If Vance Smith Lost his Job Over a Vote
I was told that cancel culture was cancelled.
The AJC led off their Jolt today with a tidbit about how, just hours after Republican Representative Vance Smith voted against Governor Kemp’s tort reform legislation, he lost his day job as CEO of the Harris County Chamber of Commerce.
Neither I nor Peach Pundit had a dog in the tort reform fight. We tried to cover it in a way that stayed focused on the facts—what the bill did, and how different elected officials reacted to the threat of primary challengers. From the beginning of this year’s legislative session, it was clear that passions ran high on both sides of the debate. But it wasn’t an issue I was particularly passionate about, even though I understand why both sides were.
On one side was the Chamber of Commerce crowd, who argued that it’s difficult to run a business in Georgia under the current legal environment—where it’s all too easy to get sued for something you may not actually be liable for. On the other were trial attorneys, who argued that access to the courts should remain unfettered so that justice is available to those who have been harmed.
If I were still in the House, I likely would have voted in favor of the bill. After studying the issue and the final version of the legislation, it made sense to me. You may reach a different conclusion—and in the American tradition, I would fight for your right to disagree with me.
Which brings me to Rep. Smith.
The AJC article notes that Rep. Smith isn’t commenting on how or why he lost his job. It also includes an email obtained from the Harris County Chamber’s board chair that, aside from the timing, sheds little light on the real reason behind his termination. According to the article: “It became obvious that we had different visions for the future success of our organization and its members and it was time for us to move forward in a different direction,” wrote the board’s chair, Theresa Garcia Robertson.
There is no direct accusation that his vote led to his dismissal—which means we should approach the situation with a certain amount of skepticism until more evidence emerges, if it ever does. But it’s not hard to connect the dots. And for just a moment, let’s talk about it as if that’s exactly what happened.
This is absolutely chilling.
Every legislator takes an oath that reads: “I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will support the Constitution of this state and of the United States, and on all questions and measures which may come before me, I will so conduct myself, as will, in my judgment, be most conducive to the interests and prosperity of this state.” (Emphasis mine.)
Sometimes activists get fired up and accuse elected officials of violating their oath without understanding the nature of that oath. The “judgment clause” allows each legislator to approach any issue with their unique perspective. Their promise is to use that judgment to cast votes that they believe are in the best interest of Georgia. Not their own paycheck. Not a special interest. Not even their own political future.
And make no mistake—sometimes those interests are in direct conflict. How those conflicts are resolved is up to the individual legislator. But if they’re doing the job the right way, they’re always returning to that oath to decide which way to go.
We don’t know for certain that this vote is what cost Rep. Smith his job. But if it is, this series of events casts a long shadow over Georgia politics and the policymaking process going forward.
All legislators represent the people of their districts. And legislating is a part-time gig—with pay equivalent to peanuts. If employers are able to exert this kind of influence over our citizen legislators, it shoves the oath to the back of the bus. Sure, it’s still there—but when a lawmaker is staring down a mortgage payment, then what?
That road leads to a very dark place.
