Tennessee House Bill HB0259

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/21/25
• Refer: 2/3/25
• Refer: 2/10/25
• Engrossed: 2/20/25
• Enrolled: 3/4/25
• Passed: 3/26/25
• Chaptered: 3/31/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4, Chapter 29 and Title 37, Chapter 3, relative to the second look commission.

Summary

HB0259 makes a narrow statutory update to Tennessee’s laws governing state boards and commissions by adding the “second look commission” to the list of entities recognized in Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4, Chapter 29. The bill also references the commission’s creation in Title 37, Chapter 3, tying the administrative code to the underlying enabling statute. In practical terms, the measure is a housekeeping bill that ensures the commission is properly listed in the state’s statutory framework and can operate as a recognized governmental body. The bill does not appear to create a new policy program or change substantive criminal justice rules on its own. Instead, it amends the state’s commission statutes so the second look commission is formally included among state entities, which can affect how the commission is administered, maintained, or reauthorized under Tennessee law. The act takes effect immediately upon becoming law.

Impact

HB0259 amends Tennessee Code Annotated § 4-29-246 by deleting an outdated subdivision and amends § 4-29-250 to add the second look commission, created by § 37-3-803, to the list of entities recognized under the state’s general commission statutes. This primarily affects the legal status and administrative recognition of the commission rather than altering substantive rights or obligations of private parties. The bill’s impact is on state government structure and statutory organization, especially the continued validity and placement of the second look commission within Tennessee law.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been received very favorably and without controversy. It passed the House Government Operations Committee unanimously, passed the House on the consent calendar with no opposition, and the Senate motion to adopt also passed unanimously. The voting pattern suggests broad bipartisan agreement and a perception that the measure was routine or technical in nature.

Contention

There is little evidence of substantive contention in the available record. No committee transcript discussion is provided, and the votes were unanimous at each stage. Any potential concern would likely have been limited to the administrative implications of formally recognizing the second look commission, but the legislative history does not show opposition from any member or committee.