Special Session Recap: Congressional Redistricting

This week, the General Assembly returned to Nashville for a special session focused on congressional redistricting.

I  want to be clear from the beginning: good people can look at the same facts and come to different conclusions. I respect my colleagues who voted differently than I did.  My vote was not a statement against them. It was a reflection of my concerns about the timing, the process, and the long-term consequences of redrawing congressional districts mid-decade. As your representative, I tried to weigh  what is wise, fair, transparent, and in the best interest of the people we serve.

In my previous update, I shared those concerns. I had not seen the legislation or maps at that time. I agreed to listen to feedback and weigh the arguments made during the hearings. It was my intent to be honest with constituents about concerns, while still leaving room to evaluate the final bill and the circumstances surrounding the vote.

On Wednesday morning, shortly after 9:00 a.m. Central Time, I received notification that the proposed congressional maps had been published.

On Thursday, we heard 37 amendments on the first bill. Throughout the debate, protesters disrupted the proceedings several times and were warned by the Speaker that they would be removed if the disruptions continued. The situation escalated when the first group of protesters in the gallery was removed. Noisemakers devices were set off, disrupting the presentation of several amendments making it  impossible to hear the members who were speaking. Troopers did remove individuals from the gallery, but it took quite a while to clear the area because of the narrow stairway and because some refused to leave voluntarily.

Then, just before it was the Republican Caucus’s turn to speak on the final bill, additional noisemaker devices were set off in the other gallery while protesters were exiting. The devices were hidden, so they were not easy for troopers to locate quickly. The question was called, and the vote was taken. Because of the noise, it was extremely difficult to hear the call to vote, and a couple of members missed the vote altogether. Leaving the House Chamber afterward was also chaotic, with protesters gathered outside the chamber and yelling as members exited. Once we made it outside the Capitol,  protesters began following members and encircled a few. Thankfully, the troopers were nearby  to assist.

Constituent Feedback and Survey Results

The survey results showed that 78% of respondents opposed mid-decade redistricting. I want to be transparent: the survey was shared across the state and in many groups, so it is not  a good reflection of District 27.

In addition to the survey, I received individual texts, calls, and emails from constituents. In those direct contacts, the feedback was also mixed and reflected that this is a split issue even among Republicans. That matters to me. This was not a simple issue where everyone saw it the same way.  For me, the feedback confirmed that many voters have serious concerns about timing, fairness, cost, and whether mid-decade redistricting strengthens or weakens representative government.

Why I Voted Present Not Voting

First off, Present Not Voting is  a vote. There are many reasons a member may choose to vote PNV. Sometimes it is because of a conflict of interest. Sometimes it is because there was insufficient information. Other times, it reflects a mixed position: a member may agree with part of a bill but strongly object to another part, making a simple yes or no vote inaccurate. 

I voted Present Not Voting because I had serious concerns about the timing, process, and unintended consequences, but I also did not want my vote to be interpreted as agreement with the messaging, tactics, or behavior being used by protesters throughout this week. My vote was not a refusal to take the issue seriously. It was a deliberate vote reflecting the complexity of the issue, my concerns about the process, and my unwillingness to validate disruptive tactics that prevented members from being heard and made it difficult for the House to conduct its business.  

Fairness to Candidates, Voters, and Election Officials

We are roughly 60 days from the August primary, and today is when absentee ballots can begin to be requested. Timing presents a real issue on this because of military overseas voters needing enough time to receive, review and send back their ballots. 

Congressional districts are large. Candidates have already been campaigning for months. They have spent time, money, and energy introducing themselves to voters under the current district lines. Under the new map, several candidates now have very different districts. Some will have to introduce themselves to entirely new communities with very little time remaining. That may not affect incumbents as severely because incumbency has advantages statewide, but it is a significant burden for challengers and new candidates.

There is also a real burden on election commissions across the state. With limited time before the primary, they must prepare for new district lines, update systems, communicate changes, and notify voters appropriately. When maps change this close to an election, it can create confusion for voters about who could represent them. If this issue had been discussed before the qualifying deadlines passed, it may have been a different conversation. But at this point, citizens may have already received mailers, attended events, volunteered, or donated to candidates they believed would be on their ballot — to now find out that those candidates are no longer running in their district.

Final Thoughts

I understand the legal and political arguments. I understand why many of my colleagues and some constituents supported  the final map. But I also believe timing, process, fairness, and public trust matter. Representative government works best when voters have confidence that the process is fair and that their voices matter. This week, I tried to weigh what was legally allowed against what I believed was prudent, fair, and in the best interest of the great state of Tennessee. A yes or no vote felt inaccurate and that's why I was Present Not Voting.

As always, I  appreciate the opportunity to serve and even if we disagree I welcome your feedback.

Rep. Michele Reneau