Latest news with #SenateBill30
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Top Texas donor slams Speaker Burrows, House members after legislative setbacks
The Houston Chronicle is part of an initiative with ProPublica and The Texas Tribune to report on how power is wielded in Texas. Leaders for Texans for Lawsuit Reform, the biggest donor in Texas politics, say they have a simple strategy when trying to persuade state lawmakers: 'We never make enemies,' President Lee Parsley said in late April. 'We only make friends.' But now that the Texas legislative session has concluded without lawmakers passing any of the group's three high priority bills, TLR is taking a decidedly different tact. In a blistering letter to members, Parsley called out by name the lawmakers he said stifled TLR's agenda and all but promised to take them on in primary campaigns next March. He laid much of the blame on House Speaker Dustin Burrows' shoulders. [Houston megadonor Dick Weekley and his group Texans for Lawsuit Reform are losing in the Legislature after 30 years of wins] The group's political action committee 'must redouble our efforts to elect strong, ethical, legislators who value a civil justice system that has integrity,' Parsley wrote in his letter to the group's members last week. Its signature priority, Senate Bill 30 – an effort to rein in medical costs in personal injury lawsuits – died after the House and Senate passed vastly different versions of the bill and could not reconcile the differences. 'I think it's fair to say we may look at backing some primary challengers,' Parsley said. 'We'll take a good look at what happened toward the end of session and decide how to engage politically, but the people who did not support TLR's bill fully are certainly people who will be a focus for us.' The legislative strikeout on these civil justice bills marks a low point for TLR, which won massive rewrites of the Texas civil justice code in the 1990s and early 2000s, spending millions to elect like-minded lawmakers and lobby them to pass the legislation. At its height, the group – led by Houston's most prolific political donor, the homebuilder Richard Weekley – was largely seen as synonymous with the Texas Republican Party, positioning itself as the political voice of the state's business community. The group's political action committee remains the top political spender in the state, spending $21.2 million on legislative races in 2024. The tone of its letter suggests the group could be on a warpath in the March primary elections. Instead of protecting incumbents, TLR could begin targeting members who bucked the group's wishes. 'It did feel a little strange because TLR has basically gotten everything they wanted for a long time now, and the one time it seems like they didn't, it feels like they're throwing a tantrum about it,' said Andrew Cates, a Democratic legislative lawyer and former lobbyist in Austin. 'Everybody else would have been licking their wounds and hanging back and trying to make nice.' TLR's letter alleged Burrows placed skeptical lawmakers on the key committees charged with shepherding SB30. It also called out state Rep. Marc LaHood, R-San Antonio, the main holdout on the House committee that forced significant revisions to the legislation; and state Rep. Mitch Little, R-Lewisville, who helped win passage of an amendment that TLR said made the bill 'ineffective.' It named more than a dozen other Republican members as well, several of whom defeated TLR-backed candidates in last year's GOP primaries. Cates said the group's criticism of Burrows was notable, since lobbying groups rarely take those kinds of disputes public. Burrows has been endorsed by President Donald Trump for another term, and speakers have broad power to block legislation in future sessions. 'The political capital is going to be really wasted if you come at him and miss,' Cates said. When asked if TLR would support a primary candidate against the speaker, Parsley paused and said, 'Not ready to comment on that.' Other lawmakers responded to the accusations with barbs of their own. 'Simply put, TLR lies,' LaHood wrote in a response on X. Little said in an interview, 'Obviously, they were upset with the outcome and looking for people to blame or attack, but I'll just say on my part, I forgive them and I'm not offended by any of it. I understand that their policy agenda failed.' Burrows' office did not respond to requests for comment. But Little said TLR's claim that Burrows led the effort to tank the legislation is 'not true in any way.' This year, TLR pushed three bills: SB30, which advanced the farthest but was significantly watered down as the session wore on; SB39, which dealt with civil liability for trucking companies; and SB779, which would crack down on 'public nuisance' lawsuits that cities and counties sometimes file against companies on behalf of the public. SB30 started