President Trump’s executive order, signed in March on election integrity, established important principles that should resonate with any state serious about secure and transparent elections: enforcement of citizen-only voting, comprehensive reviews of election system security, and cleaning up bloated voter rolls. While much of this comprehensive order remains tied up in federal court challenges, the underlying principles represent common-sense reforms that Tennessee should embrace regardless of federal mandates. These are fundamental safeguards that transcend party politics – they’re about restoring voter confidence in our democratic process.
Unfortunately, the Tennessee General Assembly continues to fall short on implementing these basic security measures. During this year’s legislative session, our lawmakers accomplished next to nothing on election integrity, including once again failing to pass party registration. This simple reform would protect Republican primaries from interference, yet our super-majority Republican legislature here in Tennessee couldn’t get the job done. The question is unavoidable. When will our Tennessee legislature embrace these common-sense election security priorities?
While Tennessee has proudly touted its Heritage Foundation ranking as the #1 state in election integrity for the past two years, rankings don’t mean much if we refuse to act on obvious vulnerabilities. Titles and accolades cannot substitute for real reforms, and Tennessee’s reputation will only hold as long as we’re willing to do the hard work of securing our elections. The truth is, we are coasting on a reputation while ignoring critical areas of reform because these rankings are based on state laws that are rarely enforced. While we may be better off than many states, we have a long way to go in truly securing our elections. If Tennessee is serious about protecting election integrity, we cannot allow the “#1” label to become a smokescreen for inaction.
One of the most pressing issues we face is the accuracy of our voter rolls. Like other states, Tennessee’s rolls are riddled with inaccuracies that undermine confidence in our elections. HB 722, introduced last session, aimed to fix this systemic problem by clarifying that county election commissions are responsible for removing outdated registrations and repealing an outdated law that prohibits systematic purges 90 days before the August election. This antiquated restriction was made unnecessary by the National Voter Registration Act’s 90-day November rule, yet it remains on our books, hamstringing efforts to maintain clean voter rolls. The bill also included stronger vetting of new registrations and more frequent use of NCOA (National Change of Address) reports to update the lists, both based on proven best practices from other states. However, this critical reform effort stalled in committee, leaving our rolls bloated and vulnerable to the very problems that erode public trust in elections.
The federal executive order’s emphasis on citizenship verification and voter roll maintenance should serve as a wake-up call for Tennessee lawmakers. We shouldn’t need federal mandates to compel us to maintain accurate voter rolls—this should be a state priority driven by our commitment to election integrity. Yet year after year, Tennessee fails to take meaningful action on this fundamental responsibility.
Equally concerning is Tennessee’s move away from precinct-based voting, the constitutional standard intended to protect election integrity. Our constitution states that voters must vote in the precinct in which they reside, yet many counties now depend on county-wide vote centers, and just this year, HB 620 was passed to allow Hamblen County to pilot the use of voting centers. Vote centers may sound convenient, but they introduce significant vulnerabilities that cannot be ignored. Ballots are commingled, making precinct-level audits required under Tennessee law impossible without compromising every ballot. The dispersion of ballots outside precincts creates more opportunities for mishandling and chain of custody issues. Vote centers depend on electronic systems and connectivity, raising concerns about system failures or security breaches. Numerous reports have documented voters receiving incorrect ballots at these centers. Perhaps most troubling, unelected commissions, not voters, decide where to place vote centers, changing locations each cycle and creating voter confusion and unequal access.
Simply put, vote centers undermine the purity of the ballot box and contradict the very safeguards that precinct-based voting was designed to protect. Even Tennessee’s own audit law is built on the assumption that voting occurs in precincts, not vote centers.
The most significant vulnerability in Tennessee’s election system, however, is our continued reliance on electronic voting machines instead of secure, hand-marked paper ballots. For years, election integrity advocates have called for Tennessee to abandon these complex electronic systems in favor of the gold standard of election security: hand-marked paper ballots. The federal executive order’s provisions requiring review of voting systems that use barcodes or QR codes in the counting process should be a clarion call for Tennessee to finally address this critical weakness.
The reality is that a majority of Tennessee’s voting machines rely on barcode technology to actually count the ballot, meaning that the count is not voter-verifiable. When a voter marks their choices on a ballot-marking device, the machine prints a summary of their selections along with a barcode. But it’s the barcode—not the human-readable text—that gets counted. Voters cannot verify that the barcode accurately reflects their choices, creating a fundamental gap in election security. This system forces voters to trust that the machine correctly translated their selections into the barcode, a trust that should never be necessary in a truly secure election system.
Electronic voting machines, whether they use barcodes, touchscreens, or other digital interfaces, introduce countless potential failure points that hand-marked paper ballots simply don’t have. Software glitches can misrecord votes. Connectivity issues can disrupt voting. Potential hacking vulnerabilities, while perhaps unlikely, create unnecessary risk. Complex software dependencies can fail at critical moments. Most importantly, voters cannot independently verify that their votes were recorded correctly when machines handle the marking or counting process.
