Politics · Redistricting May 28, 2026 3 min read

The Scene Built Four Cover Stories on a Legal Theory a Court Had Already Rejected

The "Seeing Red" package says the Memphis maps are racist, wrong, and "should not be enforced." A unanimous three-judge panel disagreed two days before it ran. Unfair and illegal are not the same thing.

Responding to "Seeing Red: Outnumbered State Democrats Fight Redistricting in Court"

Nicolle S. Praino · Nashville Scene Cover Package · May 28, 2026

The Tennessee Democratic Party chair told the Scene the maps "are racist," "are wrong," and "should not be enforced. Full stop." The Scene printed it as the spine of a four-part cover package. The problem: a court had already ruled, and the Scene knew it.

Two days before the package published, a unanimous three-judge panel upheld the maps and dismissed the central legal argument out of hand. The Scene bolted a one-line parenthetical onto the story and ran the "should not be enforced" framing anyway.

What the court actually said

The panel was unanimous. Chancellors Anne Martin and Tony Childress and Judge James Gass all signed. Martin had been skeptical of the state at the hearing. Childress had been skeptical of the NAACP. They still agreed.
The "facilitate" argument was dismissed out of hand. The challenge hinged on parsing the governor's proclamation. The court found the statutory changes were "fairly contained" in the order's plain language.
Most plaintiffs lacked standing. The NAACP, Sweet-Love, and Rep. Chism failed to show a "distinct and palpable injury." Only one candidate cleared the bar, and even that was "a close call."

3-0 A unanimous panel, including one judge skeptical of the state, upheld the maps two days before the Scene's package called them maps that "should not be enforced."

Where the Scene is right

The maps are a partisan gerrymander. Tennessee Republicans drew them to eliminate the state's only Democratic seat, and they are not pretending otherwise. The disruption to Memphis voters is real. The anger is legitimate. Losing your congressional district months into an election cycle is a genuine grievance, not a manufactured one.

And the Scene is right that the fight is not over. Other suits remain, including a federal challenge. Reasonable Tennesseans can believe this map is bad for the state.

The distinction the package erased

Unfair and illegal are not the same thing. A map can be aggressive, partisan, and bad for Memphis while still being entirely lawful. That is precisely what the court found.

The "Seeing Red" package blurred the two on purpose. It took a real political grievance, dressed it in the language of a winnable lawsuit, and told readers the maps "should not be enforced" while sitting on the knowledge that a court had just said they should be. That is not reporting the fight. That is picking a side and hiding the scoreboard.

Why it matters

The bigger picture

When a publication tells readers a law is illegitimate after a court has ruled it legal, it is not informing them. It is recruiting them. The honest version of this story leads with the ruling and asks whether partisan gerrymandering should be legal. Instead the Scene led with "should not be enforced" and buried the verdict in a parenthetical. Readers deserved the scoreboard first.

What you can do

Read the Scene's own report on the ruling, then reread the cover package. Notice which one leads with the court's decision and which one buries it.

Then ask the real question the package avoided: not whether the maps are unfair, but whether partisan gerrymandering should be legal at all. That argument cuts against both parties. It is also the only one that survives contact with a courtroom.

Nashville Unseen offers a center-right counterpoint to commentary in local Nashville media. This post disputes a legal and editorial claim made by the Tennessee Democratic Party and printed by the Scene. It does not dispute that the loss of a majority-Black district is felt as a real injury by the Memphis voters and lawmakers profiled elsewhere in the package. Those are different questions, and we are answering only the first. editor@nashvilleunseen.com.