Williamson County, Tennessee
Precinct data
Results by precinct
54 precincts · 144,668 votes
Precinct boundaries and identifiers are cycle-specific. This table does not join rows across years without a validated crosswalk.
| Precinct -12-412-4 | 1,391 | 3,151 | 74 | 4,616 | 30.1% | 68.3% | R+38.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Precinct -5-25-2 | 1,538 | 2,924 | 94 | 4,556 | 33.8% | 64.2% | R+30.4 |
| Precinct -3-13-1 | 1,444 | 3,009 | 58 | 4,511 | 32.0% | 66.7% | R+34.7 |
| Precinct -8-38-3 | 1,658 | 2,750 | 83 | 4,491 | 36.9% | 61.2% | R+24.3 |
| Precinct -5-15-1 | 1,589 | 2,782 | 89 | 4,460 | 35.6% | 62.4% | R+26.7 |
| Precinct -2-32-3 | 831 | 3,401 | 54 | 4,286 | 19.4% | 79.4% | R+60.0 |
| Precinct -4-44-4 | 1,359 | 2,850 | 62 | 4,271 | 31.8% | 66.7% | R+34.9 |
| Precinct -6-16-1 | 1,535 | 2,563 | 64 | 4,162 | 36.9% | 61.6% | R+24.7 |
| Precinct -11-111-1 | 1,516 | 2,523 | 80 | 4,119 | 36.8% | 61.3% | R+24.4 |
| Precinct -7-47-4 | 1,248 | 2,760 | 75 | 4,083 | 30.6% | 67.6% | R+37.0 |
| Precinct -12-112-1 | 1,507 | 2,459 | 67 | 4,033 | 37.4% | 61.0% | R+23.6 |
| Precinct -4-34-3 | 1,459 | 2,300 | 62 | 3,821 | 38.2% | 60.2% | R+22.0 |
| Precinct -1-11-1 | 952 | 2,805 | 53 | 3,810 | 25.0% | 73.6% | R+48.6 |
| Precinct -7-17-1 | 1,459 | 2,240 | 74 | 3,773 | 38.7% | 59.4% | R+20.7 |
| Precinct -1-61-6 | 940 | 2,633 | 66 | 3,639 | 25.8% | 72.4% | R+46.5 |
| Precinct -2-52-5 | 1,106 | 2,406 | 64 | 3,576 | 30.9% | 67.3% | R+36.4 |
| Precinct -3-33-3 | 1,015 | 2,495 | 54 | 3,564 | 28.5% | 70.0% | R+41.5 |
| Precinct -9-39-3 | 959 | 2,446 | 38 | 3,443 | 27.9% | 71.0% | R+43.2 |
| Precinct -6-36-3 | 1,354 | 1,947 | 62 | 3,363 | 40.3% | 57.9% | R+17.6 |
| Precinct -7-37-3 | 1,091 | 2,134 | 60 | 3,285 | 33.2% | 65.0% | R+31.8 |
| Precinct -5-35-3 | 838 | 2,384 | 49 | 3,271 | 25.6% | 72.9% | R+47.3 |
| Precinct -8-18-1 | 1,127 | 2,081 | 53 | 3,261 | 34.6% | 63.8% | R+29.3 |
| Precinct -9-69-6 | 949 | 2,130 | 40 | 3,119 | 30.4% | 68.3% | R+37.9 |
| Precinct -9-19-1 | 994 | 1,977 | 52 | 3,023 | 32.9% | 65.4% | R+32.5 |
| Precinct -10-110-1 | 1,289 | 1,669 | 58 | 3,016 | 42.7% | 55.3% | R+12.6 |
| Precinct -9-49-4 | 732 | 2,180 | 38 | 2,950 | 24.8% | 73.9% | R+49.1 |
| Precinct -11-511-5 | 972 | 1,857 | 37 | 2,866 | 33.9% | 64.8% | R+30.9 |
| Precinct -8-48-4 | 982 | 1,792 | 39 | 2,813 | 34.9% | 63.7% | R+28.8 |
| Precinct -12-312-3 | 911 | 1,737 | 49 | 2,697 | 33.8% | 64.4% | R+30.6 |
| Precinct -6-26-2 | 923 | 1,689 | 44 | 2,656 | 34.8% | 63.6% | R+28.8 |
| Precinct -2-42-4 | 530 | 1,923 | 29 | 2,482 | 21.4% | 77.5% | R+56.1 |
| Precinct -1-31-3 | 719 | 1,663 | 39 | 2,421 | 29.7% | 68.7% | R+39.0 |
| Precinct -4-14-1 | 907 | 1,355 | 39 | 2,301 | 39.4% | 58.9% | R+19.5 |
