Comité Ethics del Senado, 18 de junio de 2026

Transcripción

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

1. 0:13:25

   For guidance and direction, and, um, and that's what we're gonna, uh, do at this time. So, um, I'm gonna ask my vice chair to pray for us.

2. 0:13:36

   Let us pray. Dear Heavenly Father, we come to you again this morning asking for your patience, your guidance, your

3. 0:13:49

   deliberations, and that you give us all more patience and the wisdom as we move forward. We ask that you bless the great state of Georgia and the United States, and we ask that the men and women in harm's way be blessed and protected. Along with all of our law enforcement officers, dear God, we ask their mercies and thy protection. In thy name we pray, amen.

4. 0:14:17

   Amen. Thank you, Vice Chair. Um, so, uh, as you see on the agenda, uh, we have two bills, uh, listed. Um, the first one, uh, listed is, uh, authored by our, uh, chairman, current chairman of Appropriations and, uh, nominee, Republican nominee for, uh, lieutenant governor, Chairman Greg Dolezal. Uh, we are not gonna hear that bill today. Um, we, uh, we have already addressed some of that, um, couple issues there.

5. 0:14:48

   Um, we've already addressed it and talked about it previously. Um, but we also, uh, looking at the call, uh, and what is in the actual call and the things that we're supposed to be doing while we are here, um, and so there's some questions there, and the fact that we've already addressed that, um, we're gonna remove that, uh, from the agenda. So we will not be, um, talking about the, uh, first bill, um, on your agenda. Um, any questions about that before we move forward? All right. Thank you all for that and your, your patience on our, um, late start.

6. 0:15:22

   Um, also we, uh, as you know, we go to the floor at 10:30 this morning, so our time, uh, is limited. Um, but I think we have a, uh, a, uh, bill here that addresses the reason that we're here, um, and that is to, um, deal with the issue of Senate Bill 189 and, and an opportunity to solve that problem and then a plan to move forward, uh, that hopefully we can all agree on, um, that we can all go home and get back to our, our jobs and our families, um, and solve a problem as well.

7. 0:15:55

   And so, uh, with that being said, um, I'm gonna turn it over to, uh, the author of the bill. I'm gonna ask him to come down front. I wanna thank him for his, uh, work on this issue. Um, he's, uh, spent a lot of time, um, over the last, uh, several weeks trying to come to a solution, um, that not, not only addresses the, the, uh, the Senate Bill 189 issue, but how do we move forward. We have a, a lot of issues to address, and I think this gives us a starting point of how to move forward.

8. 0:16:27

   Um, and I don't wanna steal any of his, of his thunder in his bill, but he's done, I think, a great job of trying to, to solve the problems, get us a plan to move forward, and be ready to, uh, come up with a different plan going forward. Um, so Chairman Burns, I'm gonna turn it over to you.

9. 0:16:43

   Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, good morning, colleagues. Uh, we're here this morning to discuss Senate Bill 3EXLC474392.

10. 0:16:55

    Chairman, pull that mic a little bit closer to you.

11. 0:16:57

    Closer. Okay, so, uh, SB3EXLC474392. Uh, ladies and gentlemen, this is a, a, a proposal that resolves some concerns among our election community and may, uh, allows a roadmap moving forward beyond 2026. Uh, this is an agreement that has been worked out with the House and the Governor's office.

12. 0:17:27

    So we feel that this gets us into a position to, uh, clarify and provide certainty to our election officials and to our electorate, but also ensures that the legislative body has, uh, the ability and responsibility and authority to determine what future elections will look like in Georgia. So it do- this bill does three things. I'll walk y- walk you through it quickly. But, uh, section one deals with the Election Equipment Specifications and Standards Committee.

13. 0:18:00

    It creates an Elections Equipment Specifications and Standards Committee. That's the first thing it does. The second thing it does is enhances the use of risk limiting audits. Uh, currently there's a limited use of that. This expands that use. And then section three deals with, uh, the amendment to SB 189, which would change the effective date in section seven. So let's look at the bill together. Uh, section one. Section one creates the Election Equipment Specifications and Standards Committee, uh, that establishes the specifications and standards and requirements for a new uniform system of election equipment for Georgia.

