Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the HB3 Map topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances congressional map (House Bill 3) after debate over costs and safeguards
Summary
The committee reviewed and voted to advance House Bill 3, a congressional redistricting plan described as population‑based and developed without using racial data; members questioned the fiscal note, safeguards for military and overseas ballots and the risk of voter confusion. The bill was reported to calendar and rules by a 15–6 vote.
NASHVILLE — The Tennessee House Finance, Ways and Means Committee on May 6 debated and advanced House Bill 3, a congressional map that Speaker Sexton said was drawn on population and political considerations and does not use racial data.
Speaker Sexton walked members through the proposed changes by district, describing modest shifts in several counties and saying, "There was no racial data used in this. It was based on population and politics and making sure that no incumbents were paired together." He also cited Fiscal Review's estimate of roughly $3.1 million to implement the map in affected counties.
Opponents questioned both the process and the fiscal estimate. Representative Bain called the special session "an embarrassment" and alleged the map was "unconstitutional" and designed to "dilute the black voting power" of colleagues. Speaker Sexton and other proponents directly disputed that description, reiterating that racial data were not used and that the fiscal note included assumptions for overtime, IT modifications and postage.
Members also raised practical concerns about administering the changes quickly. Representative Brooks cited a 2022 Davidson County problem that left more than 400 voters assigned to the wrong district when maps were configured and asked what safeguards would prevent similar errors. Speaker Sexton said congressional map changes are a smaller technical lift than prior state house and senate redistrictings and pointed to coordination among the secretary of state and local election administrators.
Fiscal Review’s assumption breakdown that committee members discussed included approximately $500,000 for overtime, $250,000 for IT modifications, $500,000 for additional election administration costs and roughly $1.9 million for registration cards and postage; Fiscal Review estimated 42 counties were directly affected in its calculation.
After a motion to call the previous question, the committee voted on House Bill 3; the clerk announced 15 ayes and 6 nos and the bill was forwarded to calendar and rules.
The committee adjourned subject to the call of the chair.
