Republican lawmakers in Tennessee don’t think very highly of Democratic voters, for the same reason bank robbers don’t think very highly of cops. They interfere with business.

But I’m beginning to believe those same lawmakers don’t have much faith in Republican voters, either. Case in point: The coming election for the 5th Congressional District, recently redrawn by legislators to turn it from blue to red.

The redrawing had the effect of inducing the retirement of Rep. Jim Cooper, the longtime Democratic occupant of the seat, and of attracting a swarm of Republicans eager to replace him.

Among the swarm is Morgan Ortagus, a Fox News commentator, former State Department spokeswoman and Trump favorite who has called the state home since … last year. 2021.

I have leftovers in my freezer with deeper Tennessee roots than hers.

Ortagus’ campaign thus far, such as it is, has not exactly taken wing. In an interview with The Tennessee Star, she demonstrated limited knowledge of the district she hopes to represent, including the interstate highways therein (I-24, I-40, I-65). She also whiffed on a number of other factual matters, like the infamous Confederate general spawned in the district (Nathan Bedford Forrest), and the names of several recent Republican governors (Dunn, Alexander, Sundquist). I could go on.

So 5th District voters, weighing such a politically illiterate performance, might reasonably conclude that Ortagus is not best equipped to represent them in Congress.

But that possibility is not enough for some Republican lawmakers. A state Senate bill would, if it became law, establish residency requirements for major party candidates that Ortagus does not meet: Three years.

Sen. Frank Niceley, sponsor of that bill, recently assured members of the State and Local Government Committee that the state has the authority to create requirements for congressional candidates beyond what the U.S. Constitution enumerates.

Niceley quoted the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s writing that “nothing in the Constitution deprives the people of each state of the power to prescribe eligibility requirements for the candidates who seek to represent them in Congress.”

Scalia’s pronouncement, Niceley indicated, should seal the deal. “If you want to argue with him, I don’t have much time to fool with you, really,” he added.

The problem is, other justices did argue with Scalia. And the quote Niceley read was in fact from a dissenting – losing – opinion in a 5-to-4 decision that held quite the opposite.

When asked, Josh Houston, a legislative attorney, told the group: “There have been attempts made in the past to add additional qualifications by states for members of Congress. And they have all been declared unconstitutional.”

Niceley is not one to be deterred by such facts.

Those previous rulings “were when the Democrats and liberals controlled the Supreme Court,” he said. “All four of the conservative justices said that it was constitutional. We now have a conservative court. And if this same thing went to the Supreme Court today, there’s no doubt that it would be ruled in our favor.”

Besides, Niceley said, his bill would not prevent anyone from running for the House or the Senate. They could do so as independents, or under the Green or Bull Moose or whatever minor party label.

Or, he added wryly: “They can live here a while and learn what Interstates run through town and then they could run.” That allusion was the closest anyone came to mentioning the Republican elephant in the room.

Sen. Todd Gardenhire, vice chairman of the committee, tried to inject a different approach for accomplishing the same thing as Niceley’s bill.

“It seems to me,” he said, “if we’re going to give a qualification to a candidate in a primary, that is up to each political party to decide what their qualifications are to be a candidate.”

It seems so to me, too.

But again, Niceley was undeterred. “We’ve got the power,” he stated. “We are going to use it, or we going to sit back and let, as Roosevelt would say, five old men on the Supreme Court tell us what to do?”

The committee passed the bill, with only Gardenhire voting no. The full Senate later followed suit, again with only Gardenhire voting no. Democrats joined the herd, perhaps out of a desire to be on the winning side for a change.

A potential complication is that the House companion to Niceley’s bill has been amended to delay the impact until after this year’s election. If that provision survives, the whole anti-Ortagus purpose will seem to have become moot.

Pointless, even. Which, I suggest, it already is.

Speaking of pointless: Among Niceley’s legislative offerings is another bill that would undermine the power of voters. It would put the selection of both Republican and Democratic U.S. Senate candidates in the hands of state legislators, as it was before the 17th Amendment changed the process in 1913.

It’s funny how people so keen on personal liberty are eager to take it away when it suits their purposes.

Joe Rogers is a former writer for The Tennessean and editor for The New York Times. He is retired and living in Nashville. He can be reached at [email protected]