Rep. Monty Fritts Stands Firm: A Principled Defense of the Constitution Amid Special Session Chaos

State Representative Monty Fritts (R-32) has issued his final reflections on last week’s special legislative session, offering a candid assessment of the rushed and restrictive process that ultimately led to the passage of Governor Bill Lee’s education voucher bill. Fritts confirms that he requested to speak in opposition to the legislation but was denied the opportunity—further underscoring the lack of transparency and open debate that defined the session.

 In his statement, Fritts raises serious concerns about the bill’s constitutionality, particularly in relation to Article XI, Section 12 of the Tennessee Constitution. He argues that the legislation’s language and intent conflict with the state’s foundational legal framework and that these concerns were never adequately debated or addressed. Additionally, he highlights the bill’s long-term financial implications, warning that its recurring costs, combined with the continued funding obligations to public schools, will create an unsustainable burden on Tennessee taxpayers.

 Fritts also takes issue with the way the session was structured, criticizing the Governor’s decision to bundle school vouchers with unrelated but urgent matters, such as Hurricane Helene relief and illegal immigration enforcement. He asserts that such a compressed and politically motivated process prevents lawmakers from thoroughly evaluating legislation, leading to policy decisions that may not serve the best interests of Tennesseans—particularly those in rural communities where public schools serve as the backbone of local life.

 Emphasizing his commitment to constitutional principles, fiscal responsibility, and the proper role of government, Fritts warns that the passage of this bill marks a troubling shift toward centralized power and increased bureaucratic influence over education. He calls for a return to measured, deliberate lawmaking that respects both the Constitution and the will of the people, rather than rushing through special interest-driven policies with little room for dissent or discussion.

Read his full statement below:

 “I reached out initially to simply validate Representative Todd Warner’s comment regarding my request to speak on the Governor’s Education Bill last week during the Special Session. I did request to speak. I would have spoken in opposition had the opportunity been afforded me, primarily as I find constitutional misalignment between Article 11; Section 12 of the Tennessee Constitution and the Bill. 

 I was among the approximate quarter of our Republican caucus who voted NO. Besides the constitutional alignment of the second sentence in Section 12 being a “shall” or must do this statement, and as I see it limited in specificity of authority to “a system of free public schools” remain the fiscal, growth of Nashville influence, and equality of all Tennesseans concerns I have heard others mention.

 Let me be very clear, I think men and women of good conscience voted from several differing perspectives on this matter. This was much more than a YES or NO, up or down, vote due to both the complexity of the undertaking, the initial and recurring costs, and at least in my case constitutional alignment concerns. Due to the work of my colleagues in the General Assembly many considerations were offered in the bill to address some legitimate longstanding concerns.

Unfortunately, combining this important topic with three other important matters, two which are in my opinion urgent considerations (Helene relief for East TN and aligning resources to assist President Trump with extricating the criminal illegals who have invaded this country and our state) results in too little time to fully engage all voices. The Governor has constitutional authority to call a special session. The General Assembly responded as required.

 However, I think history will unfavorably consider the Governor’s decision to include all these matters into his call and time such just after regular session had begun. A few weeks ago, I spoke very clearly with the Governor’s office regarding my thoughts on this bill. I did not support a similar measure in the 113 th General Assembly. While I wrote and spoke openly to many about my concerns, I am left thinking, could I have done more?

 I intended and researched to offer an alternative approach. I favor the Tennesseans in House District 32 keeping their money and then spending it as each decides rather than having a bureaucratic system in Nashville collect the citizens dollars and redistribute them to incentivize a decision, a decision they are already free to make. 

Our Constitution, however, does not allow property tax avoidance for parents based on their decision to opt for other than our system of free public schools. I could not offer in good conscience that which I find to be an idea of merit due to a misalignment with our base law.

 I do think a good number of my colleagues are ready to move past this. I too am ready to move back to the people’s regularly scheduled business. I will offer some concluding thoughts as I have committed in my public service to be transparent in thought. This results in some meetings in a crowd initially embracing me and my position on a topic only for me to become a candidate for stoning on the next subject.

I am okay with this, not the stoning of course, but an atmosphere that doesn’t demand everyone thinks the same thing all the time. George Patton was reported to have suggested if everyone is thinking the same then somebody isn’t thinking (para). Maintaining a marketplace of ideas where one competes with its merit against opposing views is critical. 

 Experience has taught me that those who attack with insults, mere volume, claimed overwhelming consensus, or character defamation, when character defamation has not really been earned, often do so out of a lack of confidence in their own stated position. I think we should point to the weaknesses in arguments offered counter to an opinion that we hold.

 I think that we can do that respectfully and in a statesmanlike manner. Often opinions are espoused because that approach has become status quo. If that status quo is in alignment with both of two sets of strict guidelines one’s ability to make a good argument against such is minimized in my perspective. 

 Those guidelines are the Bible and the Constitution(s).

 First, all our law and regulation must align with and not conflict against the laws of nature and Nature’s God. The same Almighty God recognized early in our Tennessee Constitution Declaration of Rights is the One our Founders placed a full reliance upon when they issued that Declaration of Independence. Those fifty-six men fully realized they could not economically nor militarily defeat an evil and desired to be one-world government of Great Britain. They on July 4, 1776, surely placed their hope in Almighty God.

We must likewise today. And we must not attempt to legislate in conflict with His word.

 Our U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights preceded the Tennessee Constitution which contains a Declaration of Rights. These documents are, in my opinion, the most effective words of government ever applied to paper singularly by man’s hand. These documents are subordinate to the Bible. 

 I hold that Almighty God assembled not only the fifty-six signers but also native continent men such as Squanto to ensure the survival of this now almost 249-year-old endeavor of “We the people.” I also fully hold that those Founders and Framers held a deep conviction to Almighty God’s will and a great knowledge of His written word, the Bible. We are a Constitutional Republic not a theocracy, nor a democracy. But we are one such whose Founders established our trajectory as a nation based on the authority of Almighty God’s word.

 So, my defense of the Constitution and continued attempt to apply it as the filter through which all Tennessee law must pass is based on the presuppositions above. Like all those leaders great and small before me in this land that I love called Tennessee, I am flawed. I am perhaps flawed above them all. There is first the reminder to self that a focus upon both the authorities given government in the Constitution is indeed a covenant or contract between the office holder and the people. 

 That Constitution was given to us as our basis for government and it is a blessing from God himself to be a citizen under this Constitution. We do not have kings or princes, presidents or state representatives, governors or congressmen who inherently hold authority. We have people who are bound by the limitations of authority expressed in these constitutions.

 We here in Tennessee, and in America, just as every other nation on Earth are ultimately subject to the law of Almighty God. We can neither amend nor repeal His righteous word. Almighty God is nature’s God as He is the Creator of all things. So, my energy and my fervor about constitutional compliance rests in this. If I knowingly and willfully step outside the authority given me in the Constitution, I have broken the base law contract. If I attempt to create, or ascent to a law or regulation which would

seem to override the law of Almighty God I have committed a great sin. If I attempt to deny or restrict the people’s rights, those endowed upon them by our Creator, I have committed a great sin.

I do not think we were asked to consider a matter that would equate to the latter in this special session. I do hold that a political fixation leading to a compressed consideration of several complex and costly measures creates an opportunity for failure in either regard. I would hope the Governor exercise greater discretion in the future."

 -Rep. Monty Fritts - House District 32

If you support what I do, please consider donating a gift in order to sustain free, independent, and TRULY CONSERVATIVE media that is focused on Middle Tennessee and BEYOND!