Tennessee Senate Bill SB1640

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/13/26
• Engrossed: 2/19/26
• Enrolled: 2/24/26
• Passed: 3/6/26
• Chaptered: 3/16/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 40, Chapter 38, Part 6, relative to the address confidentiality program.

Summary

SB1640 amends Tennessee’s address confidentiality program, which is designed to help certain victims and vulnerable individuals keep their residential addresses out of public records. The bill makes three targeted changes to the eligibility and administration of the program. First, it expands one family relationship reference by changing “parent, or” to “parent, sibling, or,” which broadens the category of relatives connected to the program’s provisions. Second, it adds the registry of persistent domestic violence offenders as a qualifying source or reference point within the statute. Third, it removes the phrase “within this state” from one subsection, which appears to broaden the geographic scope of the affected provision. Overall, the bill is a narrow statutory update rather than a major overhaul. It keeps the core structure of the address confidentiality program intact while refining who and what is covered under the law. Because the program is tied to privacy protections for people at risk of harm, the changes likely affect victims of domestic violence and related protected participants, as well as the state offices that administer confidential address records and related eligibility determinations.

Impact

The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 40, Chapter 38, Part 6, by revising definitions and cross-references within the address confidentiality program. It expands a family-member reference, adds the persistent domestic violence offender registry to the statute, and removes a geographic limitation in one provision. These changes may affect how the program is applied to applicants, how state agencies verify eligibility or related records, and how protected addresses are handled in relation to offender information and interstate or broader jurisdictional circumstances.

Sentiment

The available voting history shows strong and unanimous support for the bill. It was recommended for passage in the Senate Judiciary Committee by an 8-0 vote, then adopted on the Senate floor by a 31-0 vote, and finally passed on third consideration in the House by a 91-0 vote. No committee transcripts were provided, but the recorded votes suggest the measure was viewed as noncontroversial and consistent with existing victim-protection policy.

Contention

No notable opposition appears in the available record. The bill’s changes are technical and protective in nature, and the unanimous votes indicate little or no disagreement over the policy direction. If any issue were to arise, it would likely concern the scope of the expanded confidentiality protections or the implications of removing the “within this state” limitation, but no specific objections are reflected in the provided materials.