Bills that Fail, Part 3
A look at our own bills that failed this year
In our last post of this series, we’re going to look at a few of our own bills that failed this year, and the reasons why. The first two parts of the series can be found here:
Every year, TFI has a number of bills we hope to get through, which we call our bill slate. Many of these are bills that we’ve been working on for months or years, some of them are things we pick up from another group or have brought to us by a legislator, an a few will be coalition bills that we work on with another group. This year, four of those bills failed.
Here’s the how and why, along with some lessons learned along the way.
HB850/SB1032 - Sent to the first committee of 2026 in the House, sent to General Sub in the Senate. No votes taken; sponsors requested deferral.
What is it? The bill sought to codify and strengthen a court case from East Tennessee regarding personal property rights. The goal was to keep government agents (specifically those from the TWRA, though not limited to that agency only) from violating personal property. Under current law, a handful of state agencies can trespass on private property without needing a warrant and without witnessing criminal activity. The bill would have stopped this from happening.
What are the details? This bill was crafted by a group called All for Tennessee, along with the Institute for Justice. We bumped into the lobbyist for AFT early in session, loved the bill, and decided to work on it with them. In reading the bill, we anticipated that a dozen-or-so departments would come out against it, since it potentially affected things like health inspections, the department of children’s services, etc. that technically intrude on private property. We created an amendment, and when the departments started bringing arguments against the bill we amended to narrow the scope of the language. We met multiple times with the sponsor, other lobbyists, and committee members to determine whether we should write the bill in the simplest way possible or whether to rely on judicial interpretations of certain legal terms. This resulted in at least 2.5 hour meeting with a single legislator to get him on board for a vote.
Why did it fail?
Confusion and complication (with both our sponsor and other legislators). Most legislators are not lawyers, and unclear language, regardless of intent or of judicial clarity that may exist outside the code, is confusing. Put another way: It’s very difficult to argue that something means this when it says that.
Lateness of session. By the time we achieved a good level of unity and satisfied the majority of opponents, committees were closing and committee schedules were crammed. We could no longer guarantee that we could whip votes and get the bill through, so the sponsor opted to push it to next year.
Lessons learned?
Keep it simple. Talking points need to be quick and bills need to be easy to understand. Confusion on a bill, even early in session, can keep the bill from passing all year. Opponents may only read the first version and might remain opposed regardless of tweaks. We’ll help with this again.
SB1058/HB1086 - Failed in Senate Natural Resources Committee, 6 to 3
What was it? This bill would have reduced the power of the Commissioner of Agriculture over private farmers, by removing their ability to require vaccinations on livestock (with narrow exceptions), and requiring them to pay farmers for any livestock destroyed in a culling operation.
What are the details? This is a bill we started working on last summer after reading the TN code related to the Commissioner of Agriculture. The Commissioner has an unbelievable amount of power over private livestock and agriculture in the state, and while rarely exercised, it’s the sort of power that could become a huge problem and ought to be fixed before it’s used badly. The goal of this bill was to fix that. After feedback / pushback from half a dozen quarters, we decided to amend the language down to a much more passable version and bring our code in line with much of the rest of the country: We would make it so that the Commissioner could recommend vaccinations on livestock, but could not require them. The requirement to pay farmers back in a culling operation was removed entirely, and an exception was added that said the Dept. of Ag could require testing of animals, just not force vaccinations.
Why did it fail?
Generously? Communication issues. While presenting in committee in the Senate, it seemed that the committee did not have our amendment handy. We’re not sure how this happened, but it certainly could have been an honest mistake. When we tried to push forward without the amendment, the legislators voted the old language down, which we can’t entirely blame them for.
Less generously? The Department of Agriculture, Farm Bureau, and several other organizations came out swinging against this bill, creating a lot of confusion and lodging personal attacks against our team. Their lobbyists followed ours through the building at certain times, ducking into offices as we were walking out and pushing back against our talking points. We don’t have the time, resources, or staff to fight back against organizations that claim to represent all farmers… or “compelling state interest”.
Lessons learned?
Sometimes you can’t anticipate all the issues. This happens to us almost every year: We have a concept, like “reduce regulation on farmers”, and we create a bill that gets us there. We do the best research we can beforehand, but since we’re not subject matter experts in everything, there are pieces we miss. Issues we can’t foresee. Sometimes people bring up good arguments; sometimes they throw out red herrings; sometimes the language isn’t actually as clear as it could be. Sometimes you don’t try to bite off more than you can chew, but you don’t realize how much you’re biting.
Next year, we’ll bring this back. But it will likely be 2-3 bills, splitting the issues up so they’re easier to argue and can be discussed separately. Hopefully we can keep things from getting nasty.
SB259/HB853 - Sent to General Subcommittee in the Senate (effectively killing it for the year)
What is it? This bill would have clarified / removed the Mature Minor Doctrine in the state of Tennessee.
What are the details? The Mature Minor Doctrine is — simplistically — the idea that a doctor can work with a minor to make medical decisions apart from the minor’s legal guardians, provided the doctor believes that the minor has the capacity to make those decisions for themselves. It is a theory that is largely employed when the minor is between 14-17. This bill would have clarified that a legal guardian needs to be involved in those medical decisions, except in limited cases of emergency, minor injuries, etc.
Why did it fail? Senator Ferrel Haile approached our sponsor (Mark Pody) and asked him to hold off on the bill because Haile was sponsoring a similar bill in the Senate (SB895). Haile’s bill bears some resemblance to ours, and appears poised to pass. It is currently headed to the House and Senate Floor. With his bill in a good position to pass, Pody sent ours to general sub.
Lessons learned? None, really. If Haile’s bill passes, we can always amend next year. If not, we’ll run our own version again next year and can probably pass it. Passing legislation will always have some level of politics attached to it, based on who gets the credit by attaching their name as the primary sponsor. We’re happy to let someone else get the credit if it means a good bill gets through.
Hb1264/HB1231 - Never put on notice
What is it? A bill to keep international organizations from forcing their will on Tennessee.
What are the details? The World Health Organization, World Economic Forum, United Nations, and other international groups often issue “guidance” or “rules” that states, local governments, or NGOs follow without question. Sometimes, this guidance is based on sound principles and expert advice, but other times it is centered around faulty scientific beliefs or an elitist cultural zeitgeist that harms Tennesseans. This bill would have required that, before enforcing any of these rules or guidelines, the state consider whether they fell afoul of the TN constitution, or restricted private property rights in the state. If so, the rules could not be implemented.
Why did it fail? A similar bill, sponsored by Chairman Rudd (HB318), was also put forward. Rather than create confusion by running multiple bills, and doing double the work, our sponsors decided to co-sponsor the legislation from Rudd. HB318 is still moving in both the House and Senate, though at this late date there is no guarantee it will make it through.
Lessons learned? Again, not really — the choice to drop the bill was an intentional one and we believe that Rudd’s bill will get the job done. If his doesn’t pass, we will bring back some version next year in order to protect the people of Tennessee from international overreach.
Thank you for reading! We’re grateful for your support. If you support the issues above and would like to help us make more progress on these issues, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription!