AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 2, relative to elections.
SB1028 would significantly revise Tennessee election law to require a visible secure watermark on all voting machine ballots and paper ballots used in primary and general elections, including absentee ballots. It directs the coordinator of elections to define the watermark’s method, type, and placement, and allows the use of invisible ink or pre-printed opaque images so long as the watermark is visible for verification by the counting board. The bill also exempts sample ballots from the watermark requirement.
The measure further changes how ballots are tabulated and audited. It prohibits ballot tabulation from relying on QR codes, bar codes, or other machine-coded marks, requiring instead that scanners count the human-readable text portion or machine mark that clearly shows the voter’s selection. It also requires all paper ballots to be scanned into digital images, stored with chain-of-custody controls, and made available on the secretary of state’s website for audits under existing election audit procedures. The bill sets image-resolution standards, requires vendors’ systems to be capable of handling watermark ballots, and applies these requirements to elections conducted on or after July 1, 2025.
SB1028 would amend multiple provisions in Title 2 of the Tennessee Code governing ballot design, voting equipment, absentee ballots, and election audits. It would add a new statutory framework for secure watermarks, require scanners and voting systems to accommodate those watermarks, and create new duties for the secretary of state regarding ballot image posting and audit administration. The bill would also reinforce chain-of-custody and storage requirements for scanned paper ballots and limit the use of machine-readable codes for tabulation purposes.
The bill appears to be driven by election-security concerns and reflects a strong preference among its sponsor and supporters for paper-ballot transparency, human-readable tabulation, and additional safeguards against machine-coded ballot counting. The findings section frames the proposal as a response to national concerns about ballot integrity and references similar measures in other states. However, the committee vote indicates the proposal did not gain support in the Senate State and Local Government Committee, where it failed 1-7, suggesting substantial opposition or skepticism among committee members.
The main points of contention are likely the mandate for visible secure watermarks, the prohibition on QR codes and bar codes for tabulation, and the operational burden of scanning, storing, posting, and auditing ballot images. Supporters would view these provisions as improving transparency and election integrity, while critics may question cost, implementation complexity, vendor compatibility, and whether the bill could disrupt existing certified voting systems. The requirement that the secretary of state define watermark standards and administer statewide ballot-image posting and OCR-based audits may also raise concerns about administrative scope and privacy or security implications of posting ballot images online.