Comité Governmental Affairs de la Cámara de Representantes, 18 de febrero de 2026

Transcripción

276 turnos. Seleccione un tiempo para reproducir ese momento del video.

1. 0:06:09

   I just keep track of who on the microphone.

2. 0:16:10

   Okay, if everybody'll get, uh, positioned, we are ready to start. This is our House Governmental Affairs Committee meeting. And I'd like to, uh, ask Representative Olaleye if he would to take us to the Lord in prayer.

3. 0:16:23

   Thank you, Chairman. Let us pray. Dear Lord, thank you for this day. Thank you for placing us all in it. Uh, thank you for this gathering. May you bless our conversations and discussions and lead them to the best decisions for the communities, people, uh, we serve. Um, continue to bless everyone here and, and give everyone safe passage. Uh, it is in your heavenly name we pray, amen.

4. 0:16:52

   Thank you. All right, we're gonna get started now. We've got five bills on our agenda for today. Uh, the first one we're gonna call up is the bottom one on the list, Senate Bill 51. I'll ask Senator Setzler to come to the front table and, uh, uh, proceed when you're ready, sir. Uh, this is... Uh, let me just mention a couple of things. There's a couple bills we're considering today that, uh, that were recommitted last session. These bills have already passed out of this committee. Uh, so, uh, this is one of those bills.

5. 0:17:23

   We passed it out last year and, uh, did not make it through rules to the House floor. So we'll, we'll, uh, reconsider it, try to get it back over there so we can, uh, take, take action. Proceed, sir.

6. 0:17:34

   Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Uh, proud to bring before you today Senate Bill 51, a bill that takes the, the selection process for architects and engineers that is federal law, that is state law to be used for all state procurements and all university procurements, and applies that to procurement of architects and engineers for city and county governments. Glad to take questions, Mr. Chairman.

7. 0:18:00

   Okay, any questions on the part of the committee?

8. 0:18:03

   Move. So move.

9. 0:18:04

   We, we have a m- motion. I'm assuming that's a motion to pass.

10. 0:18:08

    Move to pass.

11. 0:18:09

    We have a second. We're in discussion. I think, uh-

12. 0:18:14

    Oh, I- I'm sorry. A- actually, I-

13. 0:18:16

    I'll recognize, uh Chairman Thomas for a, uh, a motion.

14. 0:18:23

    It, yeah, at the proper time, I need to motion for, make a motion.

15. 0:18:26

    It is the proper time, sir.

16. 0:18:27

    Okay. Well, then I'll do it for amendment. And that has to do with the date. I'm just trying to find the line item specifically on it. The effective date needs to be changed on this.

17. 0:18:36

    223.

18. 0:18:37

    It's 223.

19. 0:18:38

    Yeah.

20. 0:18:39

    All right.

21. 0:18:44

    Uh, let's see here. That's on page 10 at the very top. It's, uh, July 1st, 2026. Uh, I... Like, that needs to be stricken and changed to July 2027, July 1st, 2027.

22. 0:18:58

    Okay. We have a motion to change the, uh, effective date from July 20, uh, July 1st of 2026 to July 1st of 2027.

23. 0:19:06

    Second.

24. 0:19:08

    We have a second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor of the motion say aye.

25. 0:19:15

    Aye.

26. 0:19:16

    Any opposed? None stated. We're back in, uh, a discussion regarding the underlying bill as amended. Uh, and I will, while we're in discussion, I will just take a, a moment of discretion. There is a, a, a... And this, this was presented in testimony last year. There is a letter of, uh, opposition and concern in here from ACCG. Uh, and I believe, uh, some ACCG folks are here, but, uh, this is, this is pretty much the same concerns we had last year with this, and I'm getting nods to the affirmative on that.

27. 0:19:46

    So that, that is for the record. Uh, seeing no more discussion, all in favor of the passage of Senate Bill 51, say aye.

28. 0:19:54

    Aye.

29. 0:19:55

    Any opposed?

30. 0:19:56

    Yes.

31. 0:19:57

    Okay, the ayes have it. The bill passes. We'll get a, just get a rules committee form to me, uh, Mr., Senator Setzler, and we'll get you going.

32. 0:20:05

    Does Steph have the form here or do I need to go?

33. 0:20:07

    Oh, I have it right here.

34. 0:20:08

    Super. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

35. 0:20:10

    Thank you, sir. All right, thank you.

36. 0:20:26

    Be at ease for just one moment, please.

37. 0:20:41

    Okay, we're gonna, now we're gonna st- go back to the top of the agenda, and I'll ask, uh, Representative Draper to come to the table and present House Bill 502. This is another bill that was passed out of this committee last year. Uh, was recommitted when, uh, no further action was taken upon it. So, uh, Representative Draper, proceed.

38. 0:20:58

    All right. Thank you very much, Chairman. Hello, uh, members of the committee. Glad to be here again. Uh, so this is HB 502 LC 473476S. Um, this is a bill that would take the wait time guessing game out of voting for people with very small children. Um, I'll start out with a somewhat unbelievable fact. This is an election bill. It has bipartisan support.

39. 0:21:21

    Yeah.

