Tennessee Senate Bill SB1720

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/15/26
• Engrossed: 4/6/26
• Enrolled: 4/15/26
• Passed: 4/27/26
• Chaptered: 5/4/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 2 and Title 10, Chapter 7, relative to public records.

Summary

SB1720 amends Tennessee’s public records and election laws to make the home addresses listed on nominating petitions for certain judicial and prosecutorial offices confidential. The protected petitions are those for judge, chancellor, district attorney general, and public defender. Under the bill, those addresses are no longer open to public inspection unless the information is requested by a candidate or by law enforcement in anticipation of, or during, an election contest or contest of candidacy. The bill also creates a certification requirement for anyone seeking access to the otherwise confidential address information. The requester must certify, on a form provided by the coordinator of elections, the reason for the request under penalty of perjury. The act takes effect immediately upon becoming law, reflecting the legislature’s view that the change serves the public welfare.

Impact

The bill narrows the scope of Tennessee’s public records law in Title 10, Chapter 7 by carving out a specific confidentiality rule for address information on certain nominating petitions. It also amends Title 2 election law to add a new privacy protection and procedural safeguard for access requests. The practical effect is to limit public disclosure of personal address information for candidates for judicial and prosecutorial offices, while preserving access for election-related disputes and law enforcement needs.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have received strong and largely unanimous support. It passed the Senate State & Local Government Committee 9-0, then cleared the floor 32-0 on third consideration, and later passed the House 92-0. The voting history suggests broad agreement that the measure is a targeted privacy and election-administration fix rather than a controversial policy change.

Contention

There is little evidence of significant opposition in the available record, but the main policy tension is between public access to election records and personal privacy/security for candidates. Supporters appear to favor shielding home addresses of candidates for sensitive offices, likely to reduce harassment or safety risks. Any concern would likely come from transparency advocates or public-records proponents who may view the change as a narrowing of access, though no recorded dissent appears in the votes provided.