## Role

Janice Bowling, a Republican state senator from Coffee County representing Tennessee Senate District 16, sponsored Senate Bill 1510 in 2021, which would have abolished early voting entirely and prohibited the use of voting machines, requiring hand-marked paper ballots instead. The bill represented one of the most extreme voting restriction proposals in any state in 2021. Bowling withdrew the bill on February 23, 2021, and it died in chamber without advancing, but its introduction established the outer boundary of Republican voting restriction ambitions and served as a marker for future efforts.

## Background

Bowling has served in the Tennessee Senate since 2011 and represents a conservative district in middle Tennessee. Her SB 1510 was introduced during the 2021 legislative session when Republican-controlled legislatures nationwide were proposing voting restrictions following the 2020 election. However, Tennessee “largely held the line on voting rights” compared to states like Georgia, Texas, and Arizona—more than 60 election bills were introduced but most were not presented or discussed. Bowling’s extreme proposal to completely eliminate early voting was too radical even for the Republican-controlled Tennessee legislature.

## Documented Actions

### 1. SB 1510 – Complete Elimination of Early Voting and Voting Machines (2021)

Evidence: Bowling sponsored SB 1510, which proposed two extraordinary restrictions:

– Complete abolition of early voting: Tennessee had allowed early voting for years, providing voters with weeks to cast ballots before Election Day. SB 1510 would have eliminated this entire voting period, forcing all voters to vote on a single day (Election Day) unless they qualified for absentee ballots. This would have created massive Election Day congestion, long lines, reduced access for working voters, and eliminated the convenience that millions of Tennesseans had used.

– Ban on voting machines, requiring hand-marked paper ballots: SB 1510 would have prohibited all voting machines, requiring jurisdictions to use only hand-marked paper ballots counted by hand or optical scanners. While hand-marked ballots have security advantages, the complete ban on voting machines (including modern optical scan systems) would have created massive administrative burdens, dramatically increased costs, slowed results reporting, and potentially increased human error in counting.

The bill’s extremism was evident in its dual targeting of both voting access (eliminating early voting) and voting technology (banning machines). Most 2021 Republican voting bills targeted one or the other, but SB 1510 attacked both simultaneously, representing one of the most comprehensive restriction proposals anywhere in the nation.

Bowling withdrew the bill on February 23, 2021, just weeks after introduction. The bill died in chamber without ever receiving a committee hearing or floor vote. The rapid withdrawal suggests Bowling recognized that even Republican colleagues found the bill too extreme to defend publicly.

Sources: LegiScan TN SB1510 tracking; Tennessee General Assembly bill status; Think Tennessee analysis

Pattern: Most extreme 2021 proposal (abolish early voting entirely); ban all voting machines; rapid withdrawal February 2021; died in chamber; no committee hearing; too extreme even for Republican colleagues

### 2. Bill as “Marker” Establishing Outer Boundary

Evidence: Although SB 1510 was withdrawn and died, its introduction served important strategic purposes for the voter suppression movement:

– Established outer boundary: By proposing complete elimination of early voting, Bowling made other restrictions seem “moderate” by comparison. Bills merely cutting early voting days from 20 to 10 could be framed as reasonable compromises compared to total elimination.

– Signaled to base: The bill introduction signaled to Tennessee’s conservative Republican base that legislators were willing to take extreme positions on elections, even if those positions couldn’t advance legislatively.

– Created negotiating space: In future sessions, moderate restrictions might be more palatable to colleagues and the public because they weren’t as extreme as Bowling’s complete elimination proposal.

– Tested limits: The bill’s introduction and rapid withdrawal tested where Tennessee Republican colleagues’ limits were—complete early voting elimination was beyond those limits, establishing a boundary for future proposals.

This “marker” strategy is common in restrictive legislation. By introducing extreme bills that get withdrawn or die, sponsors create reference points that make subsequent, somewhat-less-extreme bills seem reasonable. Bowling’s SB 1510 served this purpose even though it never advanced.

Sources: Legislative strategy analysis; comparison of withdrawn vs. enacted bills; Think Tennessee reporting on Tennessee’s 2021 session

Pattern: Strategic marker-setting; establishing outer boundary; making other restrictions seem moderate by comparison; base signaling; testing colleague limits; negotiating space creation

### 3. Tennessee’s Overall 2021 Voting Rights Preservation

Evidence: Despite Bowling’s extreme SB 1510 and more than 60 other election bills introduced in Tennessee’s 2021 session, the state “largely held the line on voting rights”—most bills were not presented or discussed, and Tennessee avoided the significant restrictions enacted in Georgia, Texas, Florida, Arizona, and other Republican-controlled states.

Several factors likely contributed to Tennessee’s relative restraint:

– Strong Republican trifecta: Tennessee Republicans’ overwhelming control meant they didn’t feel threatened enough to enact major restrictions

– Existing ID requirements: Tennessee already had strict voter ID laws, reducing pressure for additional restrictions

– Public backlash concerns: Watching Georgia face national condemnation and economic consequences for SB 202 may have made Tennessee Republicans cautious

– Bowling’s extreme proposal backfiring: SB 1510’s extremism may have poisoned the well, making Tennessee Republicans wary of advancing any voting restrictions that could be compared to it

Bowling’s bill withdrawal and Tennessee’s overall restraint in 2021 demonstrated that voter suppression efforts face limits even in Republican-controlled states. However, the introduction of 60+ election bills showed Republican interest remained high—the infrastructure for future restriction efforts was being built even if 2021 didn’t yield enacted laws.

Sources: Think Tennessee: “Tennessee will largely hold the line on voting rights this session” (2021 analysis); Tennessee General Assembly bill tracking showing 60+ introduced but few advanced

Pattern: 60+ bills introduced but few advanced; extreme proposal (SB 1510) withdrawn; overall voting rights preservation compared to other states; Republican trifecta choosing restraint; infrastructure for future efforts built despite 2021 lack of enactments