Tennessee Senate Bill SB0424

Tennessee 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/24/23
• Engrossed: 2/27/23
• Enrolled: 4/3/23
• Passed: 4/17/23
• Chaptered: 4/25/23

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 6-20-110, relative to commissioner vacancies.

Impact

The enactment of SB 0424 is expected to have significant implications for local governance in Tennessee. The bill not only sets stricter timelines for addressing vacancies but also introduces a standard method for notifying election authorities, thereby enhancing the overall operational efficiency of local boards. By mandating a special election for unfilled vacancies, the bill aims to promote accountability and timely representation within local bodies, ensuring that communities have their elected officials in place to address their needs effectively.

Summary

Senate Bill 0424 amends Tennessee Code Annotated, specifically Section 6-20-110, which governs the filling of commissioner vacancies. This legislation establishes a clear protocol by which vacancies are to be addressed within a specified timeframe. If a vacancy is not filled within 90 days, the mayor or city manager—depending on existing vacancies—must notify the county election commission to arrange for a special election. This structured process aims to ensure that local governance remains efficient and responsive, minimizing disruptions that could arise from prolonged vacancies in critical positions.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB 0424 appears to be largely positive, with strong support among legislators who view it as a necessary reform. Proponents argue that the bill safeguards against the potential stagnation in local governance that can occur when vacancies are left unfilled for extended periods. There seems to be a consensus that this bill enhances democratic processes by ensuring prompt electoral action in local governments, thereby keeping community representation intact.

Contention

Despite the broad support for SB 0424, some concerns have been raised. Opponents express a fear that the stringent timeline might not account for unforeseen circumstances that can prolong decision-making in local government contexts. Critics argue that while the intention behind the bill is commendable, it could lead to rushed decisions that may not be in the best interest of the communities involved. The balance between timely governance and thorough decision-making processes remains a point of contention among some stakeholders.