

Tell him you are one of the 61% who support it. Under 2 minutes folks. Call (202)-225-4311 or (615) 736-5295.

After meeting with him I’m convinced he wants to vote yes, but like all politicians needs support. I promised I would help flood his office with calls between 8am-5pm tomorrow.

Jim Cooper must be Called. Now. (202) 225-4311 or (615) 736-5295.

Or, find your Congressperson and make your call.

On the House floor this week, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) read off the estimated number of people represented in Republican congressional districts who will die next year due to a lack of health insurance.

Here are Grayson’s numbers for congressional districts across the South.

Alabama District 1, Joe Bonner: 114 dead
Alabama District 3, Mike Rogers: 88 dead
Alabama District 4, Robert Aderholt: 114 dead
Alabama District 6, Spencer Bachus: 69 dead
Arkansas District 3, John Boozman: 151 dead
Florida District 1, Jeff Miller: 130 dead
Florida District 4, Ander Crenshaw: 116 dead
Florida District 5, Ginny Brown-Waite: 200 dead
Florida District 6, Cliff Stearns: 152 dead
Florida District 7, John Mica: 143 dead
Florida District 9, Gus Bilirakis: 129 dead
Florida District 10, Bill Young: 138 dead
Florida District 12, Adam Putnam: 133 dead
Florida District 13, Vern Buchanan: 160 dead
Florida District 14, Connie Mack: 159 dead
Florida District 15, Bill Posey: 152 dead
Florida District 16, Thomas Rooney: 165 dead
Florida District 18, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen: 199 dead
Florida District 21, Lincoln Diaz-Balart: 195 dead
Florida District 25, Mario Diaz-Balart: 195 dead
Georgia District 1, Jack Kingston: 123 dead
Georgia District 3, Lynn Westmoreland: 102 dead
Georgia District 6, Tom Price: 100 dead
Georgia District 7, John Linder: 156 dead
Georgia District 9, Nathan Deal: 159 dead
Georgia District 10, Paul Broun: 120 dead
Georgia District 11, Phil Gingrey: 113 dead
Kentucky District 1, Ed Whitfield: 113 dead
Kentucky District 2, Brett Guthrie: 102 dead
Kentucky District 4, Geoff Davis: 83 dead
Kentucky District 5, Harold Rogers: 130 dead
Louisiana District 1, Steve Scalise: 111 dead
Louisiana District 2, Joseph Cao: 98 dead
Louisiana District 4, John Fleming: [garbled on video]
Louisiana District 5, Rodney Alexander: 132 dead
Louisiana District 6, Bill Cassidy: 105 dead
Louisiana District 7, Charles Boustany: 112 dead
Mississippi District 3, Gregg Harper: 117 dead
North Carolina District 3, Walter Jones: 100 dead
North Carolina District 5, Virginia Foxx: 97 dead
North Carolina District 6, Howard Coble: 103 dead
North Carolina District 9, Sue Myrick: 82 dead
North Carolina District 10, Patrick McHenry: 101 dead
South Carolina District 1, Henry Brown: 157 dead
South Carolina District 2. Joe Wilson: 118 dead
South Carolina District 3, Gresham Barrett: 112 dead
South Carolina District 4, Bob Inglis: 133 dead
Tennessee District 1, Phil Roe: 110 dead
Tennessee District 2, John Duncan: 85 dead
Tennessee District 3, Zach Wamp: 94 dead
Tennessee District 7, Marsha Blackburn: 71 dead
Texas District 1, Louie Gohmert: 155 dead
Texas District 2, Ted Poe: 126 dead
Texas District 3, Sam Johnson, 144 dead
Texas District 4, Ralph Hall: 134 dead
Texas District 5, Jeb Hensarling: 151 dead
Texas District 6, Joe Barton: 136 dead
Texas District 7, John Culberson: 103 dead
Texas District 8, Kevin Brady: 132 dead
Texas District 10, Mike McCaul: 127 dead
Texas District 11, Michael Conaway: 164 dead
Texas District 12, Kay Granger: 156 dead
Texas District 13, Mack Thornberry: 144 dead
Texas District 14, Ron Paul: 146 dead
Texas District 19, Randy Neugebauer: 132 dead
Texas District 21, Lamar Smith: 119 dead
Texas District 22, Pete Olson: 150 dead
Texas District 24, Kenny Marchant: 138 dead
Texas District 26, Michael Burgess: 162 dead
Texas District 31, John Carter: 124 dead
Texas District 32, Pete Sessions: 209 dead
Virginia District 1, Robert Whitman: 68 dead
Virginia District 4, Randy Forbes: 93 dead
Virginia District 6, Bob Goodlatte: 99 dead
Virginia District 7, Eric Cantor: 76 dead
Virginia District 10, Frank Wolf: 81 dead
West Virginia District 2, Shelly Moore Capito: 102 dead

