Comité Judiciary del Senado, 2 de marzo de 2026

Transcripción

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

1. 0:20:50

   We have a quorum, and so we're gonna go ahead and get started. If you wanna be heard on the bill, please come down and sign up on the sign-up sheet so we can make sure to call upon you. Looks like everybody has signed up. Former Leader Gooch, would you like to open us up in a word of prayer?

2. 0:21:05

   I'll do it.

3. 0:21:07

   Y'all bow with us, please.

4. 0:21:08

   Please, let's pray. Dear God, we thank you, God, for another beautiful day to live in Georgia. God, we ask you to be with us as we make decisions today, Lord, that impacts 11 million people. God, be with us as we travel and be with our families. And Lord, be with the armed forces as they carry out the duties that are being asked of them over in Iran, and we ask for their safe recovery and their safe delivery back to home with their families. These things we pray. Amen.

5. 0:21:34

   Amen. Thank you. All right, it is our crossover day hearing. Is- this will be our last hearing before we approach crossover day in the Senate. So that means, for those of y'all who don't follow us every day, this is the last chance to get a bill out of the Senate committee to go to the floor. We have an aggressive agenda. We'll jump right on it. Senator Cowsert's already in place. So if you wanna present to us SR 262, I'm working off of LC550538. Is that right?

6. 0:22:04

   That's, uh, that's correct.

7. 0:22:05

   All right. The f- it's on now.

8. 0:22:07

   Is it on?

9. 0:22:07

   Turned up a little bit. All right. There you go. The floor is yours.

10. 0:22:10

    Thank you. I'll give us a little history first, and I'll start with United States history. We knew when we developed our Constitution that it would be amended. In fact, there were some already sort of had been prepared and ready for ratification of the states at the time we passed this Constitution. And Article V specifically provides for the methods of how you can amend the United States Constitution. Two ways. One is if two-thirds vote of both the House and the Senate, uh, in the United States Congress, propose an amendment to the Constitution, it can be sent to the states for ratification.

11. 0:22:48

    And it takes three-fourths of the states to ratify a, a constitutional amendment that would make it have the effect of our Constitution. So that's 38 states are needed. But just like when we propose a constitutional amendment here in state government, it takes a two-thirds vote of Congress, both bodies. Now, this shows a little institutional history. Back in 2014, this same constitutional amendment that I am proposing is a Article V convention to consider an amendment to the United States Constitution to require a balanced budget, with exceptions that are for emergencies or national defense.

12. 0:23:25

    So if you had another COVID pandemic, or you had other, uh, emergencies, or if we were in a, a war of some sort, then you could vary from that strict requirement of a balanced budget. Basically, the, the, the amendment will be worded however the states agree is the appropriate way, but it must provide for exceptions for emergencies in the national defense. 2014, I presented this almost identical resolution, and I call it a balanced budget amendment, and it passed the state legislature.

13. 0:23:58

    And on the very same day, the Convention of States passed another Article V application that was broader than my version. Mine was for the single issue of a balanced budget. Convention of States included a couple of other issues. Uh, the House decided to take votes on both of them, and they both passed. Back at the time when I did that 12 years ago, our national, uh, budget deficit was $16 trillion. And here we are 12 years later, it's now $37 trillion.

14. 0:24:31

    The last time the United States had a balanced budget, I think it was 1992. Bill Clinton was president, and John Kasich was the chairman of the House Budget Committee. Uh, so you're looking at, uh, over 30 years. Almost 35 years ago is the last time we actually passed a balanced budget. I think that shows you that Congress and, uh, both parties, equally responsible 'cause they've shared power since then, are really unable to or unwilling to operate within our means like every state government does.

15. 0:25:05

    We've operated just fine in Georgia using a balanced budget. I had some concern of whether it should not have a sunset on it, because I don't think it's w- it, it was sensible for us to pass this application that would only become effective if two-thirds of the states had similar applications to Congress. And I began to think, "Well, what would happen if, you know, it's 25 years down the road? Would the people of Georgia feel the same way?

16. 0:25:36

    Would they want to be calling for a balanced budget or, or an a- amendment to the Constitution on any issue?" So I sunsetted the original version, and it sunset a couple of years ago, and that's why I'm bringing it again. Uh, the only pushback that I get is from people that fear a runaway convention, that once Congress receives applications from two-thirds of the states, so that would require 34 states to ask for this, that when the group met together, they might run wild and, and offer, you know, dozens of amendments to the Constitution.

17. 0:26:13

    I don't think that's a legitimate concern, 'cause I don't think you're gonna reach agreement. I don't think you're gonna have two-thirds of the state file applications for other subject matters to begin with. But, uh, in order to become a law, become a, a constitutional amendment, takes three-fourths of the states. So I just don't see that being a realist- realistic worry. But to appease those fears, you'll see attached to the back of, uh, of my resolution a different code section titled 28-6-8 which sets forth the procedures for the appointment of delegates to an Article V convention if one is held, and their obligations and their, uh, restrictions to act within the scope of the application that we have filed.

18. 0:26:59

    I call this a Delegate Limitation Act. To my knowledge, it was the first one in the nation and has been widely followed by other states that are in this movement to try to restore some fiscal sanity to the United States. This sets forth the, uh, the method of appointing delegates. It calls for Georgia to have seven delegates. Speaker gets one, the, the lieutenant gov- gets two, the lieutenant governor gets two, the governor gets two, and then those six, among themselves, elect the seventh.

19. 0:27:31

    There are very specific provisions in this code section that they can be given legislative instructions from the General Assembly as to what the scope of their, uh, ability is, and they will not have the authority to vote or allow consideration of or to vote to approve any unauthorized amendment. If, if a delegate, one of those seven, were to veer off track, he can be recalled by our legislature. Uh, and then there is an oath, and in the oath, this is all set forth in that 28-6-8 under subsection F, "I will not vote to allow consideration of or approve any unauthorized proposed amendment to the United States Constitution." And finally, a violation of that oath is a misdemeanor.

20. 0:28:17

    So we have pretty strong teeth in this as to the limits, the power of our delegates, that they must follow the instructions of the legislature, however specific the legislator wanted- legislature wanted to be, but particularly just to vote on that one subject matter. Uh, and a failure to do that is, would be a crime, and also would allow them to be with- withdrawn from the convention, uh, and no longer participate in it and be replaced by a delegate that would follow our, uh, wishes.

21. 0:28:48

    So I would imagine anybody that signed up to speak against this is bought into that notion of a potential runaway convention. Uh, I do not think that's a realistic fear here given our specific statutory instructions to our delegates, uh, and the fact that this resolution calls for only a single subject matter convention on a balanced budget. Um, so the, the, the argument that, "Oh, this, we don't need this. We've already got the Convention of States that calls for three different type of things," uh, is not a good argument because this is different.

22. 0:29:23

    It's much narrower than that. That should appease any fears of, of any multiple amendments being proposed to the states. And the other thing is just never forget that once an amendment, if this process ever does work, uh, that, that we get to two-thirds of the states calling for this, uh, which is 34 states, um, then it's gonna be a product of the convention and then has to be ratified by 34 states. This hadn't happened before, and the reason is that once Congress hears that two-thirds of the states are pushing for a legisl- a constitutional amendment, they ordinarily enact the law themselves or, or they'll pass something to, to keep it within their control to, to craft it.

23. 0:30:09

    But, uh, that's a quick summary. I know you got a busy session. It's just really s- sensible fiscal policy, uh, that I would love to see our nation get on track to do. Happy to answer any questions.

24. 0:30:23

    All right. There are several people that wanna be heard on the bill, but let's do questions for the author. Any questions from the committee for Chairman Cowsert? All right, seeing no questions, if you wanna sit right back there, we'll take... Or you're welcome to come back up here, whatever you wanna do. Um, first speaking in favor, Sully Sullivan from the Black Republican Council. Welcome back. Good to have you again.

25. 0:30:50

    Thank you, sir. Thank you.

26. 0:30:57

    Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I rise in support of Senate, uh, 262, which applies to Congress under co- under Article V of the United States Constitution for the calling of Convention of States. Also I'd like to note I'm also a member of the Convention of State of Action, uh, here in Georgia. Um, limited to proposing a balanced budget amendment with appropriate exceptions for national defense and true emergencies. The founders deliberately included Article V as a safeguard.

27. 0:31:30

    They understood that over time power tends to consolidate and expand for that reason. They empower state legislators to serve as guardians of liberty and structure accountability. Today, the federal government operates under chronic deficit spending. The national debt continues to grow, placing long-term strain on our economy and shifting the financial burden on future generations. Regardless of party, Washington has demonstrated an inability to impose lasting fiscal discipline on itself.

28. 0:32:04

    262 does not call for an open-ended convention. It is narrowly focused on fiscal restraints, specifically a balanced budget framework that allo- that still allows flexibility during emergencies and for national defense. The resolution is clear that it applies only to that subject and arrogates only with other applications addressing the same issue. This measure is about restoring structural balance, not partisanship, not politics, but the constitutional process.

29. 0:32:37

    Article V is not a threat to the Constitution. It is a part of the Constitution. It is a lawful mechanism that the founders gave to states when Congress failed to act. As a conservative, we must abide by the Constitution because we are for the people and by the people. And as a conservative, and I must say for a lot of the Senate colleagues, um, this is very important because as we see as our state and our country of where we're heading to financially.