40. 0:21:21

    All right. So thank you for... Yeah, no, you can laugh. That's fine. Uh, Chairman Fleming, Chair Rilling, Chairman Gullett, thank you very much for co-sponsoring this bill. Um, it's also my fourth time in front of this committee, and every time it has passed through this committee, it has passed unanimously. So hoping for your favor- favorable consideration again today. Uh, essentially what this bill does is if you are a person who has a child with you who's under the age of two, and you go to vote, and there is a long li- and Chairman LaHood, um, thank you for your co-sponsorship. Um, if you have a child under the age of two and you go to vote and there is a long line, at your option you can go to the front of the line to vote.

41. 0:21:55

    Uh, that is a courtesy we already extend to folks who are physically disabled, uh, and to folks of a certain age. Um, it is extended to them during early vote and on election day. Um, and it would, um, uh- extend a little further to folks with children. Just given the fact that people with very small babies, there's nap times, there's, you know, cranky babies, people crying. Uh, it's hard to go to the polls if you don't know whether it's gonna take two hours or five minutes. Um, so we wanna make things as easy as possible for everybody to exercise their civic duty. Um, and in a nutshell, that's what this bill does.

42. 0:22:28

    Okay. Thank you very much.

43. 0:22:29

    Sure.

44. 0:22:29

    Any questions on the part of the committee? Uh, we have, have one. Representative Bazemore.

45. 0:22:37

    Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was just gonna say at the appropriate time.

46. 0:22:42

    Okay. Seeing no other, uh, questions or comments, this is the appropriate time.

47. 0:22:46

    At s- Do pass.

48. 0:22:48

    Okay. We have, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say, "Aye."

49. 0:22:54

    Aye.

50. 0:22:55

    Any opposed? Motion carries.

51. 0:22:57

    Thank you very much.

52. 0:22:57

    Thank you.

53. 0:22:58

    Can I get a form?

54. 0:22:59

    We have one.

55. 0:23:00

    Appreciate you. Thank you.

56. 0:23:01

    Oh, great time.

57. 0:23:02

    Oh.

58. 0:23:03

    Great time.

59. 0:23:03

    We're trying to come.

60. 0:23:06

    Do we have the forms?

61. 0:23:06

    Yeah. Yeah.

62. 0:23:09

    Okay. Next, let's see, is, uh, Chairman Chuck Martin in the room yet? I know there's a lot of meetings going on. I was concerned we were gonna have a quorum, much less get people here. So, uh, we're gonna move on. We'll move on to, uh, House Bill 1129.

63. 0:23:27

    Governor's Floor Leader Seabaugh, if you'll come to the table with guest and, uh, introduce your guest for us, please, and proceed with the bill.

64. 0:23:37

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee members. Uh, presenting House Bill 1129 on behalf of Governor Kemp, LC 44-3337 EC. And seated with me today is Calvin Sorbe, the Deputy Director for, of Policy for the Office of the Governor, with whom I worked closely with on this bill. Um, we'll be about, able to answer any questions you might have. But, um, appreciate you hearing the bill yesterday. Uh, this legislation strengthens the code by putting the same guardrails, uh, around enterprise zones.

65. 0:24:13

    As we talked about, enterprise zones are an important tool for helping turn empty, neglected, underused areas into places with jobs, businesses, and economic prosperity. They attract private investment, they grow our economy, and they increase Georgia's tax base over time. But these incentives must be used responsibly, and they must be used for true redevelopment of distressed property. So this bill puts those protections in place and builds upon the work from multiple updates made to the Enterprise Zone Employment Act of 1997 over the past few years.

66. 0:24:47

    So this legislation makes the following changes to, uh, EZs, I'll call them, provided for under subsection G of code section 3688-6. First, it clarifies the specific authority of the Department of Community Affairs commissioner, uh, that has to designate and nominate areas that meet the criteria as an EZ for the purposes of exempting any local sales tax and use tax. Second, it provides for executive branch approval of a state sales and use tax and exemption in EZ, in a enterprise zone.

67. 0:25:24

    Third, it limits the number of EZs under subsection G that can simultaneously exist in an urban redevelopment area to maxima- to a maximum of four. And fourth, it clarifies that the principal amount of a revenue bond pledge for a redevelopment project within an EZ must not be used to return the capital investment made to the redevelopment project to investors. Um, that is the bill and I'm happy to take any questions.

68. 0:25:55

    Okay. We do have a question. Representative Olaleye.

69. 0:26:01

    Thank you, Chairman. Floor Leader, thank you for bringing this bill forward. Um, quick question. It, it seems pretty heavy-handed for the state to mandate, um, how many of these zones can be in existence given how uniquely different each municipality is across the state. And so I'm thinking of a, a struggling, um, city with a lot of lower income areas and, and that city not being, its leadership not being able to do what's best for its city, uh, to generate more development activity, uh, and just support, uh, redevelopment, um, as a whole.

70. 0:26:41

    Um, I, I'm just trying to square the, the, the, the statewide mandate that would preclude those localities from doing what's best for their city and their communities. So that's my concern. That's my rep. I'm not sure if you have a response for that, but...

71. 0:27:02

    Um, Thomas Sorbe from the Governor's office. Uh, to your concern, I just wanted to mention that, so currently there's only one enterprise zone in existence in the state currently. And so-

72. 0:27:12

    Which one is that?

73. 0:27:13

    Uh, that would be Centennial Yards in Atlanta.

74. 0:27:16

    Okay.

75. 0:27:16

    Um, and so we put a cap of four there. That was, uh, done in consultation. Um, and we brought it, that to a compromise. Um, I will say that it's a maximum of four per urban redevelopment area, and cities could have more than one of those. And so it doesn't necessarily prevent multiple from existing at the same time.

