Tennessee House Bill HB1829

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/21/26
• Refer: 2/2/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 2; Title 8; Title 39 and Title 40, relative to persons convicted of felonies.

Summary

HB1829 revises Tennessee law governing the eligibility and consequences for people convicted of certain felonies, especially those involving public office or official duties. The bill amends the state constitutionally related disqualification statute for public office to specify that a person is permanently barred from holding office if the infamous crime was committed in an official capacity or involved the duties of the office, or if restoration of citizenship came through a presidential pardon. It also removes repeated references in several retirement and benefits statutes to offenses “arising out of” employment or official capacity and to “malfeasance in office.” The bill appears to narrow and clarify how felony convictions affect public office eligibility and certain state employment/retirement consequences. It applies only to felony convictions on or after July 1, 2026, meaning it is prospective rather than retroactive. By revising multiple sections of Tennessee Code Annotated, the bill updates the legal treatment of convicted felons in relation to office-holding and related state benefit provisions.

Impact

HB1829 would amend Tennessee Code Annotated Titles 2, 8, 39, and 40 by tightening the rules for disqualification from public office and by deleting malfeasance-in-office language from several retirement and benefits provisions. The practical effect is to make permanent ineligibility for office explicit when the underlying infamous crime was committed in an official capacity or involved office duties, while also clarifying how felony convictions are treated in certain state personnel and retirement statutes. The bill applies only to convictions on or after July 1, 2026, limiting its effect to future cases.

Sentiment

There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided materials, so no direct legislative debate or recorded sentiment is available. Based on the text alone, the bill reads as a technical but consequential clarification of felony-related disqualification rules, suggesting a policy interest in tightening standards for public officials while cleaning up related statutory language. Without votes or testimony, the overall sentiment cannot be reliably characterized beyond that neutral inference.

Contention

The main potential point of contention is the bill’s treatment of public officials convicted of infamous crimes, particularly the permanent disqualification rule when the offense is tied to official duties or when citizenship is restored through a presidential pardon. Another possible area of concern is the removal of malfeasance-in-office language from several statutes, which could affect how certain employment, retirement, or benefit consequences are applied. No specific opposing viewpoints are documented in the provided record, so these are inferred policy flashpoints rather than reported disputes.