30. 0:33:10

    And this bill shall pass, and I really would love for you guys to pass this bill.

31. 0:33:16

    Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. We have four people signed up to speak against the bill. We'll start with Kristy Minor.

32. 0:33:25

    I know you also provided us with testimony we have in our folders as well. Good evening.

33. 0:33:30

    Good evening Evening or afternoon?

34. 0:33:33

    Well-

35. 0:33:33

    It doesn't quite jive

36. 0:33:34

    ... it's afternoon, but I'm not optimistic based on how we're starting, how long we're gonna be here. So I'm just getting used to saying it.

37. 0:33:39

    All right. All right. Good evening then-

38. 0:33:41

    Good evening

39. 0:33:41

    ... Mr. Chair and, uh, senators. Um, I'm here to speak in opposition of SR 262. There are two ways to balance the budget: decrease spending or raise revenue. I sat through our county budget workshop meetings last December as they worked through balancing the budget, as they're required to do. I watched our Floyd County manager scratch his head and say, "We're going to have to increase the millage rate next year. We have no choice." So governments now have the power to balance the budget by reducing spending, but they never do.

40. 0:34:13

    This is a false solution. However, the real danger is in, in this resolation- res- resolution is the procedural maneuver that SR 262 calls for. An Article V convention, also known as a, as a convention of states or a constitutional convention, does open up the whole constitution to be rewritten. Those empty seats that you saw at the State of the Union Address last week, you can be sure, rest assured that an Article V convention, they would be filled with delegates holding the most rabid of voices calling for measures to ban hate speech and disarm the Second Amendment.

41. 0:34:47

    I'm sure you've all submitted bills as senators, only to have them end up not looking like what you originally intended. To deny that this would happen at a convention of states would be reckless on your part. And please don't forget that when delegates were sent to alter the Articles of Confederation, we ended up with a whole new constitution. Finally, this measure is a waste of time. The questionable funded yet large lobbying group, COS, already lists Georgia as one of the 34 states needed to call an Article 30, Article V convention.

42. 0:35:21

    In 2014, as Senator Cowsert mentioned, the Georgia General Assembly passed and the governor signed SR 736, which included language on line 21 to impose fiscal restraints on the federal government. What this body should be doing is acting as the General Assembly did in 2004 to rescind all resolutions calling for an Article V convention. And based on my research, there was another Article V that was sunsetted, but I do not believe that this SR 736 was sunsetted.

43. 0:35:53

    I think it's still active. Thank you so much.

44. 0:35:56

    All right. Thank you. Next we have Ronald, is it Hamman? Come on up. Good afternoon. It's still afternoon.

45. 0:36:11

    Well, my name is Ron Hamman. I live in Dallas, Georgia, and I'm a constituent of, uh, Ed Setzler. And calling for an Article V constitutional convention is a risky and dangerous method of getting a balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution. Now, once the convention is called, there is no way for Georgia to set or control the agenda. Yes, we could, we could have certainly, uh, things in place on, on the people who are going to call the convention, but once it's called, Georgia's not more part of it.

46. 0:36:47

    Congress, not Georgia, controls the delegate selection process, the ratification process, et cetera. Jard- Georgia has no, no part in this. Once it's called, Georgia's out. Uh, various groups are waiting for a con con to be called to fundamentally rewrite the Constitution, and that makes a con con very risky. They're waiting in the wings. Now, the problem is not, the problem with an out of control budget is not, is because the federal budget consists of unconstitutional programs such as foreign aid, farm subsidies, education, undeclared wars, et cetera.

47. 0:37:33

    The Congress is violating their oath when they fund unconstitutional things. If the government doesn't follow the Constitution now, why would they follow a revised one? I, I believe they wouldn't. And please vote no on SR 262. It's too risky. Instead, voters must hold their representatives accountable to use the existing Constitution. I say obey the existing Constitution, don't revise or rewrite it.

48. 0:38:08

    And so vote no on 262. I almost think, um, hey, there's a concern with people violating their wedding vows. In spite of the wedding vows, people, say, commit adultery and, and lead to many divorces. Should, should the wedding vows be changed that already say that people are gonna be faithful, and yet should they be changed? So, oh, I really mean it this time. No, that isn't gonna work. People have to abide by what they already swore to uphold, which is the US Constitution.

49. 0:38:43

    Please vote no. Thank you very much.

50. 0:38:45

    All right. Thank you. Next we have Patricia Hay. I, I'm gonna succeed. I mean, I think they've said what I would- Okay. She's waving. She echoes- She echoes ... she echoes what the other said. Well, last we have Kyle, is it Gomez Lynn? Lynn Williams. Mm-hmm. Oh, I was gonna mess it up big time.

51. 0:39:04

    You wouldn't be the first.

52. 0:39:05

    I'll let you correct it.

53. 0:39:10

    Uh, good afternoon Chairman and members of the Judiciary Committee. I'm here on behalf of Common Cause Georgia, uh, where we have members across the state who are committed to protecting and strengthening our democracy. SR 262 calls for an Article Five convention of the states to propose a constitutional amendment imposing fiscal restraints and a federal balanced budget requirement. SR 262 is an Article Five application and is meant to be counted toward the 34 sh- state trigger. While the resolution states an intent to limit the convention's scope, the reality is far more uncertain.

54. 0:39:45

    The Constitution provides no operational rules for how an Article Five convention would function, including how delegates are selected, how voting occurs, or how the agenda would ultimately be enforced. The, uh, that uncertainty creates real and significant risk. Once convened, there's no clear constitutional mechanism to guarantee the convention could be confined to a single issue, regardless of legislative intent. From a democracy protection, uh, perspective, this raises several concerns.

55. 0:40:15

    Uh, the, and, uh, the senator mentioned it, the, the potential for a runaway convention that proposes sweeping constitutional changes. Article Five doesn't provide enforceable rules for how scope limits work, uh, and the possibility that well-funded special interests could exert outsized influence, uh, over the process from scope to delegate selection. Uh, while I appreciate the addition of, uh, of delegate instructions from the Georgia perspective, that does not answer the fundamental constitutional question of whether those instructions are binding on a federal convention body.

56. 0:40:51

    That question has never been resolved by the courts, uh, and it certainly doesn't bind, uh, any other states, uh, or bodies to that process. It is ill-advised to engage an undefined constitutional process which could open voting, things like voting rights that have been long fought for in Georgia up for amendment. This is a terrible moment to pursue this as public trust in institutions is already fragile, especially here in Georgia as election workers and voters have been intimidated with the seizure of s- election records.

57. 0:41:22

    The Constitution does provide a clear and tested amendment pathway through Congress, one that preserves guardrails, transparency, and democratic accountability. If the goal is fiscal responsibility, Georgia can pursue that through, uh, legislation and congressional advocacy without opening up an unprecedented convention process with undefined rules. For these reasons, Common Cause Georgia strongly urges the committee to approach SR 262 with caution and to not advance this resolution.

58. 0:41:52

    Thank you.

59. 0:41:54

    All right. Thank you.

60. 0:41:58

    Do you wanna say anything else, Chairman Cowsert?

61. 0:42:00

    If you'd like, your agenda, I'll, we'll move along.

62. 0:42:03

    All right. That's everyone that signed up to speak on the bill. What is the pleasure of the committee?

63. 0:42:10

    Move to pass.

64. 0:42:11

    We have a motion to pass from Senator Watson. Is there a second?

65. 0:42:16

    Second.

66. 0:42:16

    Second from Senator Bearden. Uh, any discussion? All those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand.

67. 0:42:29

    It's five opposed, three the motion carries. All right, next bill on the agenda, Senate Bill 594. Do you wanna go down there, Senator Bearden? Do you wanna stay where you are? I think it's better to go down there.

68. 0:42:50

    We are working off a substitute.

69. 0:42:56

    Uh, 492737.

70. 0:43:02

    What was the last-

71. 0:43:03

    I'm working off of 2737, or 492737.

72. 0:43:14

    Which one do you have?

73. 0:43:15

    I have LC492737.

74. 0:43:17

    Okay, so you don't have the substitute. I thought we had a-

75. 0:43:19

    I sent you one this morning on a different subject.

76. 0:43:21

    Okay. So I'm getting confused.

77. 0:43:23

    Yeah.

78. 0:43:23

    Ah, okay. Far away. Make it easier than I thought it was gonna be.

79. 0:43:28

    Mr. Chairman, I'll try to go through the bill briefly, but can I kind of set up where this bill came from because of how it originated?

80. 0:43:34

    Briefly.

81. 0:43:34

    Yeah. Uh, this came from a constituent. Uh, she was pregnant. There was complications to the pregnancy, and what a lot of us will do is instead of having to answer the questions time and time again, we'll say, "Hey, we're gonna put this story on Facebook, social media, follow it there so I don't have to answer all these questions." Uh, so complicated pregnancy, uh, the baby was born with complications. Four weeks after the birth, the baby died. A few days after the death of the child, she was notified saying, "Hey, your images, your videos, looks like your profile is a Now Fund Me page trying to help raise money for your baby to save the baby's life." Uh, she contacted, um, the provider of the platform to try to get it taken down.

82. 0:44:23

    The platform even asked for her to send a death certificate a few days after the death of the child to see about getting this taken down. It was still not taken down. She filed a police report. The police made a request to have it taken down, still not taken down. I wanna give credit to people that we usually don't. That's, uh, the media. 11 Alive, uh, Savannah 11, she got involved, and because of her work, it was able to come down. Now, my problem is you have a victim and law enforcement asking for this fraud to be taken down, and it cannot be brought down.