off ambitious. The original draft, passed quickly by the Senate, would have required appellate courts to reduce or review large jury verdicts, capped medical costs by tying them to what Medicare pays out for services and combined several different lines of action for plaintiffs into one newly defined category of 'mental anguish.' One by one, each of those measures were cut. Still, even the watered-down version of SB30 did not have enough votes to get out of the House Committee on Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence, said state Rep. Joe Moody, one of five Democrats on the 11-member committee. The bill looked like it would languish in the committee without a vote. In its letter, TLR blamed Burrows for the committee rosters, saying his selections made it more difficult to pass the legislation. But Moody said it was Burrows who revived the bill, wanting to ensure that at least some portion of TLR's agenda made it to the House floor. On May 20, Burrows urged the committee members to renew discussions on SB30 and come up with a version that they could agree on, Moody recalled. What resulted was a 12-hour negotiation that Little was also asked to join, though he was not a member of the committee. The outcome of that meeting was a stripped-down bill that mainly would do one thing: require judges to automatically admit certain benchmarks to establish reasonable medical charges. The bill passed through the committee, with Moody and LaHood in support. TLR's letter also blasted LaHood's performance on the committee, saying it was concerned from the start that he 'was not philosophically aligned with the business community, and we were right.' It accused LaHood of fleeing the committee meeting to avoid having to vote on TLR's other two bills, meaning 'both bills would die in committee.' 'I did not 'flee' the JCJN committee room after SB30 was voted out,' LaHood wrote in response, saying his opposition to those bills was clear. 'As the Chairman knew, I left to lay out a bill in another committee. Afterward, I returned, and we continued to vote out more bills… I do not run from a fight or a tough vote.' LaHood said he was 'appalled by the breadth of what TLR was attempting to codify into law,' and he said 'TLR's ham-fisted attempt to shirk responsibility for their poorly drafted, poorly conceived bills' impugned his character along with Burrows, Little and the entire House chamber. State Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Allen, who chaired the committee, put out a statement clarifying the committee meeting. He said he knew LaHood's position, which meant the bills did not have the votes to pass, and decided to shelf the bills. 'That was my decision and my decision alone,' Leach said. Committee records back up that account. They show that LaHood temporarily left the meeting and that, in his absence, two other bills failed because they did not get a majority vote, but after LaHood returned, Leach called them up for a vote again – and both passed. The other lawmaker to draw TLR's ire was Little. After the revised version of SB30 advanced to the House floor, TLR suffered one final defeat. Moody and Little were concerned about making evidence automatically admissible, since that requirement is rare in Texas law. On the floor, they introduced an amendment that would allow judges to exercise some discretion about whether to admit the evidence. For example, they would be able to consider whether the evidence was relevant to their specific case. TLR described it as a 'gutting amendment.' The group accused Little of reversing course after negotiating the bill that passed the committee. The bill 'would be killed by' Little, Parsley wrote. Moody and Little both said that was not true; they had made it clear the issue was not totally resolved during those negotiations, both lawmakers said. Little said he supported the change out of 'loyalty to the law and the application of the rules of evidence.' The House passed the amendment on a razor thin margin, 72-70, gutting the bill in TLR's eyes. Little said the vote showed that the House probably did not have the votes to pass the bill without the amendment. 'There was still one chance to save the bill,' Parsley wrote, referring to the conference committee charged with reconciling differences in the House and Senate versions. But Burrows put Little on the committee as the swing vote, ensuring the amendment would remain, he said. The House lawmakers refused to cut the amendment, and the bill died. Two days after lawmakers adjourned, TLR sent out its strongly worded letter. If TLR decides to go after the 17 GOP lawmakers who supported the amendment, it could open a new rift among House Republicans. That cohort is coming off a grueling 2024 primary season fought over issues like Gov. Greg Abbott's school voucher plan and Attorney General Ken Paxton's impeachment. TLR invested $14 million in the