AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 3, Chapter 18, relative to Article V conventions.
SB 1567 rewrites Tennessee’s laws governing participation in an Article V convention under the U.S. Constitution. The bill replaces Title 3, Chapter 18 with a detailed framework for how Tennessee may appoint, instruct, supervise, and remove commissioners and alternate commissioners who would represent the state at a convention called by the states to propose constitutional amendments.
The measure sets eligibility requirements for commissioners, including citizenship, residency, age, voter registration, and restrictions on recent lobbying, federal employment, federal officeholding, and felony convictions. It also requires the General Assembly to approve participation by resolution before any convention-related costs are incurred, and it directs that commissioners be selected by a two-thirds joint resolution, paired with alternates, and apportioned as evenly as practicable among Tennessee’s grand divisions. The bill further defines the scope of commissioners’ authority, requires an oath, establishes compensation and expense rules, limits gifts and benefits, creates an advisory committee to monitor compliance, and makes it a Class E felony for a commissioner or alternate commissioner to knowingly vote outside the authorized scope.
The bill’s practical impact is to centralize legislative control over any Tennessee delegation to an Article V convention and to create enforceable guardrails around what commissioners may do on the convention floor. It also amends state law to create new procedures for vacancy replacement, recall, media communications, and advisory oversight, while tying any spending to specific appropriations approved by the General Assembly. In effect, it creates a state-level regulatory and enforcement structure for constitutional convention participation.
The available voting history suggests the bill had solid but not unanimous support. It passed the Senate Judiciary Committee 7-2, then advanced on the Senate floor by 26-5 on third consideration, and ultimately passed final Senate consideration 73-16. That pattern indicates broad support for the concept of regulating Article V convention participation, but with a meaningful minority opposed.
The main points of contention appear to be the degree of legislative control and the criminal penalties attached to commissioner conduct. Supporters likely viewed the bill as a safeguard against unauthorized action at a potentially high-stakes constitutional convention, while opponents may have been concerned about restricting commissioner discretion, creating felony liability for voting beyond scope, and imposing a highly detailed supervisory structure over a convention process that is inherently political and constitutional in nature.
The bill repeals and replaces Tennessee Code Annotated Title 3, Chapter 18, creating a new statutory scheme for Article V conventions. It affects the General Assembly, the governor, the secretary of state, the attorney general and reporter, and any commissioners or alternate commissioners selected to represent Tennessee. It also imposes new procedural requirements for appropriations, appointments, oaths, oversight, removal, and criminal penalties, thereby changing how Tennessee law governs state participation in federal constitutional amendment conventions.
The overall sentiment appears generally favorable but cautious. The committee and floor votes show that the bill advanced with clear majorities, suggesting lawmakers broadly supported establishing strict state controls before Tennessee could participate in an Article V convention. At the same time, the nontrivial number of nays indicates some concern about the bill’s rigidity, oversight mechanisms, and criminal enforcement provisions.
The most notable contention centers on whether Tennessee should impose tight legislative control over commissioners and whether violations should be criminalized. Critics may have objected to the two-thirds appointment requirement, the advisory committee’s removal authority, restrictions on commissioner communications, and the Class E felony penalty for voting outside the authorized scope. Supporters, by contrast, likely argued that these safeguards were necessary to ensure commissioners remain bound by the General Assembly’s instructions and do not exceed the limited purpose for which Tennessee would join an Article V convention.