83. 0:44:56

    So this is where this bill originated from. Uh, section one of the bill, lines 14, 15, and 16 also gives you the definition of social platform and operator. Uh, line 21, person commits the offense of digital identity fraud when using a social media platform, such as personally and without authorization Uh, to go through this kind of quickly because I know of the, uh, setup that we have today. If a person commits the offense of, uh, digital identity fraud, they'll be guilty of a, uh, felony with imprisonment of one to 20 years and a fine not less than 1,000 or more than 500,000 or both.

84. 0:45:39

    What this bill sets up is if a victim calls the platform, the company, asks them to take it down, they have 72 hours to review it, and they need to get back to the victim. If they don't do it within that 72 hours, there could be a $5,000 violation for each of those under civil penalty. If the platform receives a police re- incident report or other official communication from a law enforcement officer

85. 0:46:05

    from an agency in this state, they have 48 hours to restrict this, uh, being seen online. If they don't do it, the AG or the prosecuting attorney has the ability to do a civil fine up to $50,000 each. And to make sure that we get the attention of the platform, we also put in in lines 53, uh, this shall constitute a tort and allow them to have a, a civil trial to make sure that this is brought down. These are victims. They should not be re-victimized again and again by these multi-billion dollar companies that should have the ability to understand when something is fraudulent, someone's identity, their stories are being stolen, and they're being used to, uh, make money off of, off these victims.

86. 0:46:50

    So that's what the bill does in a brief manner. And thank you for allowing me to kind of set up the prefix to why this bill came up, and it was late in the year or session, and this just came out. That's why I'm just now asking for the bill.

87. 0:47:05

    All right. Any questions for the author?

88. 0:47:11

    All right, good work on this one, Senator Bearden. Um, you don't have anybody signed up to speak on it either, so what's the pleasure of the committee? Motion to pass from Senator Watson. Do we have a second?

89. 0:47:22

    Second.

90. 0:47:23

    Second from Leader Hatchett. Any discussion? All those in favor of the bill, please raise your hand. It is unanimous.

91. 0:47:31

    Thank you very much.

92. 0:47:32

    Thank, thank you. All right, I'm gonna come down there and present Senate Bill 547. Vice Chairman Cowsert, if you wanna take the microphone.

93. 0:48:02

    All right, the floor is yours when you're ready.

94. 0:48:04

    All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I bring to y'all Senate Bill 547, LC 492697. It's logistically a very simple bill. What we're doing is making pimping and pandering felonies, no matter whether it's the first offense or not. Current law, as you see on the second page, creates the first offense differently for these crimes, um, with a high and aggravated misdemeanor, and makes a second or subsequent offense a felony, um, that's punishable by one to 10 years.

95. 0:48:38

    And we left that same punishment in, but struck the part that gives everybody a, not a free pass, of course, under current law, but, uh, definitely a pass with a, with a misdemeanor. We've worked for years. Uh, y'all, everybody on this panel has been a part of the effort over the years to take on human trafficking in our state, and we've done lots of work on that. I know Leader Hatchett's still doing some work on behalf of the governor. In particular, the first lady, the very first bill I had in the Senate was the first lady's bill dealing with human trafficking.

96. 0:49:08

    We've done a lot of work to try to, um, take on the industry. We've also done work to take on those that benefit from the industry and make money off of by turning a blind eye, and then we've gone back and made sure we're supporting the victims directly as well and getting them out of this system. One of the things I've consistently heard, though, is we are too easy on those that are making this stuff happen on, in the streets, and sometimes what some people may think is a petty offense is actually part of a larger industry out there, and that's what we see with pimping and pandering. And the best...

97. 0:49:39

    The only question I've really gotten from people is what exactly is the difference between the two? And, um, I, I went this morning just to pull those two code sections, and the short of it is pimping is basically managing a prostitute, um, helping arrange an organization with the business of prostitution. Then you have pandering, which really deals with the recruitment or, or facilitation of, uh, of the actual act itself. But both are directly supporting prostitution and directly supporting human trafficking in our state.

98. 0:50:10

    And I want to give credit to some students sitting behind me. I think some of them are going to testify today. Um, but they're young ladies from the Forest School in Fayetteville. They came to me in, in the off-season early this session and brought me several ideas of what we could do better as a state when it comes to human trafficking, because they want to make sure that as they grow up in a state that, uh, in particular young girls, also young boys as well, are protected, and they acknowledge we've done really good work, but we have more to do. And I want to give them credit because this bill really comes directly from my conversations with them.

99. 0:50:43

    With that, happy to answer any questions from the committee. I know other people want to speak.

100. 0:50:48

     Just for context, on the first page of your bill, it remains a misdemeanor on 16-6-9 and 16-6-10.

101. 0:50:56

     Yes.

102. 0:50:56

     Y- what are those offenses?

103. 0:50:57

     16-6-10 is keeping a place of prostitution, and 16-6-9 is prostitution itself.

104. 0:51:05

     So we'll be punishing the, uh, the customers for felonies and the prostitutes themselves for misdemeanors?

105. 0:51:12

     That's right.

106. 0:51:13

     Okay. Any other committee members have questions?

107. 0:51:19

     All right. Uh, Senator Tillery, are you 12?

108. 0:51:22

     Um, number 12. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

109. 0:51:23

     You got your own mic.

110. 0:51:24

     I'm not advocating for this position, but I'm wondering, is there a break in the age? I know we've had these weird things with juveniles. What's, what's the age break?

111. 0:51:34

     Well, there's not on this particular offense. Um, I think there is a House bill maybe that, or maybe there was this previous bill that, that tried to break apart the ages on this. There is not a break on the age with this.

112. 0:51:43

     So if someone's seven, so basically if they were charged as an adult at 17, that's, that's the-

113. 0:51:48

     Right

114. 0:51:48

     ... we're going with the common rec here.

115. 0:51:49

     That's right.

116. 0:51:52

     All right. Um, Senator Rhett, or Senator Parent.

117. 0:51:58

     Thank you, um, Mr. Chairman. Thanks so much for bringing it. Um, push it. I know we have a lot of, um, active nonprofits that have worked in this space for a long time, you know, certainly since I've been in the Senate. Um, have you spoken with any of them about this particular piece of legislation?

118. 0:52:17

     Yes, and I believe some of them may be speaking here today as well.

119. 0:52:20

     Okay.

120. 0:52:20

     Um, this is something I've heard, and I, I don't have the statistic in front of me, I should have, but we're one of the only states that still treats this as a misdemeanor, and so we're an outlier. While we still have a big issue with human trafficking in our state, we also are an outlier in how we treat pimping and pandering.

121. 0:52:36

     And what about, um, our first lady? Has she looked at this?

122. 0:52:40

     I've not directly talked to her about it, to be honest with you, but I'm sure she would be supportive. If not, we'll find out, I guess.

123. 0:52:46

     All right. Thank you.

124. 0:52:47

     All right. I don't see any other questions, so we'll hear our first speaker. I have, uh, Camilla Zolciak-Zalewski. Am I close?

125. 0:52:56

     Close as I get.

126. 0:52:56

     You identify yourself and what's the hat. I'm sure you-

127. 0:52:59

     That's it. Thank you. Um, hi, my name is Camilla Zolciak-Zalewski. I am Vice President of Government Affairs for Street Grace. Um, prior to this, I know I've been here for a, for a lot of you before, I was Attorney General Sam Olens and for a little while Chris Carr's, um, human trafficking prosecutor. Before that, I was Fulton County's human trafficking prosecutor. So I've been in this space a long time, and we've actually passed similar legislation out of here. Um, I'll go ahead and address, um, Senator Tillery.

128. 0:53:30

     Last year, we actually removed the pimping and pandering, which... Oh.

129. 0:53:34

     You're fine.

130. 0:53:35

     Gotcha. Sorry.

131. 0:53:35

     No, no, he was, he, he actually told me the rule 11.

132. 0:53:37

     Oh, got it. Yes.

133. 0:53:39

     We had that issue.

134. 0:53:39

     Yeah, we dealt with it with Lenity last year. That is human trafficking regardless, so... Um,

135. 0:53:47

     sex trafficking exists because there is a strong commercial sex trade where people are buying and selling the vulnerable, whether they are making money off the vulnerable and selling them and sending man af- man after man after man in there, or they are the purchasers themselves taking advantage of vulnerabilities. I'm gonna focus a lot on the pandering, on the purchasing. I'll be followed by, um, Sergeant Daughtery, who will talk more broadly about the pimping and the pandering.

136. 0:54:21

     Um, research actually suggests that one out of fifty adult males has purchased sex, so has been involved in the illegal sex trade. By reducing the number of buyers, we can, when we shrink demand, we actually can shrink trafficking, the number of vulnerable people who are exploited.

137. 0:54:46

     There's several statistics that I think are key to why it is important to focus on the demand. Um, much research has gone into focusing on demand. Male sex buyers are more sexually violent than non-male sex buyers. Sixty-six percent of buyers of panderers know that women are lured, tricked, and trafficked into prostitution but purchase anyway. Forty-one percent of panderers, buyers have pur- had purchased a woman who they knew was controlled.