primary cycle last year, but it was on the losing side of many of those campaigns, spending roughly $6 million to back incumbents in races they lost. Among the large freshman bloc that swept into office in those campaigns, 10 cast votes against TLR by backing Moody's amendment. Those candidates had already defeated TLR's money in one primary and may have been less beholden to them than those in the past. LaHood and Little were among them. TLR gave $320,000 to Little's opponent, Kronda Thimesch, and $99,500 to former state Rep. Steve Allison, who lost to LaHood. The political action committee, however, gave money to LaHood for his general election campaign. The group's single biggest beneficiary during the primary campaign was Jeff Bauknight, doling out nearly $1 million to back his campaign for a house seat in Victoria. He lost to state Rep. AJ Louderback, R-Victoria – who voted for Moody's amendment. State Reps. Andy Hopper, Shelley Luther, Brent Money, Mike Olcott, Katrina Pierson and Wes Virdell all were namechecked in TLR's letter of what it called a 'bad session.' Each beat TLR-backed candidates in their primary campaigns last year. Others listed by TLR included veteran members who TLR has supported in the past. TLR's losses last primary season may portend trouble in trying to target members who opposed them this year. But the group still has a massive war chest of $26.8 million, according to campaign finance records. It usually reports raising about $6 million after a legislative session wraps up. It will have to disclose how much more money it has raised this year in July. 'We understand the realities of Texas politics. I think that what we're doing is the right thing.' Parsley said. 'If the litigation environment remains the same for a long period of time, they will all realize that we were right about this all along, and they will wish they'd paid more attention to us.' Big news: 20 more speakers join the TribFest lineup! New additions include Margaret Spellings, former U.S. secretary of education and CEO of the Bipartisan Policy Center; Michael Curry, former presiding bishop and primate of The Episcopal Church; Beto O'Rourke, former U.S. Representative, D-El Paso; Joe Lonsdale, entrepreneur, founder and managing partner at 8VC; and Katie Phang, journalist and trial lawyer. Get tickets. TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.
Yahoo
02-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Personal injury, trucking lawsuit bills die
AUSTIN (KXAN) — A pair of bills backed by Texans for Lawsuit Reform, aimed at reducing large jury verdicts in personal injury and trucking accident cases, died this legislative session. Senate Bill 30 — filed with the goal of 'curbing nuclear verdicts' — and Senate Bill 39 were two of Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick's priority bills for this legislative session. Under SB 30, a jury would have heard if an attorney referred their client — and others over the past two years — to a specific doctor. That provider would have had to submit an affidavit that treatment was reasonable and disclose any agreement guaranteeing they are reimbursed for treatment costs in a settlement. Medical expenses would be reimbursed based off rates paid by Medicare and workers' compensation insurance. Critics said the bill would have required victims to introduce evidence unrelated to their case or care and could have unintentionally made it harder for sexual assault survivors to hold abusers accountable. Deadly truck crash foreshadows fight between business, safety at Capitol The bill was amended in the House, but those changes were not approved by the Senate. 'Today, a kind of fraud is occurring in courtrooms across Texas, as personal injury attorneys and collaborative doctors manufacture medical bills and present them to jurors as if they are legitimate,' said TLR President Lee Parsley. 'This unethical activity is increasing insurance premiums for every business operating in Texas. Ultimately, the increased cost of doing business is being paid by every Texan. We are disappointed the legislature did not enact laws necessary to stop this well-documented, barely hidden abuse of our legal system.' Another bill, SB 39, took aim at commercial vehicle lawsuits. Patrick said the bill was about 'protecting Texas trucking.' Critics said it would have presented new legal hurdles to make it harder for injured victims to introduce evidence about a company's alleged negligence. Debate about the bill occurred at the same time a truck driver was arrested for causing an 18-vehicle pileup on Interstate 35 in north Austin, killing five people and injuring 11 others, according to Austin Police. Last year, a KXAN investigation first revealed the intention of TLR and a coalition of businesses to back bills this legislative session aimed at lawsuit reforms as a way to stop what it called 'nuclear verdicts' and bring down rising insurance rates. 'For four decades, Texans' legal rights have been under constant assault by corporate lobbyists at the Texas Capitol. This session, lawmakers said 'no more,' rejecting SB 30 and SB 39,' countered consumer advocate Ware Wendell, with the nonpartisan group Texas Watch. 'The bills' backers sought to undermine the Rules of Evidence, putting their thumbs on the scales of justice. Juries deserve to hear the whole truth upfront, and judges deserve to rule on these matters. Our independent judiciary was protected when these bills died.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
New limits for personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits may become a reality in Texas
A proposal to limit how much an accident victim can recover in lawsuits for medical care won preliminary approval from the Texas House on Monday, but not without changes that leave open monetary awards beyond medical bills and preserve the court's ability to decide what evidence is relevant. The bill passed 94-52 on Monday with the support of at least five Democrats. Senate Bill 30, authored by Georgetown Republican Sen. Charles Schwertner, intends to curb 'nuclear verdicts,' or jury rulings that award victims more than $10 million, which proponents say makes doing business in Texas unpredictable. If the proposal becomes law, those who sue in personal injury or wrongful death cases can submit only the amount paid for medical services, and directs juries to limit the amount of damages based on a set of options such as the maximum that can be charged to Medicare. The bill was a priority of Texans for Lawsuit Reform, a well-funded group representing oil and energy companies that has spent the last two decades trying to curb what they see as frivolous lawsuits. For the bill to become law, the House must vote on it again. Then the Senate must agree to changes, or request a committee hash out differences. At a committee hearing in April, business owners shared their experiences of getting sued in accidents where the damage appeared minimal — according to poster-sized photos they brought to the hearing — but the damages sought were in the millions. Opponents argued that there's already an appeals process in the civil lawsuit process that parties can use to reduce the damages owed. The bill overcame resistance from some conservative activists who previously supported the efforts by Texas for Lawsuit Reform's namely, restricting medical malpractice lawsuits. The version of the bill that passed the House removed language that drew concern from opponents, such as a provision that would have barred juries from awarding money for 'noneconomic damages' such as mental anguish. That was raised by some accident victims and sexual assault survivors who said the impacts of their injuries could not be placed neatly into the economic damage categories the previous version of the bill outlined. On the House floor Monday, lawmakers also approved an amendment by Rep. Greg Bonnen, R-Friendsburg, who is carrying the bill in the House, to remove a portion of the bill that would have only allowed damages on services that have health care industry billing codes, which not all services an accident victim needs would have. Another Bonnen amendment changed the requirement for an itemized list by the provider of a plaintiff to a summary list. Lawmakers unsuccessfully tried to further narrow that requirement, though an amendment by Rep. Matt Morgan, R-Richmond, reaffirming privacy protections between doctors and patients, and attorneys and clients was adopted. A pair of amendments by Reps. Mitch Little, a Lewisville Republican, and Joe Moody, an El Paso Democrat, also passed, over the objection of Bonnen, to no longer require some evidence related to medical history be automatically admitted. The amended bill leaves it to a judge to decide whether the evidence is relevant – something Bonnen said defeated the purpose of that part of the bill. The Texas Trial Lawyers Association, which lobbied for months against the bill, said the changes since it was first introduced were a sign of how Texans felt about efforts to curb lawsuits. 'This result sends a clear message that Texans of all walks of life support the fundamental value of accountability embodied in our civil justice system,' Jack Walker, president of the association, said in a statement. Disclosure: Texans for Lawsuit Reform and Texas Trial Lawyers Association have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. First round of TribFest speakers announced! Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Maureen Dowd; U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-San Antonio; Fort Worth Mayor Mattie Parker; U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California; and U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Dallas are taking the stage Nov. 13–15 in Austin. Get your tickets today!