Hand-marked paper ballots eliminate these vulnerabilities entirely. They create a permanent, auditable record that voters can verify before casting. They cannot be hacked remotely because they require no network connectivity. They don’t depend on complex software that can malfunction. They provide the most reliable foundation for meaningful audits because the physical ballot itself serves as the authoritative record of the voter’s intent. Most importantly, they restore the fundamental principle that voters should be able to verify their own ballots without having to trust machines or technology.
The transition to hand-marked paper ballots would also address the vote center problems plaguing Tennessee counties. Paper ballots make true precinct-based voting practical again, supporting proper chain of custody and enabling the precinct-level audits that Tennessee law requires. They eliminate the technological dependencies that make vote centers seem necessary while restoring the constitutional framework of precinct-based elections.
Tennessee has the tools and the political majority to implement these fundamental election security reforms. We need comprehensive voter roll maintenance with regular systematic updates to ensure only eligible citizens remain registered. We need a return to constitutional precinct-based voting that preserves proper chain of custody and enables meaningful audits. Most critically, we need a statewide mandate for hand-marked paper ballots that eliminates our dependence on electronic systems and barcode counting. We need party registration to protect primary elections from interference. And we need robust audit procedures that work with secure voting methods rather than being undermined by technological complexity.
The Republican supermajority has the votes to pass every one of these reforms. What it has lacked is the political will to implement these fundamental security measures. The principles embodied in the federal executive order—regardless of its legal fate—provide both the framework and the political justification for Tennessee to act. Tennessee must pass laws that truly secure our elections and restore the confidence of voters who are watching closely. These aren’t partisan issues—they’re basic security principles that should have overwhelming bipartisan support.
Our Tennessee General Assembly has repeatedly failed to act on common-sense election integrity measures that would address the most obvious vulnerabilities in our system. Voters who care about election security have watched session after session as lawmakers ignore voter roll problems, expand vulnerable vote centers, and refuse to mandate secure hand-marked paper ballots. What confidence should voters have that our legislature will finally prioritize election security in future sessions? The principles of secure elections have been clearly established through years of advocacy and now through federal policy. The technology solutions exist and are proven. The legal framework is available. Now, it’s up to Tennessee lawmakers to decide whether they’ll implement these reforms or continue to coast on rankings while ignoring real vulnerabilities.
If the Republican supermajority can’t get the job done on these fundamental reforms – cleaning up voter rolls, returning to constitutional precinct-based voting, and mandating hand-marked paper ballots – voters must ask why. The time for excuses and delay has passed. Tennessee’s reputation for election integrity will only hold if we’re willing to do the hard work of actually securing our elections, not just talking about it.
When will elected leaders in Tennessee get serious about election integrity?
President Trump’s executive order, signed in March on election integrity, established important principles that should resonate with any state serious about secure and transparent elections: enforcement of citizen-only voting, comprehensive reviews of election system security, and cleaning up bloated voter rolls. While much of this comprehensive order remains tied up in federal court challenges, the underlying principles represent common-sense reforms that Tennessee should embrace regardless of federal mandates. These are fundamental safeguards that transcend party politics – they’re about restoring voter confidence in our democratic process.
Unfortunately, the Tennessee General Assembly continues to fall short on implementing these basic security measures. During this year’s legislative session, our lawmakers accomplished next to nothing on election integrity, including once again failing to pass party registration. This simple reform would protect Republican primaries from interference, yet our super-majority Republican legislature here in Tennessee couldn’t get the job done. The question is unavoidable. When will our Tennessee legislature embrace these common-sense election security priorities?
While Tennessee has proudly touted its Heritage Foundation ranking as the #1 state in election integrity for the past two years, rankings don’t mean much if we refuse to act on obvious vulnerabilities. Titles and accolades cannot substitute for real reforms, and Tennessee’s reputation will only hold as long as we’re willing to do the hard work of securing our elections. The truth is, we are coasting on a reputation while ignoring critical areas of reform because these rankings are based on state laws that are rarely enforced. While we may be better off than many states, we have a long way to go in truly securing our elections. If Tennessee is serious about protecting election integrity, we cannot allow the “#1” label to become a smokescreen for inaction.
One of the most pressing issues we face is the accuracy of our voter rolls. Like other states, Tennessee’s rolls are riddled with inaccuracies that undermine confidence in our elections. HB 722, introduced last session, aimed to fix this systemic problem by clarifying that county election commissions are responsible for removing outdated registrations and repealing an outdated law that prohibits systematic purges 90 days before the August election. This antiquated restriction was made unnecessary by the National Voter Registration Act’s 90-day November rule, yet it remains on our books, hamstringing efforts to maintain clean voter rolls. The bill also included stronger vetting of new registrations and more frequent use of NCOA (National Change of Address) reports to update the lists, both based on proven best practices from other states. However, this critical reform effort stalled in committee, leaving our rolls bloated and vulnerable to the very problems that erode public trust in elections.
The federal executive order’s emphasis on citizenship verification and voter roll maintenance should serve as a wake-up call for Tennessee lawmakers. We shouldn’t need federal mandates to compel us to maintain accurate voter rolls—this should be a state priority driven by our commitment to election integrity. Yet year after year, Tennessee fails to take meaningful action on this fundamental responsibility.