Too bad he didn’t calculate the numbers for Bart Gordon’s district since Congressman Gordon has decided to base his voting decisions not on any kind of shared values like “providing health security for all Tennesseans” or “Tennesseans shouldn’t have to risk their homes, life-savings, and the ideal that is the American Dream because of mounting medical bills brought on by being denied life-saving treatment by bottom-line focused insurance companies” but on the lies spread by the talk radio wing of the Republican party.

(Hat Tip: The Institute for Southern Studies)

Governor Bredesen signing the Tennessee Voter Confidence Act into law.

Why? Because the touch-screen electronic voting machines we use now are broken. And how can Tennesseans get the secure and accurate elections they deserve while voting on broken voting machines?

In a more in depth response to an Memphi Flyer editorial written last week by Rich Holden, the chief administrator for the Shelby County Election Commission, Gerard Stranch, one of the lawyers set to present the case today to compel Tennessee Secretary of State Tre Hargett to implement the law, and John Bonifaz, founder of the National Voting Rights Institute, further explain why the law must - and can- be implemented:

Flyer readers saw this last week in the guest Viewpoint of Shelby County election administrator Rich Holden….

Holden uses inflated figures — estimating Shelby County’s paper ballot costs at $400,000 per election. But Hamilton County has been using paper ballots for years at a cost of less than 25 cents a ballot and uses estimates of likely voter turnout to determine the number of ballots to print. Using those parameters, the highest-turnout race in Shelby County’s election cycle would cost less than $100,000 and most elections far less. The estimate provided is inflated by well over a factor of four.

Holden also argues that federal dollars will only pay for one machine per precinct, so Shelby County will have to pony up for extra machines. But in counties where optiscan is used, you don’t need more than one machine per precinct.

Critics further complain of costs for storage and handling of the paper ballots. But the reality is that where counties switched from touch-screen to optiscan they’ve saved money, because there are far fewer machines to store and maintain, the machines themselves are cheaper and easier to maintain, and the machines need to be replaced less frequently.

Most incredibly, Holden complains that optiscan will be a slower process because of the need for “ballot on demand” machines to print out ballots. In fact, though, optiscan dramatically reduces wait time for voters.

Right now, a touchscreen voter toggling through screen after screen of a lengthy Shelby County ballot can take as long as 15 minutes to vote, while long lines of waiting voters stream out the door. You can only let from one to three voters vote at a time, depending on how many expensive touch-screen machines you can afford at a given polling location.

With optiscan, 15 voters at 15 privacy carrels can pencil in their choices at their leisure, causing no delay. When they’re done, they feed their ballots into the optical reader in literally less than a second. No wait.

Ultimately, it shouldn’t matter what election officials think: The law says they have to implement optiscan by November 2010.

But election officials have gotten clever, arguing that the law’s text allows only machines federally certified to 2005 standards, and no such machines exist.

This would be an effective argument if that’s what the law really said, but it’s not. Nowhere in the TVCA’s text does it say “2005 standards.” It uses the phrase “applicable voluntary voting system guidelines,” a technical term that both the federal certifying agency and the federal statute which created it make clear can refer either to the 2005 standards or to 2002 standards, for which plenty of certified machines exist.

State election officials have gone out of their way to interpret the TVCA to make it impossible to implement. This flies in the face of the basic principle of statutory construction that a law should be interpreted to resolve internal contradictions and make it enforceable.

With paper ballots you can have as much confidence in our elections as this man has in his ship.

Davidson County Chancellor Russell Perkins will conduct a temporary injunction hearing today, Thursday, Nov. 5, in the lawsuit filed by Common Cause of Tennessee to compel state officials to implement the Tennessee Voter Confidence Act.

The Tennessee Voter Confidence Act requires the statewide installation of a paper ballot voting system and audit trail for the 2010 elections. Common Cause is represented by the Nashville law firm of Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings; University of Memphis Law Professor Steven J. Mulroy; and Voter Action, a national legal advocacy organization working to protect the integrity of U.S. elections.

The hearing will take place at 1:30 pm in Division IV of the Davidson County Chancery Court, Courtroom 411, 4th Floor of the Metro Courthouse, 200 James Robertson Parkway in Nashville.