Tennessee House Bill HB0166

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/15/25
• Refer: 1/27/25
• Refer: 3/4/26
• Refer: 3/11/26
• Engrossed: 3/17/26
• Enrolled: 4/1/26
• Passed: 4/16/26
• Chaptered: 4/23/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 2, Chapter 16 and Title 3, Chapter 1, relative to redistricting.

Summary

HB0166 is a narrow redistricting measure that clarifies how certain geographic descriptions are to be interpreted for purposes of Tennessee election and districting law. Specifically, it directs that geographic descriptions affecting part of the boundary line between Fayette County and Shelby County be construed according to the boundary line established in Tennessee Code Annotated § 5-2-118. The bill amends provisions in Title 2, Chapter 16 and Title 3, Chapter 1 of the Tennessee Code, which govern redistricting and related district boundary descriptions. By inserting this clarifying language into multiple sections, the act appears intended to resolve any ambiguity in how the Fayette County/Shelby County boundary is used when drawing or interpreting affected districts, likely ensuring consistency across election-related boundary descriptions.

Impact

The bill makes a targeted statutory clarification rather than a broad policy change. It affects Tennessee’s redistricting and election-district statutes by requiring that certain boundary references between Fayette County and Shelby County be read in line with the county boundary established in § 5-2-118. This would influence how officials, mapmakers, and courts interpret district boundaries in the affected area, but it does not appear to alter statewide redistricting standards beyond that specific geographic correction.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It received strong committee and floor approval, including unanimous or near-unanimous votes at each recorded stage, and ultimately passed both chambers without recorded opposition on the final floor votes. The lack of committee transcripts suggests there was little public debate or that the measure was viewed as a technical clarification.

Contention

Any potential contention would likely have centered on the technical redistricting implications of tying district descriptions to a specific county boundary line, especially if there were questions about whether the referenced boundary matched existing maps or prior law. However, the voting record shows minimal resistance: one dissenting vote in the House State & Local Government Committee and otherwise overwhelming support. No substantive opposition is evident in the available materials.