Equally concerning is Tennessee’s move away from precinct-based voting, the constitutional standard intended to protect election integrity. Our constitution states that voters must vote in the precinct in which they reside, yet many counties now depend on county-wide vote centers, and just this year, HB 620 was passed to allow Hamblen County to pilot the use of voting centers. Vote centers may sound convenient, but they introduce significant vulnerabilities that cannot be ignored. Ballots are commingled, making precinct-level audits required under Tennessee law impossible without compromising every ballot. The dispersion of ballots outside precincts creates more opportunities for mishandling and chain of custody issues. Vote centers depend on electronic systems and connectivity, raising concerns about system failures or security breaches. Numerous reports have documented voters receiving incorrect ballots at these centers. Perhaps most troubling, unelected commissions, not voters, decide where to place vote centers, changing locations each cycle and creating voter confusion and unequal access.
Simply put, vote centers undermine the purity of the ballot box and contradict the very safeguards that precinct-based voting was designed to protect. Even Tennessee’s own audit law is built on the assumption that voting occurs in precincts, not vote centers.
The most significant vulnerability in Tennessee’s election system, however, is our continued reliance on electronic voting machines instead of secure, hand-marked paper ballots. For years, election integrity advocates have called for Tennessee to abandon these complex electronic systems in favor of the gold standard of election security: hand-marked paper ballots. The federal executive order’s provisions requiring review of voting systems that use barcodes or QR codes in the counting process should be a clarion call for Tennessee to finally address this critical weakness.
The reality is that a majority of Tennessee’s voting machines rely on barcode technology to actually count the ballot, meaning that the count is not voter-verifiable. When a voter marks their choices on a ballot-marking device, the machine prints a summary of their selections along with a barcode. But it’s the barcode—not the human-readable text—that gets counted. Voters cannot verify that the barcode accurately reflects their choices, creating a fundamental gap in election security. This system forces voters to trust that the machine correctly translated their selections into the barcode, a trust that should never be necessary in a truly secure election system.
Electronic voting machines, whether they use barcodes, touchscreens, or other digital interfaces, introduce countless potential failure points that hand-marked paper ballots simply don’t have. Software glitches can misrecord votes. Connectivity issues can disrupt voting. Potential hacking vulnerabilities, while perhaps unlikely, create unnecessary risk. Complex software dependencies can fail at critical moments. Most importantly, voters cannot independently verify that their votes were recorded correctly when machines handle the marking or counting process.
Hand-marked paper ballots eliminate these vulnerabilities entirely. They create a permanent, auditable record that voters can verify before casting. They cannot be hacked remotely because they require no network connectivity. They don’t depend on complex software that can malfunction. They provide the most reliable foundation for meaningful audits because the physical ballot itself serves as the authoritative record of the voter’s intent. Most importantly, they restore the fundamental principle that voters should be able to verify their own ballots without having to trust machines or technology.
The transition to hand-marked paper ballots would also address the vote center problems plaguing Tennessee counties. Paper ballots make true precinct-based voting practical again, supporting proper chain of custody and enabling the precinct-level audits that Tennessee law requires. They eliminate the technological dependencies that make vote centers seem necessary while restoring the constitutional framework of precinct-based elections.
Tennessee has the tools and the political majority to implement these fundamental election security reforms. We need comprehensive voter roll maintenance with regular systematic updates to ensure only eligible citizens remain registered. We need a return to constitutional precinct-based voting that preserves proper chain of custody and enables meaningful audits. Most critically, we need a statewide mandate for hand-marked paper ballots that eliminates our dependence on electronic systems and barcode counting. We need party registration to protect primary elections from interference. And we need robust audit procedures that work with secure voting methods rather than being undermined by technological complexity.
The Republican supermajority has the votes to pass every one of these reforms. What it has lacked is the political will to implement these fundamental security measures. The principles embodied in the federal executive order—regardless of its legal fate—provide both the framework and the political justification for Tennessee to act. Tennessee must pass laws that truly secure our elections and restore the confidence of voters who are watching closely. These aren’t partisan issues—they’re basic security principles that should have overwhelming bipartisan support.
Our Tennessee General Assembly has repeatedly failed to act on common-sense election integrity measures that would address the most obvious vulnerabilities in our system. Voters who care about election security have watched session after session as lawmakers ignore voter roll problems, expand vulnerable vote centers, and refuse to mandate secure hand-marked paper ballots. What confidence should voters have that our legislature will finally prioritize election security in future sessions? The principles of secure elections have been clearly established through years of advocacy and now through federal policy. The technology solutions exist and are proven. The legal framework is available. Now, it’s up to Tennessee lawmakers to decide whether they’ll implement these reforms or continue to coast on rankings while ignoring real vulnerabilities.
If the Republican supermajority can’t get the job done on these fundamental reforms – cleaning up voter rolls, returning to constitutional precinct-based voting, and mandating hand-marked paper ballots – voters must ask why. The time for excuses and delay has passed. Tennessee’s reputation for election integrity will only hold if we’re willing to do the hard work of actually securing our elections, not just talking about it.
Like this article?
Gary Humble
Gary Humble