138. 0:55:25

     Ninety-six of them knew they were purchasing a child as well, and they still went through with it. Jail or prison time, research has shown, is the second most effective deterrent to the sex trade, to buying sex, the duration of time being the most critical component. Additionally, eighty percent of buyers would be deterred if it was jail or prison time, while only seventeen percent will be deterred because of fines.

139. 0:55:57

     The longer the sentence, the greater the deterrence. Beginning in 2022, more S- Texas was the first. Although we had passed it out of the Senate committee in years prior, it did not, um, become law in Georgia. But making all pandering a felony was passed in Texas in 2022. In the next year, that triggered an eight, a record eightfold number of increases in buyer arrests.

140. 0:56:28

     It makes a huge difference whether or not law enforcement is doing demand-centered operations reda- demand reduction operations. In 2025 and then in 2026, in two cities, similar cities, they did two research projects where in both places they would place an ad in a city that had no demand reduction operations and one in a city where law enforcement was going after demand. 2025, the first ad, two hundred and fifteen potential buyers reached out try- attempting to purchase, and sixteen in the city where they actually, law enforcement was being active.

141. 0:57:08

     2026, the numbers were ninety-five. We just did it two months ago. Ninety-five reached out in the city where they were not doing anything to g- combat demand, and only thirty-seven in the city where they were. Talked to law enforcement officer after officer who talks about it's not worth their time to do an arrest of a, for a misdemeanor Our resources we know are very strapped. We need to make sure that our crime fits, our penalties fit the crime and the harm that is caused.

142. 0:57:45

     Um, in Georgia, research has showed that tied to the commercial sex trade, the crimes of murder, we've had serial killings, child sex trafficking, robbery, assault, weapons, drugs. We've seen a lot of gangs recently, CSAM, sex offender registry violations, and sex trafficking. As a sex trafficking prosecutor, you know there's a whole web of crimes that happen around trafficking. When law enforcement does demand-centered operations and when they're incentivized because somebody's actually going to get a penalty versus they're going to be out of jail before the officer even finishes writing the report, so when they're incentivized and they're doing these operations, um, research of over 1,000 law enforcement agencies' source documents show a 40% reduction in calls for services around this area.

143. 0:58:39

     So really going after buying makes a huge deal in crime

144. 0:58:45

     in, as a whole, not just that it very importantly protects the most vulnerable who is being bought and sold. Felony-level sanctions create a more salient and effective deterrent for potential sex buyers. Unlike other crimes, pimps and panderers, buyers and those who are selling, they talk. If you increase the penalties for armed robbery, the armed robbers aren't out there talking about, "Hmm, what are we gonna do about this?" But there's two different sets of boards.

145. 0:59:20

     There's buyer boards, where buyers talk about who they're buying, what's happening, what the penalties are, what's law enforcement, what's law enforcement doing about it. They talk about the safest ways to buy. They talk when a penalty like this, and even when similar legislation has gone through, we have seen on those boards buyers talking about it. And as states begin to increase penalties around us, we need to make sure that we are not falling behind. Also, pimps, they're on all the sites from Reddits going through talking about, hey, what's safe?

146. 0:59:53

     What can we do? How many people can we sell? What's the best return for investment? And what are the penalties in the state? What are they doing? They talk about it really unlike other types of criminals.

147. 1:00:07

     Just last week, I was waiting for a testimony in the House talking to an officer who is in a unit that focuses on human trafficking, but talking about how there's misdemeanor pimping and pandering just so many people slip through because they don't have the time and resources, nor are they incentivized for going after a misdemeanor conviction where somebody's going to be right out. So really this where we say, "Well, we'll get it on the second time," that's not happening because we've got to make it that felony on the first time.

148. 1:00:42

     Um, felony classification makes the crime of selling somebody or purchasing sex from somebody proportional to the harm it creates. And then any questions, and I'll let Sergeant Dougherty take it.

149. 1:00:58

     I don't see any questions.

150. 1:00:59

     All right.

151. 1:01:00

     Thank you.

152. 1:01:05

     Sergeant Jim Dougherty, Gwinnett County Police Department.

153. 1:01:13

     Good afternoon.

154. 1:01:16

     Have a

155. 1:01:19

     seat.

156. 1:01:20

     My n- my name is Sergeant John Dougherty. I'm not sure they wrote it out there, and I, I apologize, I have a little bit of a cold, but I didn't want to miss the opportunity to be here today. If I can give you just a little bit of history about me, uh, I've been with Gwinnett County Police Department for 26 years. I've worked in the special investigative section probably for most of my career, over 20 years. Started, did a couple years in narcotics, then I moved over to the vice unit. When I first moved over to the vice unit, uh, I was working street-level prostitution and some of the smaller crimes like that, things you'd see maybe, if we remember some of the things like Creative Loafing magazine, the newspaper we used to read in the back for things like that.

157. 1:01:58

     So I, I was working a lot of that. But then in my career, uh, the internet came along, and when the internet came along, it changed the entire world for human trafficking. It changed everything. It took the girl that was working on the corner, and then her customers were no longer the guys that were cruising up and down, I'll use parts of, uh, Gwinnett County, of Jimmy Carter Boulevard or things like that. But then it took that girl, and she was advertising to the male that was coming to town from San Francisco, or he was coming to town from, you know, Arkansas or Toronto, Canada, he may even come to town.

158. 1:02:28

     He could make contact with that female and set up a date to start arrange that. You guys have done a great job catching up with the laws here that have been my struggle in my, in my long career here of doing this. The, the laws finally started to come around, especially with the juveniles, things like that. I would recover girls that were runaways or juveniles that had come from other states and come down to Georgia and recover them, and I remember one girl in particular I recovered. She was 16 years old. I couldn't get her to give her name when I recovered her. She finally did.

159. 1:02:59

     She says, "Listen, I'm a runaway. I'm out of Detroit, Michigan," and she finally gave her name, got her age. And when it went to court, she was actually a runaway. She ran away, encountered her trafficker. Within a week or so after he kind of told her where she would be, he moved her to, uh, he called a sister who's down here in Atlanta, said, "Hey, I've got a girl here." And some of the terms I use are some of the terms we hear about here in human trafficking. "I've got a girl here. She's a real thoroughbred. She can make us some money for the family." They called up. They took a bus up there, picked her up, brought her back here to Atlanta, and put her to work.

160. 1:03:32

     She, uh, she was here for about a month. She tried to reach out to the hotel where she was at. She didn't, she was, the trafficker had put her in a place where she didn't have a phone. She couldn't escape. She had no friends here, no family, what a typical trafficker does, and put her away. She w- luckily, we finally ran a sting operation, encountered her, and the, uh, we were able to hold her, and when it finally went to court The laws have changed. They said, "John, well, we're gonna give her traffickers, uh, 10 years with a year of probation to serve." This girl was 16 years old. We probably seized about $10,000 that she had made as a sex, commercial sex worker and all that.

161. 1:04:06

     And I was really kind of disappointed in the law, but now that, that the law is, the work you have done, and law enforcement's done, we've, it's really caught us up to where we need to be to put these traffickers away. The, the thing with pimping, and, and you asked, you asked about age. You asked about age earlier. The thing with pimping in the state of Georgia is we, yes, we, we encounter when we run our sting operations, and the way the operations work, uh, we'll go out there searching for juveniles or if, searching for adults, 'cause they could be victims of all ages.

162. 1:04:38

     A lot of the females maybe that we encounter are no longer within that age group, but maybe they started when they were 14 years old, or they got into it when they were 15, 16 years old, and now they've gotten older, and they're still stuck in this lifestyle of being a victim, and they're still working at it when they're 18 years old. They're 20 years old. They could be 35 years old, but because of the damage that was done to their life, they were never able to recover, and that, a lot of that was done by the pimps that took advantage when they were younger. And it's so hard, you know, when I, when I, I te- I do teach, I also teach this, uh, up in ROCIC in Nashville, the Regional Organized Crime Center, and I'll teach an, a advanced vice class there.

163. 1:05:18

     And a lot of the, the states that I always talk to around there, I'm like, "Is it a felony in your state? Is it a felony in your state?" Most of the states that we deal with, when I'm there in Tennessee, it is called promoting prostitution where it is a felony. Florida, it's a felony. Some of the other surrounding states, which I have in here, it is a felony as well too. But the, I, there's so much I want to give you guys, so I want to make sure I don't, I don't miss anything here, what of what I'm telling you. The, uh... Oh, let me get back on track.

164. 1:05:48

     I'm sorry.

165. 1:05:48

     Try to keep it a little concise 'cause four members-

166. 1:05:51

     I, I got you

167. 1:05:51

     ... of this committee are leaving at 5:00.

168. 1:05:52

     I got you, but it's, I'm just that passionate about that I want you guys to understand, that when they, when they reach out h- whe- when these traffickers out here, y- whe- when you get caught with a kilo of cocaine, ki- kilo of cocaine or the drugs, they stand on their own. When you get caught with a live person, that live person can be told what they have to say to get that trafficker out of it. They can be told, "Hey, tell him we're just friends. Tell them we're just traveling cross country." And a lot of times that victim is in a mental place where she's gonna go along with her trafficker.

169. 1:06:22

     The trauma bonding, it's been told in her head, you know, i- if, if we, if we encounter the police, they're gonna take us apart. I'm gonna go to jail. You're gonna go to jail. Don't trust the police. They're gonna tell you what you want to hear. And they're told not to trust the police, so that's our hurdle in law enforcement along with trafficking. The, like Ham- like Hamela was saying, the month of January, we worked two rape, two rapes, two rape cases involved with, with prostitution. One was being run, uh, with some people that were currently incarcerated at Gwinnett County Jail.