76. 0:27:40

    Okay. Um, can I quick follow-up? Uh, have you had any conversations with Centennial Yards about this proposed mandate?

77. 0:27:49

    Uh, DCA has spoken with them. Um, and I mean, they haven't had concerns about our legislation specifically, um, just due to the fact that they're not gonna be impacted by this at all.

78. 0:27:59

    Okay.

79. 0:27:59

    They're already an enterprise zone, and they can continue to, for the next 30 years, exempt state and local sales and use tax.

80. 0:28:05

    Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Floor Leader.

81. 0:28:07

    Yes, thank

82. 0:28:10

    you.

83. 0:28:10

    Okay. I see no more questions at this time. Does there, what's the will of the committee? We have a mo- motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

84. 0:28:23

    Aye.

85. 0:28:24

    Any opposed? Motion carries, your bill passes.

86. 0:28:27

    Thank you, Committee.

87. 0:28:28

    Thank you. All right. Next, we'll call to the microphone, uh, Representative Matt Reeves to present House Bill 1247.

88. 0:28:42

    Thank you, Chairman Anderson and members of the Governmental Affairs Committee. I am proud to present to you House Bill 1247, uh, the Bureaucratic Deference Elimination Act. Um, here in the 20- uh, 250th anniversary of America, this act, uh, gets us back to the basics of codifying and making it clear in Georgia you've got, um, elected officials, uh, making the law, you've got the judges interpreting the law, and then the executive branch of the bureaucracy, uh, executing the law or carrying out the law, but not making law or interpreting law.

89. 0:29:15

    That's the province of elected officials and judges. Um, the, uh, the wording of this statute, uh, has been studied, uh, carefully. Uh, we dropped this bill late because I got, uh, uh, House colleagues as well as, uh, attorneys to look at this and make sure it's, uh, straightforward. Uh, we then added subsection B after it got dropped. Uh, there was some good advice about that petition for review statute that was enacted, uh, sponsored by Chairman Leverett, where you have agency, uh, determinations that are appealed.

90. 0:29:47

    If you have factual findings, then the various legal standards to review those factual findings will remain in place. However, interpretation of the Constitution statutes and regulations, that falls upon our courts and not upon agencies. And then, uh, who makes the law, uh, that, uh, sticks with elected officials. Uh, this case codifies the non-delegation doctrine that was examined recently by the Georgia Supreme Court in the Eternal Vigilance action case, as well as a few years earlier than that, the Raffensperger versus Jackson case about professional licensing.

91. 0:30:22

    And what it does is it looks at, uh, statutory authorization, uh, statutory meaning and language, um, objective standards, and it makes sure that, uh, the law is something you could research and know, and that the courts are gonna be the ones interpreting the law. Uh, that's a, a summary of the bill, and I'm glad to take any questions. I, I, I would, uh, uh, I'm reminded that we have Chairman Powell here. Uh, his bill, House Bill 903, uh, passed with, I believe 170-something votes, uh, recently.

92. 0:30:55

    Uh, that was about the Administrative Procedures Act and some very important rulemaking issues. This bill would apply to any case that goes to court to make it clear that elected officials make the law, judges interpret the law, agencies are there to execute the law. Thank you.

93. 0:31:12

    Okay. Thank you, sir. We have a few questions here. Uh, Representative Roberts.

94. 0:31:16

    Thank you, Mr. Chair. Hello, uh, Rep Reeves. Um, so couple questions. First, is, uh, wouldn't this normally go to the Judiciary Committee?

95. 0:31:29

    Um, I love bills going to Judiciary Committee.

96. 0:31:32

    Mm-hmm.

97. 0:31:32

    Uh, this one I think is governmental in nature. Um, it-

98. 0:31:34

    Interesting, 'cause we're telling the judges what they can consider. So that's my next question.

99. 0:31:39

    Sure.

100. 0:31:39

     It says that if they defer to, they can't defer to the agency's interpretation, written or otherwise. So if it's on the record and they agree with the agency, let's just say they came to the same conclusion as the agency, wouldn't that be something that could be appealed on that ground to be overturned because it just happens to be the same decision?

101. 0:32:01

     Well, that gets, um, on the record would be the, the rec- the factual record. However, the law that is applied to that record, constitution, statute, regulation, that is what this bill addresses, not the factual findings. The, the standards of review for factual findings would remain the same. This is the legal issue of, uh, what is the applicable law to apply to the facts.

102. 0:32:27

     Okay. But even if it wasn't on the record, my point is if they aren't essentially allowed to, to... A judge should be able to consider whatever they want to consider. This says that they can't defer to it. So how do they prove that they didn't defer to it if they agree with the interpretation? We're telling a judge that they can't use that, basically come to that same conclusion, is what I'm reading.

103. 0:32:50

     Well, I think if you look at the Supreme Court's recent decision in Eternal Vigilance action, if you, uh, read the decision before that in the Jackson case, many other, uh, Supreme Court and Court of Appeals cases recently, this codifies the non-delegation doctrine. It says we need to have objective law that is, uh, um, uh, clear and that the courts are the ones interpreting the law. The courts are not gonna delegate to agencies interpretation of the law, just like, uh, legislative officials are not able to delegate to, um, the agencies the lawmaking function.

104. 0:33:29

     And we have Scott Turner, uh, of Eternal Vigilant action, uh, who might be able to shed some more light on that question, Representative Roberts.

