Tennessee House Bill HB0913

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/4/25
• Refer: 2/6/25
• Refer: 3/18/25
• Refer: 3/26/25
• Chaptered: 4/29/25
• Passed: 4/29/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 2; Title 5; Title 6; Title 7 and Title 20, Chapter 18, relative to ballot measures.

Summary

HB0913 amends Tennessee law governing certain constitutional challenges and ballot-related litigation. It requires a three-judge panel to hear civil actions challenging the constitutionality of a state statute, executive order, or administrative rule or regulation when the suit seeks declaratory or injunctive relief and is brought against the state, a state department or agency, or a state official in an official capacity. The bill also extends three-judge panel review to cases alleging that a proposed charter amendment ordinance to be submitted to voters violates the Constitution or state law. The measure further adds a new restriction for home rule municipalities by providing that a charter amendment may not be placed on the ballot if it violates the Constitution or state law. In practical terms, the bill affects how certain election-related and constitutional disputes are litigated and can prevent unlawful municipal charter amendments from reaching voters.

Impact

The bill changes Tennessee Code Annotated Title 20, Chapter 18, and Title 6 by expanding the categories of cases that must be heard by a three-judge panel and by prohibiting ballot placement of unlawful home rule charter amendments. It affects state agencies, state officials, municipalities, election administrators, and litigants challenging state action or local ballot measures, and it may streamline or centralize judicial review of these disputes.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests generally favorable support for the bill. It advanced out of the House Elections & Campaign Finance Subcommittee by a 5-1 vote and out of the House State & Local Government Committee by a 19-3 vote, indicating broad committee approval with some opposition. No committee transcripts are available, so the record does not show detailed debate, but the votes suggest the bill was viewed positively by most members.

Contention

The main points of contention likely concern the bill’s effect on access to the ballot and on judicial review of constitutional claims. Opponents may view the new ballot restriction as limiting local democratic choice by preventing proposed charter amendments from being submitted to voters, while supporters may argue it avoids unconstitutional or unlawful measures appearing on ballots. Another possible issue is the expansion of three-judge panel jurisdiction, which may be seen as either promoting consistent review of important constitutional cases or adding procedural hurdles for challengers.