Balancing Election Security and Good Governance in Tennessee
The Tennessee Legislature is currently considering HB 0458/SB 0367, a broad election-security reform proposal that will shape how Tennesseans vote, register to vote, and trust the electoral process. Like many states, Tennessee faces the challenge of balancing accuracy, access, and confidence in elections. This bill gets several things right, but it also includes provisions that miss the mark and can serve as lessons for lawmakers in the state and beyond.
At its core, the bill makes targeted changes to existing law designed to strengthen voter list maintenance, improve transparency in vote tabulation, and clarify processes for verifying voter eligibility. Importantly, the bill would require the coordinator of elections to cross-check voter registration data with official records from the Department of Safety, Department of Correction, Office of Vital Records, and other key state and federal databases on a monthly basis to ensure only eligible citizens appear on Tennessee’s voter rolls. This routine comparison places the burden of accuracy on state infrastructure rather than individual residents.
Another interesting provision requires that optical scanners used to tabulate votes must create and save digital images of each ballot. Those images must then be posted to the secretary of state’s website. These measures can help ensure transparency and increase voter trust in the results.
While these provisions are constructive, other parts of the bill could impose unnecessary burdens on voters or the administrative process.
One such provision establishes a mechanism for registered voters to challenge the qualifications of another person applying to register or whose name already appears on the voter list. Under the bill, the challenger correctly bears the burden of proof to show the challenged person is not qualified to register or remain on the voter rolls. Yet even without a meaningful evidentiary threshold, the mere filing of a challenge triggers state action—including notifying the challenged voter and holding a hearing. Some preliminary showing of proof should be required before concrete state actions affecting another resident’s rights are set in motion. Prosecutorial discretion and administrative screening play an important role in preventing system abuse and avoiding the unnecessary expenditure of public resources on frivolous or bad-faith challenges.
The bill also includes a requirement that driver’s licenses or other photo ID issued to legal non-citizen residents must prominently display the phrase “NOT ELIGIBLE TO VOTE” on the front. While the intention behind this provision is clearly to prevent inadvertent registration of non-citizens, it raises valid concerns about privacy, stigma, and practicality. A person’s eligibility to vote is not relevant in many of the everyday situations in which ID cards are used, such as at a bar or during a traffic stop. Marking IDs in this way could lead to awkward encounters or misinterpretations of a person’s rights, placing burdens on law-abiding state residents.
As Tennessee and other states update their election laws, it is important to remember both the purpose of election administration and the people at the center of it. Election security should be pursued in ways that protect voters’ fundamental rights while acknowledging the practical realities of administering complex systems. The state has a responsibility to maintain clean and accurate rolls, ensure ballots are counted securely, and provide transparency that fosters trust. But in doing so, it should avoid policies that waste government and taxpayer resources or place undue burdens on residents.