105. 0:33:37

     All right. Mr. Turner, you're recognized. Please begin.

106. 0:33:39

     Uh, sorry for interrupting. Uh, I just, I, I was, uh, just trying to offer ye- yesterday's memo that we offered the subcommittee-

107. 0:33:46

     I wasn't there, so

108. 0:33:46

     ... that includes... I'm sorry. So that's great. Uh, uh, I'm sorry that you don't have a copy of this. I'll make sure when I-

109. 0:33:51

     Oh, no. I have a copy now.

110. 0:33:52

     Yeah. The-

111. 0:33:52

     But I'm just looking at-

112. 0:33:53

     It includes the legal definition of deference. And I think your question and concern, um, is if, I'm gonna repeat it back to you to make sure I understand, is that, um, you're, we're telling the courts to not take into consideration what, what their opinion is?

113. 0:34:09

     No. I'm saying, what if their opinion just happens to be the same as the agency's opinion? If they agree, then-

114. 0:34:17

     But-

115. 0:34:17

     ... wouldn't that be grounds, uh, for appeal if we say they're not allowed to defer to that? How do they prove a negative?

116. 0:34:23

     Well- The- there would be findings of fact and the, and the judge would spell out their reasoning and their ruling. Uh, the ruling at that point would demonstrate that whether or not they gave deference or not. But, but we're not saying to not consider. Deference is, is giving unequal weight to their interpretation, not considering what the agency or the rulemaking authority said. So they're still allowed to consider what, what the, the, the agency's opinion is.

117. 0:34:56

     It's just that they're not allowed to give it unequal weight. They're not allowed to tip the playing field in, in the direction of the bureaucracy. They have to go back to the law and make sure, and in the ruling, the judge would be required to spell out their logic and reasoning. And then, and if they were flawed in that, there would be an appeal. However, if they were, if they were within the constitutional con- constructs of, of the law, they would be okay.

118. 0:35:26

     I just see it as an opportunity to appeal every decision and say that that's what they did, was defer to. And where is the definition of deferrent, defer, what did you say? Deference?

119. 0:35:36

     Deference.

120. 0:35:37

     Deference. Sorry. Uh, in the bill. What do you... You said it was in this, but I'm trying to understand where you're saying deference-

121. 0:35:47

     I-

122. 0:35:48

     ... is defined in the bill.

123. 0:35:49

     And I would, I would say that the courts have defined that prominently, and what we are doing, we are codifying good, sound decisions that the Georgia courts have done recently because you've got court decisions, you know, dozens and dozens over the years or decades. Sometimes that can be complicated for the bureaucracy to read or a citizen to read. And to have a code section that clearly says, uh, the Constitution, statutes, regulations, other subregulatory documents, courts are who interpret that.

124. 0:36:20

     And, um, the court, you know, is not gonna defer to the agency. Agencies can bring their position into court, but the court gets to decide, and citizens and the agencies are on a level playing field on interpreting what the law is. The courts get to decide that.

125. 0:36:36

     I, I understand, but you like the deference definition in here, and if you're trying to be clear and codify things, why wouldn't you put the definition of deference into the code section?

126. 0:36:46

     Deference is a term of legal art. It, it's well-established. And, uh, the, there, there really isn't a necessary to, to, to define that because the, the courts already act with an understanding of what deference is.

127. 0:37:02

     Okay.

128. 0:37:02

     Well-

129. 0:37:03

     Mm-hmm

130. 0:37:03

     ... I, I would agree on that. And also, um, this, this bill got shorter and clearer, and I think letting the, the courts know what deference is. So this says the standard on the law about whether they're obligated or allowed to defer.

131. 0:37:21

     Have you asked any judges how they feel about this?

132. 0:37:24

     Um, I, I, I have personally, but this is part of the legislative process, so... Judges generally-

133. 0:37:30

     But it's, it's dictating the judge's job and how they-

134. 0:37:33

     It's, it's-

135. 0:37:33

     ... do their job, which we don't usually do-

136. 0:37:35

     Well-

137. 0:37:35

     ... a whole lot of that.

138. 0:37:36

     Um, we-

139. 0:37:36

     And definitely not through the judici- not through this-

140. 0:37:39

     All right. So there was a previous, um, draft of the bill that was removed because it, it did cross that line. This, this draft of it, uh, or this, uh, bill that's before you codifies current law, and it, it, it basically enacts what, by statute in a clear, single place in Georgia law, what is the current law. Also, if I might say, uh, regarding the committee assignment, uh, there ha- having been the, the plaintiff in the EVA case, there is no other committee in the legislature in either chamber that understands the EVA case better than this committee.

141. 0:38:21

     And because this bill dovetails so neatly with the findings in our case, in, in the established case law, this committee is, is the most experienced committee there is i- in, in either chamber to take up this issue.

142. 0:38:35

     Well, do you think we should, um, use one case to define how a judge responds in many, many cases? That's why these usually go to the judiciary.

143. 0:38:45

     Well, that, that is what has happened with the EVA ruling, is it has, it reestablished the non-delegation doctrine. And even though that was about elections, it has far broader implications than just elections. It has, it affects every single rulemaking authority in the state. Okay. Representative Adesanya.

144. 0:39:06

     Uh, thank, thank you, Chairman. Uh, thank, hi, um, hi, Representative Reeves. Um, do you believe that there are cases that are very highly technical, um, that courts typically rely on agencies' expertise? Do, do you believe that there are cases that are very technical?

