Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-7-133 (2026)
Ballots which may be counted
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) Only ballots provided in accordance with this title may be counted. The judges shall write "Void" on others and sign them.
- (b) If the voter marks more names than there are persons to be elected to an office, or if for any reason it is impossible to determine the voter's choice for any office to be filled or on a question, the voter's ballot shall not be counted for such office and shall be marked "Uncounted" beside the office and be signed by the judges. It shall be counted so far as it is properly marked or so far as it is possible to determine the voter's choice.
- (c) If two (2) ballots are rolled up together or are folded together, they shall not be counted. The judges shall write on them "Void" and the reason and sign them.
- (d) Any ballot marked by the voter for identification shall not be counted. The judges shall write on it "Void" and the reason and sign it.
- (e) Ballots which are not counted shall be kept together and shall be bundled separately from the ballots which are counted.
- (f) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, if a voter marks a paper or optical scan ballot with a cross, "x", checkmark or any other appropriate mark within the square, circle or oval to the right of the candidate's name, or any place within the space in which the name appears, indicating an intent to vote for that candidate, it is a vote for the candidate whose name it is opposite. Underlining or circling the candidate's name would also constitute a vote. Any apparent erasure of a mark next to the name of a candidate may not be counted as a vote for that candidate if the voter makes another mark next to the name of one (1) or more different candidates for the same office and counting of the mark would result in an excess number of votes cast for the office.
- (g) If a voter casts more than one (1) vote for the same candidate for the same office, the first vote is valid and the remaining votes are invalid.
- (h)
- (1) Any person attempting to be elected by write-in ballots shall complete a notice requesting such person's ballots be counted in each county of the district no later than twelve o'clock (12:00) noon, prevailing time, fifty (50) days before the general election. Such person shall only have votes counted in counties where such notice was completed and timely filed. The notice shall be on a form prescribed by the coordinator of elections and shall not require signatures of any person other than the write-in candidate requesting ballots be counted. The coordinator of elections shall distribute such form to the county election commissions. Upon timely receiving the notice required by this subsection (h), the county election commission shall promptly inform the state coordinator of elections, the registry of election finance, as well as all other candidates participating in the affected election. A write-in candidate may withdraw the notice by filing a letter of withdrawal in the same manner as the original notice was filed no later than the fifth day before the election.
- (2) A candidate defeated in a primary election shall not complete a notice requesting write-in ballots to be counted in the general election under subdivision (h)(1), and any write-in votes cast for the candidate in the general election must not be counted.
Amended by 2019 Tenn. Acts, ch. 250, s 4, eff. 10/1/2019.
Amended by 2019 Tenn. Acts, ch. 128, s 1, eff. 4/9/2019.
Acts 1972, ch. 740, § 1; T.C.A., § 2-733; Acts 2001, ch. 413, §1; 2001, ch. 465, §§2 - 4; 2003 , ch. 307, § 4; 2005, ch. 302, §1; 2007 , ch. 125, §6; 2008 , ch. 928, §15; 2009 , ch. 218, § 6.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1981–2016 · leading case: King v. Sevier Cnty. Election Comm'n, 282 S.W.3d 37 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008).
King v. Sevier Cnty. Election Comm'n, 282 S.W.3d 37 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008). “King points to Tenn.Code Ann. § 2-7-133 (Supp.2007), the statute governing “Uncounted ballots,” part of the chapter dealing with “Procedure at the Polling Place.”
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). “Codified Laws §12-20-7 (1995); Tenn. Code Ann. §2-7-133 (b) (1994); W. Va.”
Joseph H. Johnston v. Davidson Cnty. Election Comm'n (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014). “Barrett also advised that none of the write-in votes were officially counted because none of the write-in candidates had submitted a notice to the county election commission pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-7-133 (i) requesting that their votes be counted.”
Joseph H. Johnston v. Tennessee State Election Comm'n (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). “OPINION This is the second appeal involving Joseph Johnston‘s grievance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-7-133 (i). The impetus of the first appeal occurred in 2011, when Mr.”
Hall v. Pate, 611 S.W.2d 577 (Tenn. 1981). “2 Observance of statutory requirements with respect to the marking of ballots is, of course, desirable, but it is apparent from the provisions of T.C.A. § 2-7-133 that the intention of the voter is paramount and should be honored if it can be reasonably ascertained.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-7-133(a) — 1 case
King v. Sevier Cnty. Election Comm'n, 282 S.W.3d 37 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008). “King points to Tenn.Code Ann. § 2-7-133 (Supp.2007), the statute governing “Uncounted ballots,” part of the chapter dealing with “Procedure at the Polling Place.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-7-133(b) — 1 case
Hall v. Pate, 611 S.W.2d 577 (Tenn. 1981). “2 Observance of statutory requirements with respect to the marking of ballots is, of course, desirable, but it is apparent from the provisions of T.C.A. § 2-7-133 that the intention of the voter is paramount and should be honored if it can be reasonably ascertained.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-7-133(i) — 1 case
Joseph H. Johnston v. Davidson Cnty. Election Comm'n (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014). “Barrett also advised that none of the write-in votes were officially counted because none of the write-in candidates had submitted a notice to the county election commission pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-7-133 (i) requesting that their votes be counted.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.