Daniel Horwitz, an appellate attorney in Nashville and a former Tennessee Supreme Court clerk, has a lengthy detailed article discussing potential constitutional concerns about Amendment 3 on his Supreme Court of Tennessee blog.
Amendment 3 is the "local hire" amendment that says that at least 40% of the work performed on taxpayer-funded construction projects within Davidson County would have to be set aside for Davidson County residents. While there are practical reasons to oppose the bill, such as that it would drastically increase the cost of public projects, and philosophical reasons, such as it is protectionism; Horwitz concentrates on weather or not it is even legal. Ultimately, he concludes that:
Amendment 3 will survive any constitutional challenge brought under either the Dormant Commerce Clause or the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution. However, as a result of the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Craigmiles v. Giles, and as a result of the Tennessee Supreme Court’s decision in Consumers Gasoline Stations v. City of Pulaski, Amendment 3 will probably not survive a constitutional challenge brought under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution or Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of Tennessee.For anyone who wants a deep understanding of the legal concerns about Amendment 3, I urge you to read, "Does the Constitution prevent Nashville from enacting a local hire law? Yes, it probably does."
Please vote "no" on Amendment 3.