145. 0:39:25

     On, on the facts?

146. 0:39:27

     Well, as she mentioned, um, uh, you need both really.

147. 0:39:33

     Well, you've got the law in cases, and you've got the facts in cases. And what this is saying on matters of law, on what state law is, you've got the Constitution, you've got statutes, you've got regulations. And deciding what the law is, uh, that is a question for courts based on laws that are made, uh, here at the Capitol through the legal process, the democratic process.

148. 0:39:58

     Yeah.

149. 0:39:58

     So on factual, factual issues, that's not what this bill is about. This is about who makes the law and who interprets the law. And also, who, who spends their time carrying out the law? The biggest benefit of this bill is the agencies would focus on their mission given to them by the law. And all these constituent complaints that we get, we can say, "Listen, y'all need to spend your time on carrying out the law on the books and not making law."

150. 0:40:24

     And just one, um, quick follow-up. Um, I, I- It should be concerning too, even to the members of your party, that, um, we as a legislative body take that up without consulting judges. Uh, I think it's fair and, um, not, not, not even on the matter of fairness, I think it makes logical, um... It's a logical approach to, to reach out to those working in that space and not just picking that up and, you know, trying to regulate that from here. So-

151. 0:40:54

     Well, I think if-

152. 0:40:55

     ... that's concerning

153. 0:40:55

     ... if you look at, uh, the last five or 10 years at the Georgia Appellate Courts, I think the judges have said they are in charge of interpreting the law. That is not the, the province of agencies. That is the province of courts. That's what this bill does.

154. 0:41:09

     Okay. We're gonna-

155. 0:41:10

     Thank you

156. 0:41:10

     ... move on to a couple of other questions. If we can move kind of quickly. We got members that need to be in, uh, mainly appropriations type meetings. So, uh, let's see. We're gonna move on to, uh, Representative Burnough.

157. 0:41:20

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I'm still a little on the fence with this, um, and especially since we had that bill. I know we can't redo, uh, Chairman Powell's bill, but all of a sudden, um, you know, I understand we all wanna have power and wanna make sure that people follow what it is that we're saying. But is there a case or a particular agency that all of a sudden brought all this about that now all of a sudden we wanna go in and start regulating and telling them what to do and all this kind of stuff?

158. 0:41:54

     Because it just seems like this just came out the, out of the sky, and it's like you're telling us this. And then who determines if a case would go to court for the judge to determine if it was the agency or if it was the law that, that we came up that the agency wasn't following it?

159. 0:42:17

     Well, I think the, the EVA case, that's, that's one recent court case that went all the way up the Georgia Supreme Court. The Jackson case also went all the way up at the appellate level. In that case, you had a nonprofit helping young mothers in Atlanta, uh, care for their kids, and they were getting shut out of business by a vague regulation that the courts determined didn't satisfy Georgia law. So this codifies good recent court decisions, um, and it's-

160. 0:42:44

     But what, what... I'm sorry. But what agency was that? I mean, because-

161. 0:42:48

     Secretary of State

162. 0:42:48

     ... no one has given us a spe- Okay. Other than Secretary of State.

163. 0:42:51

     Yeah.

164. 0:42:51

     Well, I mean, and I know y'all beat, beat the Secretary of State up and down.

165. 0:42:54

     This is Georgia board.

166. 0:42:55

     So what other-

167. 0:42:56

     No, I mean, that was a-

168. 0:42:57

     What other agency, like the defects thing with all that money that was wasted. So what other agencies also committed some kind of infraction that all of a sudden we wanna be in charge and we want them to follow the law and all these things? So w-

169. 0:43:15

     Right

170. 0:43:15

     ... is there another agency-

171. 0:43:16

     Well-

172. 0:43:16

     ... with another case?

173. 0:43:17

     So EVA, that was, uh, one division of the Secretary of State. The Jackson case was a totally different division, professional licensing. But here's the good thing about this bill. This gives a principle for all of state government that elected officials make the law, judges interpret the law, and then state agencies-

174. 0:43:36

     And-

175. 0:43:36

     ... state bureaucracies need to focus on the laws that have been made and carrying them out as their mission, and not to make up new rules and go off on ventures that are not authorized by statute. That's what this does.

176. 0:43:48

     I understand that.

177. 0:43:48

     It keeps them, it keeps them on mission.

178. 0:43:49

     But I still wanna know what agency. I mean, what brought this about other than the Secretary of State? I've been on here since I was elected in 217-'18.

179. 0:43:58

     Oh.

180. 0:43:58

     So I, mm, familiar.

181. 0:43:59

     To answer your question, Chairman Anderson brought up yesterday the City of Atlanta versus DOT case. Uh, but that was back in the '90s. So in that case it was transportation. We've got between 40 and 200 agencies or, uh, departments of state government. This rule would apply to all of them and would say, "Read the law, read the Constitution, read the statutes, read the regulations. Spend your time carrying that out. Don't go make up something new when we adjourn sine die. Focus on the things that the legislature passed and the governor signed.

182. 0:44:33

     Don't go off, uh, the mission."

183. 0:44:36

     Thank you. You're not gonna answer my question.

184. 0:44:38

     No, I... Well, I gave you three-

185. 0:44:39

     But I appreciate it.

