AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 41, Chapter 24, relative to private prison contractors.
Summary
HB1938 would prohibit Tennessee state government entities and local governments from entering into new contracts or renewing existing contracts for correctional services or facilities with private prison contractors for inmates in the custody of the Department of Correction or a local government. The bill amends Title 41, Chapter 24 of the Tennessee Code Annotated by adding a new section defining “local government” to include counties, incorporated cities or towns, and metropolitan governments.
In practical terms, the measure would bar future privatization arrangements for incarceration-related services and facilities at both the state and local level, while leaving existing contracts in place until they expire unless renewed. The bill takes effect immediately upon becoming law, reflecting the sponsor’s intent to quickly change procurement and contracting authority in the corrections area.
Impact
The bill would add a new restriction to Tennessee’s corrections contracting laws by limiting the ability of the state and local governments to use private prison contractors for correctional services or facilities. It would affect the Department of Correction and any local government operating or contracting for inmate custody and care, and would likely reduce or eliminate future private-sector involvement in prison operations, jail services, or facility management through new or renewed contracts.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill faced opposition and did not advance in subcommittee, failing 2-5 in the House Departments & Agencies Subcommittee of the State & Local Government Committee. No committee transcript is available, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate broad support, but the vote outcome points to limited backing among the members present.
Contention
The main point of contention is the bill’s prohibition on new and renewed contracts with private prison contractors, which would remove a contracting option for both state and local governments. Supporters would likely view the measure as a step away from privatized incarceration, while opponents may be concerned about reduced flexibility, costs, capacity, or the impact on existing correctional service arrangements. The failed subcommittee vote indicates that concerns about restricting government contracting authority likely outweighed support for the proposal.