AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 2; Title 4; Title 22; Title 36; Title 39 and Title 40, relative to rights of citizenship.
Summary
SB0996 makes a narrow change to Tennessee’s laws governing petitions related to rights of citizenship by amending Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-29-104. Under the bill, a petitioner must pay the costs of the application unless the court is satisfied that the petitioner is indigent. The bill deletes and replaces the existing section with this language, but the text provided does not otherwise alter the petition process or define additional eligibility standards.
The act applies only to petitions filed on or after its effective date, which is upon becoming law. In practical terms, the bill shifts the default responsibility for application costs to the petitioner while preserving judicial discretion to waive those costs for indigent applicants.
Impact
The bill amends Title 40 of the Tennessee Code, specifically the statute governing costs for certain citizenship-rights petitions. Its legal effect is limited to application fees and court costs for petitions filed after enactment, requiring payment unless indigency is shown to the court. It does not appear to change substantive citizenship rights, but it may affect access to the petition process for low-income applicants and the administration of related court filings.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or formal support/opposition in the materials supplied. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears procedural and fiscally oriented rather than controversial, with its main policy choice being whether petitioners should bear filing costs absent a showing of indigency.
Contention
The principal point of potential contention is the cost burden placed on petitioners seeking rights-of-citizenship relief. Supporters would likely view the bill as a straightforward cost-allocation rule that preserves an indigency exception, while critics could argue that requiring payment by default may discourage or limit access to the petition process for people with limited means. Because no discussion transcript is available, no specific lawmakers or stakeholder groups are identified as having raised these concerns.