170. 1:06:55

     He had his girlfriend out there working, working another female, adult female, working her while she was out there to raise money to put money on his books. This female that was the girlfriend, she was also under house arrest, so she had to go back and be inside by 10:00 at night. She had to be back inside. During that time, she had, she had brought in another female and started pimping out that other female to make profits off of that female's, of what they were doing. While she was under her house arrest, a male came to see that female that day, and then raped her for over two hours in that hotel room, zip-tied her, raped her, and when the female showed up the next day and finally made contact with her, she was, she was, she was in such a state that we actually, she had to be, if you know what 10-13'd and, she eventually had to be 10-13'd because of her mental state.

171. 1:07:42

     She had to be put into the hospital because of her mental health issues that came out of that. The, the traffickers that were still running this from the jail, and these are adult females, not juveniles, he said, "Well, let's see if we can get her back out there. Let's see if we can get to talk to her and see if we can get her back out there. Tell her this time we're gonna provide security." Ended up working out. I, I don't want to go into, I could, I could tell you guys stories till I'm blue in the face, but we ended up catching these traffickers. They did set back up. We ended up catching them, caught them with, uh, other traffickers. They had employed security to come out there. One of the security people that came out there was involved in Douglasville that had done a shooting to rob.

172. 1:08:17

     He was a, he was, uh, to, was going to, a customer had come to see a prostitute, ex- excuse me, commercial sex worker, come to see her, and when he came in there, they tried to trick roll him and tried to come in and rob him, ended up shooting him, and we recovered the gun on scene that day. The, the pan- the, the pandering, w- what I, basically about these laws, what I want to tell you is the, the pandering law and the pimping law, things have changed. Social media's changed. The whole game's changed. These traffickers, they no longer hang around the, the playgrounds or the schools or things like that.

173. 1:08:51

     They, they, they hang around on social media, and every day we've interviewed these traffickers, and they s- the, the exploiters, and they say, "I get up on social media, and I just send friend requests. Every day I send friend requests, and I just hope somebody's gonna give." That's the way they operate nowadays. The, the bu- the buyers, you know, this is basically coming in there and saying, "Okay, I'm going to se- even though we don't know each other at all, but it's okay for me to sexually assault you because I'm giving you $100. It's gonna be okay." And, and when I interview these females afterwards, or males, and we talk to them, they may not be at the right state in their life or whatever's happened to them, that they have to, we talk about what we can see for them in the future and w- and where they want to be, but th- that was never the dream that when they were growing up saying, "Hey, this is what I want to do for a living."

174. 1:09:42

     You got a couple of questions if you'll take those. Uh, Senator Watson, you're recognized for questions.

175. 1:09:47

     Just at the appropriate time, Mr. Chairman.

176. 1:09:49

     Okay. Uh, well, let's see. Can you get-

177. 1:09:51

     I'll, I'll be happy to second that.

178. 1:09:53

     Okay with that? All right, I'll recognize- There were several others, but, uh, I don't want them to kill the bill because-

179. 1:10:02

     Okay

180. 1:10:02

     ... you got five members of this committee that have another meeting. Let's, uh-

181. 1:10:06

     I don't want to take up his stay also

182. 1:10:06

     ... if they will stay, we might have a chance afterwards. Senator Watson, you're recognized for your motion.

183. 1:10:11

     I'd like to make a motion of due pass-

184. 1:10:13

     Okay

185. 1:10:13

     ... SB 547.

186. 1:10:16

     And that's LC492697.

187. 1:10:20

     Yes.

188. 1:10:20

     Senator Gooch, you're rec-

189. 1:10:21

     Second the motion.

190. 1:10:22

     Senator Gooch. Any discussion? All right. All in favor raise your hand. Any opposed? You get to vote on your own bill.

191. 1:10:31

     44.

192. 1:10:31

     Okay. Passes unanimous. I'm gonna turn the chair back over to you, Mr. Chairman, if you want to hear from them, that's fine. But I, uh, I didn't want you to not to get a vote.

193. 1:10:39

     I understand. But we got All right. Thank you.

194. 1:11:06

     And thank you all for, again, making this possible. And, um, now we gotta, when we get past the Senate floor, we'll go on to the House. Definitely would love to have y'all's help to do that as well, so appreciate y'all.

195. 1:11:23

     All right. Let's move on to Senate Bill 413. Senator Jackson, you come on up.

196. 1:11:36

     We are working off a substitute, LC620448S. This bill was heard in subcommittee. There's been some request to briefly address the substitute. Uh, we'll have to be really quick today with the schedule we have. But will you tell us in particular what changed from the first bill?

197. 1:11:58

     Yes. Thank you, Mr., um, Mr. Chairman. Just very briefly, the, the big change there is that we've grossly limited the number of people who can attest to, um, whether or not the gunshot has happened, but also specifically we've narrowed it in that you have to be actually injured by a firearm. So in the original bill, um, it was a bit more broader than that. You could have just been involved with a felony that involved a, a fire, that in- involved gunfire. Um, now we've made it very, very narrow to you have to have been a victim of an actual injury caused by a firearm.

198. 1:12:33

     Um, and the people who can attest to that have been substantially narrowed.

199. 1:12:37

     All right. Any questions for the author on the bill? And then I'm gon- you have, um, Senator Bearden.

200. 1:12:45

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, so when you're talking about a actual victim, were you talking about they were a victim of gun violence? So-

201. 1:12:54

     They have to be shot.

202. 1:12:55

     So the victim was shot?

203. 1:12:57

     Yes. Sustained an injury from a firearm.

204. 1:13:03

     Ooh. I, I see where you scoped down to how many people from documented by a victim service provider, healthcare provider, an affidavit from a qualified third person. If they're shot, would there not be a police report on this and the-

205. 1:13:18

     Not always. Um, there, there are people who get shot in which there are not police reports. And so, um, you know, we received, we heard testimony from victim services folks who said, you know, "Sometimes police aren't involved," so there's just not guarantee that there will be, um, a police report. That's why it's not the only document required.

206. 1:13:37

     And we're still using the term residential firearm violence. Why don't we just go with if they got shot, aggravated assault?

207. 1:13:46

     I am not a lawyer. Um

208. 1:13:48

     Me either.

209. 1:13:49

     Well, I, I think-

210. 1:13:51

     I'm trying to get through

211. 1:13:51

     ... um, we wanted to make it clear that it's specific to it had to happen in or very close to the immediate proximity of your residence. So it's not just, uh, you got shot while you were at the mall. That would be, that would be also assault to your point, right? So we-

212. 1:14:06

     Mm-hmm

213. 1:14:06

     ... wanted to make sure we were clear about this being confined to the residence.

214. 1:14:10

     Okay. So I'm familiar with sub line 17 through 41 that you got in there that would allow this, but we're just going with the residential firearm violence, which I just have issues with, uh, if you got shot, that's an assault.

215. 1:14:28

     Oh, and that wasn't even a question. I guess that was a statement. So-

216. 1:14:31

     Okay.

217. 1:14:33

     Isn't it true?

218. 1:14:34

     I mean, isn't it true is the question.

219. 1:14:36

     Isn't it true.

220. 1:14:36

     Um, Senator Watson.

221. 1:14:38

     So just to clarify, I mean, I mean, it does give the definition, line 47, residential firearm violence, any action using a firearm that results in a injury to a tenant. Does that, does that mean mental health injury, too? I mean, does that-

222. 1:14:54

     That was not the intention here. And if you all want to, um, amend it to say physical injury to specify, then I certainly would, um, see that as a, as a, a welcomed amendment here. Um, the intention really is to capture someone for whom a bullet impacts their flesh, to be very specific.

223. 1:15:19

     Other questions for the author from the committee? All right. If you wanna sit back just one second. Um, Hayden Stanley, do you wanna come up and we're gonna try to keep it brief as we can. I know it's an important bill-

224. 1:15:33

     Yes, sir

225. 1:15:36

     ... but let y'all ...

226. 1:15:36

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name's Hayden Stanley. I represent the Georgia Apartment Association. Mike Williams is of counsel to the association and a practicing attorney in, um, in the apartment world. Um, he has a handful of observations to share with you today, and we'll be brief.

227. 1:16:01

     Members of the committee, I will be brief. Um, first of all, I think one of the points you mentioned was a concern of ours is the definition of injury in this case. Um, we supported the family violence and stalking, uh, provisions that were previously added to the, to the code section. I would point out that I have not found any other state that has this type of, of statute that allows for, um, termination of a lease for, uh, firearm violence.

228. 1:16:33

     Um, I do think it lacks of some things. Number one is, is if the tenant and/or the occupant is involved in criminal activity, they certainly shouldn't be able or have the ability to take advantage of the statute. And you say, "Well, don't you want them gone?" The answer is yes, but we would terminate the lease agreement, and there would be certain obligations of the tenant, um, after terminations. Under this provision, it would allow them to terminate their lease agreement without penalty. The other concerns are the ability to use a qualified third party, um, to present, um, a sworn affidavit, and those qualified third parties, um, to basically say that they've, um, been, experienced a, uh, firearm violence, um, means any law enforcement, court employee, mental health professional, or person employed by a governmental entity or nonprofit agency that performs services regarding, um, violence.