Time Business News
23-05-2025
- Health
- Time Business News
Texas Tort Reform & Your Rights: What Recent Legislative Changes Mean for Injury Victims
Texas has a long and complex history with tort reform, legislation aimed at limiting the ability of individuals to file lawsuits and the amount of damages they can recover. While proponents argue such reforms curb frivolous lawsuits and control insurance costs, opponents contend they often strip away crucial rights from injured Texans, making it harder for victims to receive full and fair compensation. For anyone dealing with the aftermath of an accident, understanding these legal shifts is paramount. Recent legislative discussions and changes, particularly around measures like House Bill 4806 (HB 4806) and Senate Bill 30 (SB 30) from the 89th Legislative Session, highlight an ongoing push to modify the landscape of personal injury claims. These bills, and the broader trend they represent, significantly affect how medical expenses are recovered, the caps on non-economic damages, and the process of proving claims in Texas. Key Areas Impacted by Recent Tort Reform Measures Medical Expense Recovery:One of the most contentious areas targeted by recent tort reform efforts, including HB 4806 and SB 30, is how medical expenses are calculated and recovered in personal injury lawsuits.5 Traditionally, injured parties could seek the 'reasonable and necessary' cost of medical care they received. However, these proposed changes aim to limit recovery to: Amounts Actually Paid: Instead of the total amount billed by healthcare providers, plaintiffs might only be able to recover what was actually paid by their health insurance or other third-party payers. This can be significantly less than the billed amount, leaving uninsured victims or those with high deductibles/co-pays in a precarious position. Market-Based Rates: Some proposals tie recovery to a 'median reimbursement' rate from a state database or a multiple of Medicare rates (e.g., 150% or 300%). This could prevent injured individuals from recovering the full cost of their care, especially if they received treatment from providers who don't accept insurance or whose rates exceed these arbitrary caps. Challenges to Affidavits: Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 18.001 historically allowed medical providers to submit affidavits to prove the reasonableness and necessity of medical bills, streamlining the process. Recent proposals, like those in SB 30, would change this, allowing defendants to challenge these claims more easily with a simple 'notice of intent to controvert' rather than a counter-affidavit signed by a qualified expert. This shifts the burden back to the plaintiff to bring the treating provider to court for live testimony, adding significant cost and complexity. Non-Economic Damages:Non-economic damages compensate for subjective losses like pain and suffering, mental anguish, disfigurement, physical impairment, and loss of enjoyment of life.7 While Texas already has caps on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases (generally $250,000 per defendant, up to $750,000 total), recent reform efforts aim to extend similar, and sometimes even more restrictive, caps to general personal injury and wrongful death cases. For example, HB 4806 proposed capping emotional damages in wrongful death cases at $1 million, with much lower caps for non-fatal bodily harm, and even eliminating entire categories of non-economic damages like physical impairment, disfigurement, and loss of companionship. These changes also seek to redefine 'mental or emotional pain or anguish' to require 'objectively verifiable' evidence or a 'grievous and debilitating' impact on daily life, making it harder to prove these deeply personal, yet very real, losses. Process of Proving Claims:Beyond specific damage categories, tort reform also seeks to alter procedural rules and evidentiary standards, making it more challenging for plaintiffs to build and prove their cases: Increased Burden of Proof: New definitions for damages and stricter evidentiary requirements can increase the burden of proof on injury victims, demanding more 'objectively verifiable' evidence for subjective losses. Restrictions on Expert Testimony: Proposals may introduce stricter rules on who can provide expert testimony regarding medical billing or causation, potentially limiting the plaintiff's ability to present a comprehensive case. Unanimous Jury Requirement for Non-Economic Damages: Some proposals, like elements of HB 4806, have even pushed for a unanimous jury agreement on non-economic damages, a significant departure from the current 10-out-of-12 juror agreement, making it substantially harder to secure compensation for pain and suffering. Scott Callahan: An Advocate for Injured Texans These legislative changes are not merely abstract legal concepts; they have tangible, often severe, consequences for individuals and families facing injuries. They shift the balance of power, often favoring large corporations and insurance companies at the expense of everyday Texans. This is precisely why having an attorney with an up-to-date understanding of Texas tort reform and a commitment to protecting injured Texans' rights is invaluable. Scott Callahan & Associates actively monitors these legislative shifts. They understand how these laws might be interpreted and applied, and more importantly, how to strategically navigate them to achieve the best possible outcome for their clients. Whether it's meticulously documenting actual medical expenses to circumvent restrictive caps, building an undeniable case for non-economic damages with expert testimony, or effectively challenging defense tactics designed to exploit new procedural hurdles, a knowledgeable attorney can counteract these legislative disadvantages. In a state where tort reform is an ongoing reality, having a legal advocate who is not only aware of these changes but also dedicated to fighting for justice despite them, is essential. Scott Callahan demonstrates leadership and knowledge within the legal community by consistently advocating for the rights of the injured and ensuring they receive the full and fair compensation they deserve, even in an increasingly challenging legal landscape. TIME BUSINESS NEWS
