AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 2; Title 8; Title 39 and Title 40, relative to rights of citizenship.
Summary
SB1203 makes a narrow change to Tennessee’s expungement-related cost provision in Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 40-29-104. Under current law, the statute addresses who pays the costs of an application, and this bill replaces that language with a clearer rule: unless a court orders otherwise, the petitioner must pay the costs of the application. The bill applies to court orders issued on or after its effective date.
Although the bill’s caption refers broadly to “rights of citizenship” and cites Titles 2, 8, 39, and 40, the operative text only amends one section in Title 40. The practical effect is to preserve judicial discretion to shift or waive costs, while making the default rule that the person seeking relief bears the filing/application costs unless the court decides otherwise.
Impact
The bill amends Tennessee’s criminal procedure statutes governing application costs for court relief, most likely in the expungement or restoration-of-rights context under Title 40. It does not create a new program or eligibility standard, but it does change the default allocation of costs for affected petitioners and preserves court authority to order a different result. The change applies prospectively to court orders issued on or after the effective date.
Sentiment
There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided materials, so no direct legislative debate or partisan split can be identified from the record here. Based on the text alone, the bill appears technical and limited in scope, with a neutral administrative purpose rather than a broad policy change. The absence of amendments, votes, or discussion suggests little visible controversy in the available record.
Contention
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. The only potentially debatable issue apparent from the text is whether petitioners should bear application costs by default or whether courts should more readily shift those costs to the state or another party. Because the bill preserves judicial discretion, any disagreement would likely center on access to relief for petitioners versus cost recovery and administrative consistency.