229. 1:17:36

     Um, we think that that section's not necessary, that, you know, you c- you can have a police report, you can have, um, you can have a report from their medical provider, doctor, um, whoever treated them that would substantiate that. Um, this is very broadly written, um, to allow those qualified third parties, um, to make that determination, so we have serious concerns about that. Um,

230. 1:18:08

     um, in addition, there's, you know, language that's missing. Like, for example, on, on line 70 it says, "A record from a federal, state, or local law enforcement agency." I think we mean a record or a police report. I don't... In all the cases I've been involved in where there's been a gunshot wound, I've seen police reports. I, I deal with this, I've been dealing with this for over 30 years. Um, and then I think if you read on to line 71, it says, "Residential firearm violence occurred," and it should say, "At the residence or in the immediate vicinity." And then lastly, on line 74, um, it'll, that's the portion I mentioned earlier that the sworn affidavit from a qualified third party.

231. 1:18:54

     We believe that that should be the victim services provider. If you look in the definition of a victim services provider provided on line-

232. 1:19:05

     50

233. 1:19:05

     ... 50, it says, "Victim services provider means," and it really should be, "Any licensed physician or registered nurse who has provided victim services to a tenant or legal occupant of a residence." It has included any city or state contracted entity. I don't know who that would be. It really needs to be limited to a licensed physician or registered nurse, um, who is gonna make that determination. So those are our basic concerns, um, regarding that.

234. 1:19:37

     I'll say one more thing that we would need if, if we're gonna allow for something like this. We would need an expedited way to terminate leases and get cases before the court, um, to terminate leases for criminal activity, meaning right now, if we terminate a lease based on criminal activity, we go through the same process as somebody who doesn't pay. There's no expedited process. We don't get into court and, and within a certain period of time and be able to deal with those cr- that criminal activity in a more expeditious fashion.

235. 1:20:13

     Thank you.

236. 1:20:13

     All right. Any questions from the committee for Mr. Williams or Mr. Stanley?

237. 1:20:19

     Thank you for your time.

238. 1:20:20

     All right. Thank you.

239. 1:20:26

     May I address those issues?

240. 1:20:29

     Yeah, briefly.

241. 1:20:30

     Yep.

242. 1:20:30

     Uh, yeah, so just wanna follow up with some questions that were here on the definition of victim service provider. Any city or state contracted entity, um, that, that deals with violence specifically, those are our community violence interrupters. So those are contracted, um, groups of community that cities, it's mostly cities now, the city of Atlanta has people who have been contracted specifically to deal with this population of people who are victims of gunshots. So that's, um, those, that's who that group-

243. 1:20:59

     Okay

244. 1:21:00

     ... um, is speaking to. And then the other piece here, again, I, I would welcome an amendment and consider it quite friendly if you added the word physical injury to this. That certainly was the intention. Um, this bill did not come out of thin air. It does exist. This type of, um, law does exist in other states. I know offhand immediately is that the state of Maryland, um, has this provision, and theirs is actually more broad. It looks a lot more like my original, um, bill did than this current one, um, as well. As far as, um, the qualified, I think it's really important that we make sure that it's not just a police report that people have, um, because not all gunshots result in a police report.

245. 1:21:41

     Um, and you can... There, there are reasons for that. Um, but I think that's really important to note that we give people other avenues. That is consistent with how we've handled stalking and domestic violence as well. Th- those do not require a police report either, um, so they are consistent in that regard.

246. 1:21:59

     All right. Thank you. At this point, um, Leader Jones

247. 1:22:05

     Quick question, Mr. Chair, and that would be also on that line 49. Could we also add as an amendment, um, to make sure the person is a perpetrator of the criminal action or of the action? Um, not the perpetrator. Yeah. Not the perpetrator.

248. 1:22:21

     I think that be- that creates a problem for healthcare workers being able to, um, make the affirmation that somebody did get shot, because the healthcare worker is not in the business of knowing who is a perpetrator versus who is a victim. Um, making that distinction is, is ... We, I don't think we can do that with a he- if, if those are gonna be the, if those are gonna be the qualifiers, then we can't do that. Um, and so I- I think at the end of the day, this is about saying, "If you were shot by a gun in your residence or in the parking lot of your residence, we don't actually want you living there anyway," because we know that retaliatory violence is real, and that the likelihood of someone coming back to finish the job or to continue the job, um, is very high.

249. 1:23:09

     So we want those folks to be able to get out of their leases and move to safety as fast as possible.

250. 1:23:15

     Senator Rhett.

251. 1:23:18

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to make a motion.

252. 1:23:21

     What's your motion?

253. 1:23:23

     Do pass.

254. 1:23:23

     By committee substitute. Is there a second?

255. 1:23:27

     Second.

256. 1:23:28

     Some second. Senator Bearden.

257. 1:23:30

     Well, I can make a subsequent motion to, motion to table.

258. 1:23:34

     Is there a second to motion to table? It takes priority over the motion do pass. Is there a second? Second from Senator Watson. Any discussion? All those in favor of the motion to table, please raise your hand. Four opposed, three the motion carries. So we will hold and let the work keep going on this one, but thank you.

259. 1:23:54

     Thanks.

260. 1:23:57

     All right, next on the agenda, Senate Bill 591. Senator Gooch.

261. 1:24:09

     We are working off of LC 620434. Is that what you have?

262. 1:24:16

     I believe you're correct, sir.

263. 1:24:17

     All right, the floor is yours.

264. 1:24:18

     Thank you. Current law today prohibits interruption and-

265. 1:24:22

     Excuse me

266. 1:24:23

     ... interference of memorial services or funerals. This bill, Senate Bill 592, simply adds religious services to that.

267. 1:24:31

     I messed us up. You're presenting the correct bill. I gave you the wrong bill number. So 591.

268. 1:24:37

     Is religious services.

269. 1:24:38

     Religious-

270. 1:24:39

     Yeah

271. 1:24:39

     ... services.

272. 1:24:40

     So let's get the correct LC.

273. 1:24:45

     It's a good thing you have a smart legislative assistant to-

274. 1:24:47

     I know. Otherwise, you might would've passed the wrong bill.

275. 1:24:51

     Hey, that'd, that'd be interesting.

276. 1:24:51

     Um, 630053, is that what you have?

277. 1:24:55

     That's correct.

278. 1:24:56

     All right.

279. 1:24:56

     No changes have been made to this bill.

280. 1:24:58

     Okay.

281. 1:24:59

     So-

282. 1:24:59

     So you were talking about the right bill. We just had the wrong-

283. 1:25:01

     That's right

284. 1:25:01

     ... LC. Go ahead.

285. 1:25:02

     Simply, uh, adds religious services to the current code that prohibits interruption and dis- or, um, any kind of protest at a funeral service. It would criminalize that behavior for religious services such as churches and so forth. Pretty simple.

286. 1:25:20

     It also makes a, um, interference of a memorial service for a military funeral honors a aggravated misdemeanor. So that's in the last, last lines, 49 and 50. Those are the only two changes throughout the bill, other than some housekeeping language, cleanup language.

287. 1:25:37

     All right, we do have questions from Senator Rhett.

288. 1:25:43

     Oh, no, that was me.

289. 1:25:44

     Oh.

290. 1:25:44

     Sorry.

291. 1:25:45

     Senator Parent.

292. 1:25:46

     Yeah. Thank you. Thank you so much, um, Mr. Chairman. Question, what is the, um, origin or impetus for this particular piece of legislation?

293. 1:25:55

     Just no incidents that I'm aware of recently in Georgia, but it would, um, be precedent that has been set in other states, but also some other activities that have occurred in, throughout the country in recent years. Uh, this just basically adds those religious services in addition to the funerals that are already covered by code in Georgia.

294. 1:26:14

     Okay. That, and that may be totally fine, but can you, um, you know, enlighten me as to an example of w- what you're worried about, if it has occurred other places?

295. 1:26:22

     I'm just worried about people being able to express their religious freedoms in churches and at memorial services without the interference of, uh, disruptive behavior from outside forces. Uh, it does have a buffer of 500 feet, which is already current law as well. We're not changing anything to the current statute. We're just including religious services in that provision that protects funerals.

296. 1:26:44

     Because there was that, um, that organization that would go around and disrupt funerals, I recall. Remember them?

297. 1:26:54

     Can't tell you.

298. 1:26:55

     Yeah, you know, you know what I'm talking about. Okay.

299. 1:26:57

     Dis- disrupt funerals?

300. 1:26:58

     Yes.

301. 1:26:58

     Mm-hmm.

302. 1:26:59

     Um-

303. 1:26:59

     And we would not wanna see that happen at, uh, religious services either, so.

304. 1:27:04

     No.

305. 1:27:04

     This is not, uh, in any way particular toward Christianity or anti-Muslim. It's strictly any religious service, so.

306. 1:27:13

     Okay. Thank you.

307. 1:27:15

     Any other questions for the author? No one is signed to speak on the bill. What's the pleasure of the committee?

308. 1:27:24

     Motion to pass.

309. 1:27:25

     Motion to pass from Senator Watson, a second from Senator Bearden. Any discussion? All those in favor the mo-

310. 1:27:31

     I have a discussion.

311. 1:27:31

     Discussion, Senator Parent.