186. 0:44:40

     I gave you three, um-

187. 0:44:41

     But not the-

188. 0:44:41

     You got the, uh-

189. 0:44:42

     Let, let me, uh, let me interrupt-

190. 0:44:44

     I want to think that Tom-

191. 0:44:44

     ... real quick here, if I may. Let me, uh, just, just make a quick comment. The, the, the most recent case was the EVA versus RNC case, which w- dealt with as far as-

192. 0:44:54

     Election

193. 0:44:54

     ... state agencies, the state election board. Okay? And what this bill does is it codifies what is case law now. The f- the s- the state Supreme Court basically ruled almost verbatim what this bill does. And so all we're doing is putting it in, in law rather than leaving that-

194. 0:45:11

     Yeah

195. 0:45:11

     ... to, to, uh, en- to the courts.

196. 0:45:14

     I believe the DOT-

197. 0:45:14

     Right

198. 0:45:14

     ... versus Atlanta case, that was when the DOT was gonna, um, put another interstate through the middle of DeKalb County, and, um, they had, uh, litigation, the, the city on behalf of the folks, um, in the DeKalb County part of the City of Atlanta. And then the professional licensing case, that was the Jackson case. So-

199. 0:45:32

     Okay. Real quickly-

200. 0:45:32

     Those are the three recent

201. 0:45:33

     ... we're gonna recognize Representative Sanchez.

202. 0:45:36

     Thank you, Chair. And I know we're talking a lot about cases, so I have a case for you. City of Goiton versus Barrow in 2019. The Georgia Supreme Court had held that after using all tools of construction, there are a few statutes or regulations that are truly ambiguous, but they did say that there are a few. And in those cases where there are rare cases of ambiguous statute, then the court should defer to agency interpretations. That was the ruling on that case. So why do we need this bill if they'd already have a ruling that says that they do defer to agencies on the rare cases of their ambiguous laws? And I know we talked a, a lot about this in subcommittee, but-

203. 0:46:05

     Sure. Looks like you're, uh-

204. 0:46:07

     But my case overturned that one.

205. 0:46:09

     Okay.

206. 0:46:09

     It's, it's-

207. 0:46:10

     It's bad law.

208. 0:46:10

     Yeah. That, that, that, that case would no longer rule the day if it was brought in court. The EVA case is the most recent, and the EVA case says that you can't do that.

209. 0:46:20

     Right. And so I agree. I, I understand that. I, I think the question really is, like, I understand the EVA case had a lot to do with the State Board of Elections and rulemaking, but I don't- I don't know if it, if it's 100% accurate to say the EVA case fully said that this verbatim is exactly what they meant out of it.

210. 0:46:38

     Well, there, the, it goes far more in detail-

211. 0:46:41

     Yeah

212. 0:46:41

     ... clearly. However, it also very clearly states that it's not just about elections.

213. 0:46:47

     Right. Yeah.

214. 0:46:47

     So it, it, it is much broader in scope and it, it's going to affect every rule making authority and agency there is in this state.

215. 0:46:55

     Right, yeah.

216. 0:46:56

     For better or worse. And that means that here in the legislature, you have to do things like this to codify what the intent of the legislature is in a much more succinct and clear manner.

217. 0:47:07

     Right. Okay. Thank you. And, and Representative, to follow up, uh, what EVA Jackson and other cases, uh, said is we have a non-delegation doctrine in Georgia where elected officials and courts cannot allow agencies to fill in the blanks and to, uh, provide clarity where there is ambiguity. Uh, that's something that, uh, courts and lawmakers do and the agencies, uh, need to stop unless there's a clear mission. Non-delegation doctrine.

218. 0:47:37

     Okay. Uh, Chairman Leverett.

219. 0:47:40

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I, I just, just for the benefit of folks on the committee and, and for my benefit, um, uh, I would just like to state what I understand to be the history behind the bill and the current purpose of the bill to make sure I'm understanding its purpose. So traditionally, we've had rulings from courts, United States Supreme Court and from Georgia courts, saying that agencies are to give deference, uh, or, or courts are to give deference to agency rulings. That was the law for a long time. That's, that's changed, um, on the f- at the federal level, and with the, the, the case that Scott, uh, was one of the parties in, that, that has changed somewhat on the state level.

220. 0:48:21

     And my understanding of that case, while I don't mean to take away the sort of seismic nature of the, your victory- ... that case could be limited somewhat on its facts or to that particular agency if someone wanted to start parsing, uh, the distinctions. Plus, there also could be an argument that there's a conflict between positions the legislature might have taken in statutes and the, and the, the ruling of that court. This removes that ambiguity, removes any potential conflict, and states a broad rule that we intend to, to apply.

221. 0:48:52

     And I, I, I don't view this, and I would not support it if I thought it was simply trying to beat up on a particular elected official or agency. I think this is trying simply to add some consistency to the law and make it clear, which I, I think has been fairly well established, that we do make the law, and while agencies can interpret, they have, there are limits to that interpretation, and a court is not bound to show deference to that if it thinks they've, they've gone out over their skis, which, which the Supreme Court did in, in your case.

222. 0:49:21

     Chairman Leverett, I couldn't have said it better myself.

223. 0:49:23

     Well, you're, you're, you're a wise man, and if you just give me those account numbers, we'll wire those funds like you requested earlier. Okay. Uh, Representative Momtahan.