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee should veto PEACE Act and protect First Amendment rights
The Constitution demands that Tennessee's government tolerate hateful speech. We might not agree with what someone says, but American civil liberties hinge on us defending the right to say it. The Constitution's threshold for laws restricting speech is quite high, and Tennessee House Bill 55/Senate Bill 30, also known as the Protecting Everyone Against Crime and Extremism (PEACE) Act, needs some work. Gov. Bill Lee should send it back to the drawing board. In 2024, demonstrations by hate groups included distributed anti-Jewish literature to synagogue congregants and holding signs with hateful messages on an overpass. Such speech and behavior in question deserve our condemnation, but we should be cautious about government restraint. The PEACE Act, sponsored by State House Majority Leader William Lamberth, R-Portland, and State Sen. Mark Pody, R-Lebanon, creates a new Class A misdemeanor for littering and trespassing with hateful intent to 'unlawfully intimidate another from the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured by the constitution or laws of the state of Tennessee.' I spoke to Lamberth about his motives for introducing the measure. 'Tennessee is a law-and-order state, and we're committed to protecting our citizens' safety,' he said. 'The PEACE Act aims to deter hate crimes by giving law enforcement additional tools to ensure that individuals who harass or target others based on their identity or beliefs are held accountable.' The PEACE Act criminalizes conduct that is somewhere between common misdemeanors and a full-blown felony. The endeavor walks a fine line between content-neutral laws that limit political protests to certain times, places and manners and content-based restrictions that rarely survive legal review. Opinion: NYT's Thomas Friedman is wrong. Don't let politicians steal American optimism. | Opinion Littering and trespassing are already crimes because they infringe on the right to enjoy public spaces and own private property. Lamberth insists that legislators must address a gap in Tennessee law. 'Yes, littering and trespassing are already criminal offenses,' he said. 'The PEACE ACT simply adds a Class A misdemeanor offense when the act is deliberately intended to intimidate or prevent someone from exercising their civil rights, such as religious freedom or ability to vote.' If the aggravating factor for enhancing litter and trespass into another crime is speech, then speech is effectively being criminalized. That won't pass constitutional muster. As drafted, one discarded flyer with hateful intent might be enough to charge the enhanced crime. A better path would be creating a civil cause of action for individuals who are victimized by such hateful conduct to sue the perpetrators and anyone who might be backing them financially for damages. It's a fair way to compensate folks for harm and determine the difference between littering and activity that is far more insidious. HB55 also creates the right for law enforcement to create a 25-foot buffer zone 'in the execution of the officer's official duties after the officer has ordered the person to stop approaching or to retreat.' The original language was so broad that any on-duty officer would have the ability to create a 25-foot buffer zone at will. The amended bill before Lee adds the requirement that the official duties involve a traffic stop, investigation of a crime, or an ongoing and immediate threat to public safety. This change is a major improvement. Officers shouldn't have to worry about crowd control while arresting an individual or issuing a citation. Opinion: She took on Neo Nazis and hate groups. Nashville Council Member Zulfat Suara is a boss 'You can be present, say and record anything you want - that is your constitutional right,' said Lamberth, 'but you can't hinder or interfere when a police officer is carrying out their official duties.' The last provision of the bill that warrants discussion is criminalizing 'attaching a sign, signal or other marking to a bridge, overpass, or tunnel.' The offense would become a Class B misdemeanor. Obviously, the state has the constitutional power to regulate signage, but the provision seems focused on a particular fact pattern instead of general applicability. Do Tennesseans need government permission to welcome home a veteran with a banner along a bridge? Lamberth's perspective on such signage is clear. 'Hanging signs over bridges and overpasses can cover existing signage and only serves as a distraction that puts everyone on the road at risk,' he said. The PEACE Act undeniably improved over the legislative session, but lawmakers and the governor have an obligation to protect our civil liberties over our momentary discomfort. The state government cannot and should not insulate us from speech which makes us uncomfortable or with which we disagree. As such, the Peace Act needs another look before becoming law. USA TODAY Network Tennessee Columnist Cameron Smith is a Memphis-born, Brentwood-raised recovering political attorney raising four boys in Nolensville, Tennessee, with his particularly patient wife, Justine. Direct outrage or agreement to or @DCameronSmith on Twitter. Agree or disagree? Send a letter to the editor to letters@ This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Tennessee PEACE Act is misguided bill and quells free speech | Opinion