| Precinct -2-12-1 | 609 | 1,571 | 32 | 2,212 | 27.5% | 71.0% | R+43.5 |
| Precinct -10-410-4 | 893 | 1,201 | 58 | 2,152 | 41.5% | 55.8% | R+14.3 |
| Precinct -10-210-2 | 889 | 1,193 | 35 | 2,117 | 42.0% | 56.4% | R+14.4 |
| Precinct -3-23-2 | 774 | 1,281 | 49 | 2,104 | 36.8% | 60.9% | R+24.1 |
| Precinct -5-45-4 | 442 | 1,547 | 36 | 2,025 | 21.8% | 76.4% | R+54.6 |
| Precinct -8-28-2 | 680 | 1,263 | 35 | 1,978 | 34.4% | 63.9% | R+29.5 |
| Precinct -11-411-4 | 947 | 993 | 35 | 1,975 | 47.9% | 50.3% | R+2.3 |
| Precinct -10-510-5 | 974 | 917 | 38 | 1,929 | 50.5% | 47.5% | D+3.0 |
| Precinct -6-46-4 | 747 | 1,005 | 31 | 1,783 | 41.9% | 56.4% | R+14.5 |
| Precinct -1-4-51-4-5 | 351 | 1,225 | 29 | 1,605 | 21.9% | 76.3% | R+54.5 |
| Precinct -2-22-2 | 391 | 1,157 | 24 | 1,572 | 24.9% | 73.6% | R+48.7 |
| Precinct -11-311-3 | 414 | 969 | 26 | 1,409 | 29.4% | 68.8% | R+39.4 |
| Precinct -10-610-6 | 442 | 807 | 20 | 1,269 | 34.8% | 63.6% | R+28.8 |
| Precinct -12-212-2 | 461 | 708 | 13 | 1,182 | 39.0% | 59.9% | R+20.9 |
| Precinct -9-29-2 | 198 | 429 | 12 | 639 | 31.0% | 67.1% | R+36.2 |
| Precinct -4-24-2 | 216 | 409 | 11 | 636 | 34.0% | 64.3% | R+30.3 |
| Precinct -7-27-2 | 210 | 310 | 15 | 535 | 39.3% | 57.9% | R+18.7 |
| Precinct -10-310-3 | 76 | 164 | 9 | 249 | 30.5% | 65.9% | R+35.3 |
| Precinct -11-211-2 | 86 | 146 | 1 | 233 | 36.9% | 62.7% | R+25.8 |
| Precinct -9-59-5 | 49 | 164 | 1 | 214 | 22.9% | 76.6% | R+53.7 |
| Precinct -1-21-2 | 22 | 88 | 2 | 112 | 19.6% | 78.6% | R+58.9 |
Presidential margin, 1892–2024
Democratic minus Republican, by election
| Year | Margin (D minus R) |
|---|---|
| 1892 | +46.1% |
| 1896 | +40.8% |
| 1900 | +48.9% |
| 1904 | +57.6% |
| 1908 | +51.7% |
| 1912 | +45.8% |
| 1916 | +54.3% |
| 1920 | +35.9% |
| 1924 | +72.2% |
| 1928 | +39.4% |
| 1932 | +81.5% |
| 1936 | +81.2% |
| 1940 | +72.3% |
| 1944 | +62.9% |
| 1948 | +45.0% |
| 1952 | +27.4% |
| 1956 | +35.3% |
| 1960 | +24.5% |
| 1964 | +30.4% |
| 1968 | −7.5% |
| 1972 | −46.8% |
| 1976 | +1.9% |
| 1980 | −13.2% |
| 1984 | −44.2% |
| 1988 | −45.0% |
| 1992 | −22.3% |
| 1996 | −27.5% |
| 2000 | −34.5% |
| 2004 | −44.8% |
| 2008 | −39.5% |
| 2012 | −46.5% |
| 2016 | −35.0% |
| 2020 | −26.1% |
| 2024 | −32.4% |
U.S. Senate
Registered voters
Total registered voters, over time
| Year | Total registered |
|---|---|
| 2016 | 150,089 |
| 2018 | 156,065 |
| 2020 | 178,103 |
| 2022 | 188,365 |
| 2024 | 198,258 |
Who moves in and out
Net migration over time, and who arrivals are — where they came from and what those places vote
+2,274 net domestic migration · 2025
Net +56,604 over 2011–2025 · gain loss
Arrivals reported $162,699 in average income, against $221,220 for residents who stayed — 26% lower. (IRS SOI, 2022–23)