224. 0:49:33

     Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, thank you for bringing the bill. Think this is a, a very good bill. I wanna, I wanna talk to you about, we'll, we'll expand out to some different questions here, if you will. So as we talk about the EVA case and how EVA changes, I think, the, the precedent for these agencies and the way that they behave, in your experience, I know you're a very learned lawyer, and I know your counterpart col- well, former colleague, Scott Turner, here.

225. 0:50:15

     Thank you for being here today. In your experience, tell me about your experience when you have dealt with people or agencies who have said, "Well, it may not be the letter of the law, but it may be the spirit of the law." Tell me, tell me about that interplay here, 'cause, you know, I think for small business owners across the state,

226. 0:50:43

     have you heard about, have you heard that kind of, those cases where you see agencies making those kind of, okay, well, it's not the letter of the law, but it's the spirit of the law?

227. 0:50:52

     I would say what this bill does is that allows the courts to determine whether the letter of the law, the spirit of the law, what the law should say and mean, and how expansive it should go. That is not a question for agencies. That's a question for the courts. And what the law is, uh, it's clear. You could do the research. You got the Constitution, statutes-

228. 0:51:12

     Mm-hmm

229. 0:51:13

     ... duly enacted regulations, um, and then you have interpretation of it by judges. This, this bill says the agency should spend their time focusing on that mission and not making new law or, or deciding what the spirit or the letter of the law is. They should look at the law, what's on paper.

230. 0:51:32

     Y- you would say that it's unfair, you know, and I think this is something that I've dealt with, even, even a business that I have, I've operated. But you would say that this is an issue where maybe agencies, um, were in some cases, uh, too empowered to try to make decisions or try to understand, uh, these statutes on their own, right? With really no, uh, really no statutory guidance. Uh, and, and, and you would say your bill tries to realign that with, with this new court precedent, is that correct?

231. 0:52:06

     It gives clarity to current law. It codifies current law.

232. 0:52:09

     So if a, if a state agency were to go into one of our local communities and they were to ask or, or, or tell a business owner, "Well, you know, the spirit of the law is that you should do X, Y, and Z," but that's not explicitly written in statute, that would change today, correct?

233. 0:52:28

     Um, uh, I think, uh, the focus would be what is the law on paper, um- for the agencies. They would need to see what did the legislature actually enact, and what have the court said about that law. So th- this, this, and this, and the entirety of this kind of files ... It, was it, uh, was it Raymond, uh, Fisheries, right? You had the fisheries case in the United States Supreme Court where they had repealed the Chevron deference, right? So w- what is the interplay there?

234. 0:53:00

     I- I think we see this coming down, the separations of po- the separation of powers argument coming down from the Supreme Court. So tell me a little bit about the interplay between the fisheries case- Sure ... and this case. Th- there's been a lot of activity at the federal level on things similar to this. But what this does is it codifies the non-delegation doctrine in Georgia. That's the focus of the statute. So this, this works within Georgia law. Sure. But do you see any, you know ... Could you compare those two for me? Could you get, you know ...

235. 0:53:32

     Do you see that maybe our judicial bodies, both in the state and the federal, are aligning on this issue to make sure that we have clear constitutional, maybe constructionist, uh, vision for, uh, our legislative bodies, both in Congress on the federal level and in the states? Well, what I would hope, uh, both federal and state, but this bill, you know, focuses on state, is that you have three branches of government, not four. That's right. So

236. 0:54:04

     tell me the ways, and I think, I think you'll find these, how, how that fourth branch of government has been kind of putting pressure down on everyday citizens. Tell me. Well, I think- Explain to me. Just- I think the- ... let's, let's get in depth. I think the best example is the Raffensperger versus Jackson case. Okay. You had a nonprofit here in Atlanta serving mothers, serving children, and a vague regulation purported to put them out of business. They had to go up to the appellate level to strike something where you had people out there, you know, expanding, um, and, um, violating the non-delegation doctrine and putting people, putting people doing good work out of business.

237. 0:54:49

     Sure. So if you're gonna put people out of business, it's gotta be explicit in the law, and you've gotta have a very clear law. You can't have some arbitrary action, uh, in an ambiguous situation. Um, you need to have clear direction from the law and elected officials. And, and the, the questions of interpretation would be for courts. Execution, that is for, um, the state agencies and the executive branch.

238. 0:55:19

     Thank you. So, uh, follow-up, if I may, just a couple more questions. Yes, sir. Let's, let's, uh, let's get just a couple of questions here. Okay. Thank you. I will. And then we got a few others on the board. Uh, they ... I know there's more questions. We'll let them, let them have questions. Um- Thank you. Hey, you're welcome. Thank you. So in the fisheries ca- I- I know y- per your testimony just now, you said that if a, if an agency tries to, you know, shutter a business, right? But I don't think that your bill or the EVA case even goes that far, right?

239. 0:55:49

     So if i- in the fisheries case, for example, it was that they had to have monitors on board the vessels, right? And that the, and that the fishing companies had to pay for those monitors. And so if there's no strict language that's written statutorily, those kinds of gray areas where, I think in, in that case EPA was, or NOAA in that fight, right, it was NOAA that had it. I know that's out- outside the state. But NOAA was requiring those folks to be on those boats and for them to pay for it, and I think the question was who's paying for the benefits.

240. 0:56:25

     Is that correct? I think it's a clear s- uh, question of separation of powers. Who, who required that regulation? Was that regulation duly enacted? Was it done through the democratic process? Uh, but lawmaking is not the function of agencies under this bill. That's, that's the function of the legislative branch. Judges get to interpret it, and the state agencies, they need to focus on the mission, uh, that is given to them by the law, not just making stuff up.

