AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 40, Chapter 29, relative to voting rights.
Summary
HB1053 amends Tennessee law governing restoration of voting rights for people with felony convictions. Under current law, a person seeking restoration of suffrage must meet specified conditions; this bill adds a new requirement that the person be current on all child support obligations before applying for a voter registration card and having voting rights restored. If the person is not current, the bill allows provisional restoration only if the person enters into a payment plan to become current on unpaid child support.
The bill also creates a process for revoking that provisional restoration if the person willfully fails to follow the payment plan. Before revocation, the court must provide court-appointed counsel and an opportunity to be heard, including the chance to show financial inability to pay through proof such as an affidavit of indigency. The secretary of state, working with the department of human services and the administrative office of the courts, is authorized to adopt rules to implement the act, which takes effect July 1, 2025, and applies to voter registration applications submitted on or after that date.
Impact
The bill would amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 40-29-202, by adding child support compliance as a condition for restoration of voting rights and by establishing a provisional restoration pathway tied to payment plans. It would affect people with felony convictions seeking to regain suffrage, as well as courts, the secretary of state, the department of human services, and the administrative office of the courts, which would need to coordinate implementation and rulemaking. The measure would also create a new judicial revocation process with counsel and hearing protections for those who default on payment plans.
Sentiment
There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided materials, so no direct public debate or recorded sentiment is available. Based on the bill text alone, the proposal appears to reflect a policy preference for conditioning restoration of voting rights on compliance with child support obligations while still providing a limited path to restoration through payment plans and procedural protections. The absence of recorded votes or discussion prevents a reliable assessment of support or opposition among legislators.
Contention
The central point of contention is likely the bill’s linkage of voting rights restoration to child support status, which may be viewed by supporters as encouraging parental financial responsibility and by critics as imposing an additional barrier to re-enfranchisement. Another likely issue is the provisional restoration mechanism: while it offers a path for those unable to pay immediately, it still conditions voting rights on adherence to a payment plan and allows revocation for willful noncompliance. The bill’s requirement for court-appointed counsel and a hearing before revocation suggests concern about due process and financial hardship, but no specific stakeholder positions are provided in the record.