The places arrivals came from lean D+5.2 on average — 38 points more Democratic-leaning than Williamson County, TN itself (R+32.4).
Where arrivals came from lean of each source
- Davidson County, TN2,304D+27.4
- Maury County, TN539R+44.6
- Rutherford County, TN407R+21.8
- Orange County, CA233D+2.7
- Los Angeles County, CA205D+32.9
- Wilson County, TN115R+40.1
Where departures went households, 2022–23
- Davidson County, TN2,120
- Maury County, TN1,089
- Rutherford County, TN600
- Wilson County, TN171
- Marshall County, TN166
- Sumner County, TN155
Migration is one input to a place’s political change, not its cause — a shift can also come from residents changing their minds, generational turnover, or turnout. These figures describe the places people moved between; they do not measure how any mover voted.
| Year | Net domestic migration |
|---|---|
| 2011 | +3,008 |
| 2012 | +3,294 |
| 2013 | +4,410 |
| 2014 | +4,752 |
| 2015 | +4,616 |
| 2016 | +5,834 |
| 2017 | +5,619 |
| 2018 | +4,332 |
| 2019 | +4,835 |
| 2021 | +6,080 |
| 2022 | +3,730 |
| 2023 | +2,081 |
| 2024 | +1,739 |
| 2025 | +2,274 |
Williamson County pairs some of Tennessee's highest household incomes with one of its most lopsided presidential margins, running R+32.4 in 2024 even as rapid population growth from Nashville's sprawl continues to reshape its electorate.
Across the recorded series it reached a Democratic high of 81.5 points in 1932 and a Republican high of 46.8 points in 1972. Between 2020 and 2024 the county moved 6.3 points toward the Republican candidate; the 2024 margin was 32.4 points.
A population of 260,351, a 81% non-Hispanic-white share, and a median household income of $135,594 describe the county. The county's voting pattern over the last decade is most similar to that of Hanover County and Oconee County.
The counties whose fingerprint — 2000–2024 trajectory, demographics, ancestry, religion — sits closest to this one, and why.
Twin score (0–100) = weighted cosine between tier-standardized fingerprints: presidential margins 2000–2024 with 12-yr trend and elasticity, ACS income, age, education, population and race, top reported ancestries, and religious adherence — chips name the closest-shared dimensions and the widest gap. Re-weight the groups in the twins explorer.
Browse places by community — income, education, race & ethnicity, language — all community cuts →
Compare two places, side by side
Twelve curated comparisons line up election history, demographics, and the divergence story for two places at a glance. Browse all comparisons →
Williamson County, Tennessee. Akashic. https://akashic.app/county/47187/. Accessed May 20, 2026. License: CC BY 4.0.