241. 0:56:56

     That's right. So do you think, if I may just for the question- Yep. One final please. Yes. One final question. Thank you. So let's talk about the burden of proof in these cases. I- You're a lawyer, right? So- Mr. Chair, motion to table. Motion to table. If I may continue. Hold on. We're, we're in the middle of discussion, not recognizing the motion just yet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So talk to me about the burden of proof here. What we did in this bill, in subsection B, uh, honoring the petition for review statute that Chairman Leverett and many members of this committee, uh, worked on a lot, on factual findings, those standards of review stay the same.

242. 0:57:34

     So if it's an any evidence standard, if it's a clearly erroneous standard, if it's some other factual finding or factual question, those stay in place. This bill is about legal standards, what legal standard would be applied, and it says when, uh, examining, uh, the Constitution, statutes, regulations, uh, that is a question of law for the courts. Point of order, Mr. Chair.

243. 0:58:02

     Okay. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Let me ... Uh, okay. Thank you. Representative Roberts, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Point of order. Uh, my understanding is that on a motion to table, that should be considered immediately. Uh, understand, and we will take that matter up now. There's no discussion on a motion to table. So we have a motion to table. Does it require a second? Does it require discussion? All in favor of tabling the bill, say aye.

244. 0:58:34

     Aye. All opposed, say no.

245. 0:58:39

     Okay, in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, so we will proceed.

246. 0:58:50

     Okay, I see no other seats occupied with, uh, comments. So at this point, uh, we are completed with comments and questions. We will entertain a motion.

247. 0:59:03

     Motion to do pass.

248. 0:59:04

     We have a motion to do pass. Do we have a second?

249. 0:59:07

     Second.

250. 0:59:08

     All right, we have a second. I see no discussion at this point. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Okay, in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. Thank you. Your, your bill has passed, sir.

251. 0:59:20

     Thank you.

252. 0:59:21

     All right. Now we're gonna move on to the last bill on our agenda. We'll recognize Chairman Chuck Martin to come to the table and present House Bill 963.

253. 0:59:38

     All right, if we can have order, please. We got a bill to present now. Chairman Martin, you may proceed.

254. 0:59:45

     Thanks, Chairman Anderson. Um, Chairman Anderson, I bring to you House Bill 963. Uh, this bill seeks to, uh, apply the same thing to Georgia referenda that federal law currently applies to our elections, to individual election, and that is to keep foreign, uh, money out of those elections. Um, we had this bill in subcommittee. Um, it doesn't, um, go, go further. Again, I, I would try to, um, point out to the committee that it simply applies to referenda at the state level and to, uh, county and city, uh, bond issues, that sort of thing, uh, to keep foreign money, foreign, uh, nationals, uh, from, uh, participating our elections.

255. 1:00:28

     And to be clear, a lawful permanent resident of the United States can participate in the election. While they are not able to vote in our elections, the federal law allows them to participate in the process, uh, financially. So that's what the bill does. Uh, it's, it's going around. It's been done in a number of other states, but we're just trying to make that, uh, point for our elections. I believe I'm correct in saying the, the attorney said that it, it is implied in federal law that it would, would apply, you know, to state referenda, but there's a gray area and we're trying to clear that up, Mr.

256. 1:01:02

     Chairman. It's just that simple.

257. 1:01:04

     Okay, thank you. We do have a question. Uh, Representative Sanchez.

258. 1:01:08

     Thank you, Chair. Thank you for this bill. Uh, so this is supposed to prevent foreign nationals from interfering in referendum elections specifically?

259. 1:01:15

     Yes, sir.

260. 1:01:16

     Okay. So does that mean that APAC would not be able to spend money on referendums in Georgia?

261. 1:01:21

     I- if the money comes from a foreign national side, yes, sir.

262. 1:01:24

     Okay. Has there been any documented cases of said foreign interference occurring in the state of Georgia on referendums?

263. 1:01:30

     Uh, there's not a, a clear law against it, so it's not monitored, so I couldn't say there is or there isn't.

264. 1:01:37

     Okay.

265. 1:01:37

     It, it's, it's clear, if I could, if the gentleman w- doesn't mind, it, it's clear that the, the intent at the federal level for, for federal and state elections is that they not, uh, be involved in your election, my election, uh, the, the election for governor. And, and I would, uh, suggest to the gentleman that a constitutional amenend- amendment in Georgia, uh, has a longer, uh, run and a, a larger impact on the, either mine or, or your election.

266. 1:02:01

     Right.

267. 1:02:01

     So that's what we're just trying to do that.

268. 1:02:03

     Thank you.

269. 1:02:05

     No, no, ma'am, to be, to be clear, if I may.

270. 1:02:07

     Sure.

271. 1:02:07

     She said, "Is this a constitutional amendment?" It is not. This would say, this would, uh, not allow foreign nationals to participate in influencing the outcome of a constitutional amendment. This is not a constitutional amendment.

272. 1:02:20

     Okay. Thank you. Any, uh, any other questions on the part of the committee? Seeing none, is there a motion regarding the bill? Move to do pass. We have a motion. Do we have a second?

273. 1:02:31

     Second.

274. 1:02:31

     We have a second. Any discussions? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Okay, motion carries.

275. 1:02:40

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

276. 1:02:40

     Thank you. And with that, we are adjourned.