312. 1:27:32

     Well, um, not, you know, having delved into all of the particulars around this, I do imagine that we have to be careful about, um, there's freedom of religion, and there's also freedom of assembly, and those kind of can go together, or not in this instance. And then there's obviously also the right to protest. So I do think there's a whole lot of different things that are involved here. And, um, personally, I'm kind of not quite prepared to vote for it, especially given that for whatever reason we're not hearing from pro or con.

313. 1:28:05

     So I just wanted to put that out as discussion-

314. 1:28:07

     Yes

315. 1:28:07

     ... that I am a little worried about those sort of like butting together. I need, I need more clarity on like the butting-

316. 1:28:12

     Sure

317. 1:28:12

     ... together of those two constitutional rights.

318. 1:28:13

     That's, that's a fair statement.

319. 1:28:14

     So but I appreciate what, what you're-

320. 1:28:15

     That's a fair statement, but it is not a, it does not infringe on the First Amendment, and that's, uh, per a US Supreme Court precedent like Ward versus Rock Against Racism, 1989. So there's precedent been set in, uh-

321. 1:28:29

     Can you give me that citation again, Senator Gooch?

322. 1:28:31

     Sure.

323. 1:28:31

     I'd appreciate that. Ward versus Rock.

324. 1:28:33

     It, it, it aligns with US Supreme Court precedents like Ward versus Rock, Against Racism, 1989.

325. 1:28:41

     All right. I'll look it up.

326. 1:28:42

     It doesn't-

327. 1:28:42

     I appreciate it

328. 1:28:42

     ... it doesn't restrict content. It restricts distance and, uh, the 500 foot-

329. 1:28:47

     Did you bring us copies of the case?

330. 1:28:48

     Time, place, and manner, basically.

331. 1:28:49

     That's right.

332. 1:28:49

     Time, place, and manner.

333. 1:28:50

     Did you bring us copies of the case for the court?

334. 1:28:51

     No, sir, but I, I will get with my legal clerk- ... after the meeting and get you a copy.

335. 1:28:55

     We like counselors that are prepared when they come.

336. 1:28:57

     I may have to put you on retainer, Mr. Chairman.

337. 1:28:59

     All right. That may be helpful. All right. Thank you.

338. 1:29:01

     Appreciate it. Appreciate the citation.

339. 1:29:02

     You're welcome. Thank you, Senator Parent.

340. 1:29:04

     Any further questions from the committee? We have motion to pass, it's been seconded, what's the pl- well, let me back up. Let's vote. All those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand.

341. 1:29:14

     I'll vote from here.

342. 1:29:18

     Five opposed. Two motion carries. All right, do you want to com- present your next one? I'm starting to fall apart. It was going so smooth. I apologize.

343. 1:29:27

     Yeah, I know. We're, we're on a roll.

344. 1:29:28

     I can't speak all of a sudden.

345. 1:29:29

     We're on a roll.

346. 1:29:30

     Senate Bill 592, LC620434. The floor is yours.

347. 1:29:39

     All right, let me get my paperwork back in order here.

348. 1:29:52

     The, uh, the bill before you is Senate Bill 592, and, uh, this bill does make ch- several changes throughout the code dealing with violent felons. It basically raises the minimum sentencing requirements and also raises the, the caps on those thresholds. And so I can go through the bill quickly and hit the highlights, and then we can take more, um, specific questions if the chair, uh, prefers.

349. 1:30:24

     But if you look at some of the past, we've done a lot of criminal justice reform back in 2011, for example, under the, um, administration, even starting back with Governor Deal. We've made a lot of changes to criminal justice, and those have resulted in some real meaningful, uh, impacts on recidivism and jail costs and prison costs in our state. However, when it, when you look at the f- the, uh, stats and the facts dealing with violent criminals in our state, we have not seen the kind of impact and the decline that we would have thought we would have had.

350. 1:30:57

     Uh, but if you look at other states that have, such as Florida and Kentucky and Louisiana, those states have increased their minimum standards and their minimum sentencing, which have resulted in positive impacts. And so this bill is modeled after those three states. Uh, some of the key provisions of the bill includes, uh, increase in penalties for aggravated assault, dealing with deadly weapons on public safety officers, uh, impacting the elderly and even in public transit. It increased the minimums from what's current in law from one-year minimums and 20-year maximums to a three-year minimum up to a life without parole, uh, with the discretion of the at- att- you know, the district attorneys and the courts.

351. 1:31:39

     Uh, dealing, anybody dealing with public safety w- w- dealing with a firearm, uh, those minimums would go from 10 years to 20, uh, and then from 20-year maximum to life without parole. Under the provision of aggravated battery, disfiguring on public safety officers or the elderly, and again in transit, similar increases would range from one-year minimums up to 20 years. Uh, this changes it from three, two three-year minimums to life without parole. Dealing with kidnapping of children under the age of 14, the minimum would change from 10 to 20 up to life without parole.

352. 1:32:16

     Uh, with the cases of rape, sexual battery, or aggravated sexual battery of a child under the age of 12, it would require mandatory life without parole or life imprisonment. Uh, the, under the charges of serious violent felonies expanded to include aggravated assault, battery, home invasion, firearm felonies, et cetera, there would be no probation, no early termination of probation, no parole if committed while serving a sentence, and no probation reporting centers. So it's would require all the probations to be done in person.

353. 1:32:49

     Those visits would not be done through the probation centers. Uh, offenses while serving sentence, examples of murder, assault, rape, and drug distribution, it would remove the parole eligibility of those offenses, and any gang-related crimes and offenses or validated gang members would not be eligible for parole. Chairman, this bill is strictly to tighten down on violent felonies in our state. It's not to, uh, try to be s- uh, hard on criminals that are re-habilitated, that could be, uh, rehabilitated.

354. 1:33:25

     These crimes are what we consider serious crimes against our citizens, and we are seeing an increase in those crimes across our state. So I would encourage this committee to pass this bill today as is, but I'm happy to take questions.

355. 1:33:39

     Question from Senator Parent.

356. 1:33:41

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, thank you, Senator, for bringing this for discussion. Um, I'm looking at, well, yeah, Section Six, Seven, and Eight. Am I reading it correctly that these offenses would be essentially a mandatory minimum of life in prison?

357. 1:34:02

     Up to life in prison.

358. 1:34:05

     Let's see. Our, it says-

359. 1:34:07

     Let me get to that section

360. 1:34:07

     ... life without parole.

361. 1:34:09

     That's correct. Let me get to-

362. 1:34:10

     Or by imprisonment for life.

363. 1:34:11

     You say Six, Seven, and Eight?

364. 1:34:12

     Mm-hmm.

365. 1:34:13

     Yeah, so this would be a new subsection dealing with rape, and it would say, "The person convicted of the offense of rape when the victim was under 12 years of age and the defendant was 18 years of age or older at the time of the offense shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for life without parole or imprisonment for life."

366. 1:34:33

     Right. So it looks like in Six you've got, as you read, rape Um, with the age, ages that you delineated, seven, sexual battery.

367. 1:34:43

     Yes

368. 1:34:44

     And eight-

369. 1:34:44

     Which starts at-

370. 1:34:45

     Okay, so, um-

371. 1:34:46

     Starts at 226

372. 1:34:47

     ... two, yeah, so we're talking about six, seven, and eight. It's on page 10.

373. 1:34:54

     Um, it, it, line 235 is sexual battery, again, with the same ages that the senator delineated, and then eight is aggravated sexual battery, 242. So my question is, am I reading it correctly that it's a mandatory minimum of life in prison without parole?

374. 1:35:13

     For a crime of rape or sexual battery to a child-

375. 1:35:18

     To a child

376. 1:35:18

     ... under the age of 12, so we're talking about children 11 years of age and younger. So yes, ma'am, that's c- correct y- to your, to your question.

377. 1:35:27

     Okay. Thank you.

378. 1:35:28

     You're welcome.

379. 1:35:30

     Leader Jones.

380. 1:35:32

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. On, on, on, on that section seven-

381. 1:35:36

     Mm-hmm

382. 1:35:36

     ... on the sexual battery, how are you defining sexual battery?

383. 1:35:40

     It's already defined in the law, so anyone that's-

384. 1:35:44

     So you're using 16-6-22.1?

385. 1:35:47

     I believe that's correct. That is correct. It's referenced in line 233.

386. 1:35:55

     So if, if it's correct, I mean, it would be where a person intentionally makes physical contact with the intimate parts of the body of another person without the consent of that person. Under this definition, there's not even a requirement of injury. So you're saying that a person would get life in, in prison?

387. 1:36:12

     That... Yes, sir. For sexual battery to a, a minor under the age of 12.

388. 1:36:19

     For intentionally making contact with the intimate parts without even any injury, they'll get life?

389. 1:36:24

     Well, that would be up to the DA to prosecute him and for the jury to convict.

390. 1:36:32

     Okay. I, I don't have anything further, Mr. Chair.

391. 1:36:36

     Senator Bearden.

392. 1:36:37

     Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, isn't it true under Section 6 of the bill, there are numerous states already passing bills that allow the death penalty in hopes that, uh, the Louisiana Supreme Court case is overturned that was done in 2006?

393. 1:36:51

     I, I believe the chairman knows of what she speaks.

394. 1:36:53

     Thank you, sir.

395. 1:37:00

     I was just verifying. So the code section 16-6-22.1, a person commits the offense of sexual battery when he or she intentionally makes physical contact with the intimate parts of the body of another person without the consent of that person. And so your bill would make, would have this punishment when the victim is under the age of 12.

396. 1:37:19

     That's right.

397. 1:37:21

     All right. Other questions? Um, Senator Rhett.

398. 1:37:27

     I, I did have a question, but I think the minority chair kind of expressed my concerns about the age of the kids, 18 and 12, and life without parole. You know, kids do s- silly, silly things and... But rape is wrong. We know that. Sexual battery is wrong, but, mm-hmm. But I was just had the same concern that she had about the age.

399. 1:37:52

     18.

400. 1:37:54

     All right. Any other questions from the committee?

401. 1:37:59

     Chairman Strickland, if I may, I would like to just indicate that the State of Louisiana has seen a 34% decrease in these crimes as a result of this law being implemented in their state. So I believe a, a bill like this would help Georgia as well.

402. 1:38:14

     Do they, they use the similar crimes that you use? Or generally-

403. 1:38:18

     Yes

404. 1:38:18

     ... speaking, is that-

405. 1:38:19

     Parts and pieces of the bill came out of, uh, all three, Kentucky, Florida, and Louisiana models.

406. 1:38:26

     Okay. Any other questions from the committee? No one has signed to speak on the bill. What's the pleasure of the committee?

407. 1:38:35

     Do pass.

408. 1:38:36

     A motion to pass from Senator Bearden, a second from Senator Watson. Any discussion? All those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. It is four opposed, three motion carries.

409. 1:38:50

     Thank you.

410. 1:38:50

     Thank you.

411. 1:38:51

     Appreciate y'all.

412. 1:38:53

     All right, last one on the agenda. Senator Halpern here? She is. We got to be TV stars together this weekend.

413. 1:39:01

     Yay.

414. 1:39:02

     She was a great partner on the Atlanta News first political show yesterday morning.

415. 1:39:07

     I'm amazing.

416. 1:39:07

     I didn't get to watch it. Did you watch it?

417. 1:39:09

     I did not.

418. 1:39:09

     I didn't either. My parents saw it. They said we did okay. I think they liked you better than me, though, unfortunately, but-

419. 1:39:15

     Well, listen, I'm sure, I'm sure that's not true

420. 1:39:16

     ... Senate Bill 532, we are working off of LC62-0321.

421. 1:39:23

     And do you all have in your folders this letter? If not, if I may-

422. 1:39:28

     We do not. Do you wanna pass it out, or-

423. 1:39:30

     Yes

424. 1:39:31

     ... If you wanna start it, we can get it passed out. Thank you, Val. Here. Thank you.

425. 1:39:43

     So I just... Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. So I always get nervous when I come to present to judiciary without a lawyer by my side, so I just wanna acknowledge at the top I am not an attorney. Um-

426. 1:40:00

     Where's the tip-

427. 1:40:00

     And the jar

428. 1:40:00

     ... where's the jar?

429. 1:40:01

     Well, I, and you know what?

430. 1:40:02

     And Senator Ginn knows this.

431. 1:40:03

     I brought money. I brought money just for this purpose. I'll dump it in your tip jar later.

432. 1:40:07

     I'm not touching it.

433. 1:40:07

     Here you go.

434. 1:40:07

     Um, so but the approach that I take with this bill is not from the perspective of legal theory, but from the standpoint of fairness, clarity, and the real-world impact of how our statutes operate in practice. So SB 532 is a targeted practical fix. It addresses a gap in the current law that can allow a defendant who has not filed pleadings to miss critical notices related to proceedings as a case moves forward, particularly once it enters default, and that may significantly affect the outcome of their case.

435. 1:40:40

     So right now, once a party is in default, the law can be read to treat them as having waived most notices. And while that structure s- may streamline process and keep cases moving, in practice, the waiver of notice also creates situations where decisions move forward without the benefit of full participation, which then creates confusion or disputes later, especially when the court is determining j- damages or entering judgment So this bill does two straightforward things.

436. 1:41:12

     First, it provides clear guidance on when notice should still be provided even if a defendant has not filed pleadings so that key proceedings are not happening entirely out of view. And second, and most importantly, it makes explicit that notice requirements apply in default judgment proceedings, ensuring that when the court is considering damages and moving toward entry of judgment, the process is transparent and the record is complete. So I want to underscore that this is not just about protecting defendants.

437. 1:41:45

     It also supports plaintiffs and their counsel by creating a cleaner record that strengthens the outcomes. When notice is clear and participation is properly structured, it reduces the likelihood of post-judgment challenges, appeals, or motions to reopen based on lack of notice. And ultimately, when everyone understands the rules of engagement, the process is more efficient and the judgments are more durable. So I'll offer just a simple example. Imagine a small business owner who is sued but for whatever reason fails to file a timely answer.

438. 1:42:20

     Perhaps they misunderstood the paperwork or believed to be a res- to believe that a resolution was in progress. The case goes into default, and damages are later determined. Without clear notice at that stage, they may only learn of the af- outcome after judgment is entered, leading to motions, delays, and additional costs for everyone involved. And that scenario serves no one well. It creates frustration for the defendant, additional work for the court, and uncertainty for the plaintiff who thought the matter was resolved.

439. 1:42:53

     So SB 532 helps avoid that outcome by reinforcing no- notice and participation at the stage where it matters most, ensuring the damages process is transparent and on the record. So at its core, the bill is about good legal practice, clarity of procedure, confidence in outcomes, and a system that is both efficient and fair.

440. 1:43:19

     And again, I am not a lawyer, but I am happy to take any technical questions or feedback on the bill and, and answer them.

441. 1:43:27

     I'm gonna... I have a lawyer question, and I'll direct it to Mr. Walker. And if you wanna weigh in, of course you can too, but it's a question in the weeds of this. So when I read this, you work on this one, Mr. Walker? Is this one you did? Okay, that's dangerous when he says that. He's giving himself an out already. Um, the way I'm reading it, let me back up. In my experience, there are some courts that send... Well, some courts that create their own hearing notices, and they order parties to appear by an order or use this in order.

442. 1:43:57

     There are other places where courts want a notice of hearing where the, where the person bringing the claim may file a pleading where they've selected a date that the court is open. The question I have, though, is if you're in a place like Hendry County State Court where there's a lot of these types of damages hearings that happen-

443. 1:44:16

     Yep

444. 1:44:17

     ... and the court may schedule it for a hearing, it... I'm reading this that the party would still need to file according to subsection B, still need to serve, I guess I'd say-

445. 1:44:28

     Mm-hmm

446. 1:44:29

     ... the other party at their last known address and then file a certificate of service. In other words, the court, it may get a little confusing in some places. I think it's one of those bills where the bar needs to get notice out when we do this because it's gonna be on the person that's going to the damages hearing to prove that they served notice of that. And right now under current law, you would serve the person, but you wouldn't have to do anything beyond that. Am I reading that right, Mr. Walker?

447. 1:44:58

     Does it all go back to which shall be served as provided by subsection B?

448. 1:45:02

     It does, yes.

449. 1:45:03

     Okay.

450. 1:45:07

     So you'll understand I'm trying to create the loophole that right now in the law it says that once you haven't, you know, responded to pleadings, you no longer have to get notices, and there's another section of the law that very clearly shows that you have the ability to be in court and enter your information, especially around damages. But how can you be in court if you were never-

451. 1:45:33

     You don't know

452. 1:45:33

     ... notified that it was happening?

453. 1:45:35

     Yeah.

454. 1:45:35

     So in cases of default, that's the loophole specifically that I'm trying to close.

455. 1:45:39

     Yeah. And I think you do that based on just my opinion of the bill. It's just, uh, I was making sure I'm clear that this will be something that parties bringing suits would be on them to then give that notice, not the court itself potentially.

456. 1:45:52

     And some lawyers do that already.

457. 1:45:55

     That's right.

458. 1:45:55

     But that's not necessarily the practice of every lawyer. And so for those cases that, you know, fall in that in-between crack, which are, which are often, and I think the letter that you have will show that over and over and over again, I mean, there's a lot of times when people are then, there's a judgment against them, and then they are having to reopen that case and go back to court, and the judgment at the end can change. And so for the plaintiff also where they thought they might have been getting X after, um, you know, a new, a new hearing, they find that they're only getting Y.

459. 1:46:31

     Just it's less efficient in a lot of ways to have cases have to be reopened for this particular reason.

460. 1:46:42

     All right. I think the only challenge is gonna be there, again, there are courts that do their own notices. You've got default. The courts that show up at this time for, for the damages hearing.

461. 1:46:51

     Yeah.

462. 1:46:51

     But it's gonna be on the party, I think the way it's written, which is maybe the way to go, um, to make sure that-

463. 1:46:57

     Mm-hmm

464. 1:46:57

     ... the people are served with that notice.

465. 1:46:59

     Mm-hmm.

466. 1:47:00

     Any questions from the committee?

467. 1:47:05

     All right. What's the pleasure of the committee?

468. 1:47:12

     Yes, sir. What do you wanna do?

469. 1:47:14

     Move to pass.

470. 1:47:15

     Motion to pass from Senator Rhett. Is there a second from Senator Jones? Any discussion? All those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand.

471. 1:47:25

     Oh, I thought it was about to get interesting. All right. Six- six-zero. I'm the only one excited about it, I guess. All my questions, and everybody's like, "Let's go home."

472. 1:47:35

     Power.

473. 1:47:35

     All right.

474. 1:47:36

     Thank you.

475. 1:47:36

     Thank you. With that, we are adjourned. Thank y'all.