14. 0:18:42

    This equipment would not be utilized or in place until 2028. The committee is composed of nine members, three electors from the state of Georgia appointed by the governor, three members of the Senate appointed by the Senate's committee on assignments, one of which will be designated as co-chair, and then three members of the House of Representatives appointed by the speaker, one of whom will be designated as co-chair. I think it's important that this committee will operate between the time the bill comes into effect and until they, uh, complete a, a report in January, January 31st of 2027, but it could continue on to 2029, depending upon its need and requirements.

15. 0:19:28

    I think it's also important to note that, uh, this committee can seek advisement from a variety of professionals, elections director from the secretary of state's office, um- The Executive Director of the State Election Board, the Georgia Association of Voter Registration Election Officials, cybersecurity experts, as well as, uh, accessibility and disability experts. So this committee will be operating with a, uh, charge to define the standards and specifications for a new election equip- for the any new election equipment used in 2028 and beyond.

16. 0:20:10

    Um, as I pointed out, the report is required by January 31st of '27, and, uh, it also points out that this committee is the responsible committee for determining the election systems moving forward. The role of the Secretary of State is from an advisory capacity, but w- has no authority in the selection or certification or procurement of such a system. Um, the committee will stand repealed on July 1st of 2029.

17. 0:20:44

    Section two. Section two deals with, uh, audits, pre-certification tabulation audits, and risk-limiting audits. Currently, the law requires a limited use of that technique and that tool. Um, this bill requires an expansion of that so that the bill requires that the following races, the top of ballot race is the, is required per Section A of se- uh, per subparagraph 4A of Section 2.

18. 0:21:17

    Top of ballot, and then the following races, the presidential race, the, uh, the US Senate race, the US representative races, governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, and attorney general. This is a risk-limiting audit. In your folders, you have a handout on what is a risk-limiting audit. So if you have questions about that, we use this now. We've used it very, very effectively. Uh, it is a excellent tool. It could require a full hand recount, but the hand recount is predicated upon the risk-limiting audit indicating that that is necessary.

19. 0:21:56

    It is an efficient and effective and accurate way to verify election results. Uh, additionally, subparagraph C calls for one contest from the following races. So once you get the, the, the statewide races, the top five statewide races in the US, uh, Senate and congressional races, you would also do a risk-limiting audit on, um, the other statewide, uh, constitutional officers, school superintendent, commissioner of insurance and agriculture and labor and Supreme Court justice and appellate judges.

20. 0:22:32

    Finally, Section 3. Section 3 acknowledges the fact that as of, uh, July the 1st of 2026, we, um, are in a position to not know how best to move forward for November's election cycle. This section changes the effective date in Section 7 of SB 189 to January the 1st of 2028. Allows our election officials, uh, some guidance and some stability and some knowledge about how November elections will occur, ensures that they oc- they occur, uh, s- in a strong and administrative, in a secure and effective manner.

21. 0:23:18

    It allows them to continue the current process. So, uh, Mr. Chairman, that's the bill. It's, uh, three and a half pages. You can read it in about four minutes. I'm happy to take any questions.

22. 0:23:32

    All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, appreciate your work on this. Um, we do have some questions here. Um, we'll start, uh, number seven, Senator Jackson.

23. 0:23:45

    Thank you, Mr.-

24. 0:23:47

    Okay.

25. 0:23:47

    Thank you, Mr. Chair, and, uh, thank you, uh, Senator Burns, for bringing us such a thoughtful piece of legislation to us. I, I do just have a few, um, pieces of question. One, I'm, I'm gonna start just by meddling in your own politics.

26. 0:23:59

    Sure.

27. 0:23:59

    Um, I, on line 22, the appointments for the people on this committee, um, it says that it would be the S- Senate Committee on Assignments who would make those appointments as opposed to the lieutenant governor or the president of the Senate, which would be the equivalent of the, um, House of Representatives Speaker. I, I would just like to know from you, um, uh, did, did our current lieutenant governor do something wrong that he is not, uh, able to make these selections?

28. 0:24:28

    Uh, no, the, the current lieutenant governor's done a fine job, as you know, and we also acknowledge the fact that he sits on the Committee of Assignments, and he has two appointees on that committee. So that committee essentially will, will follow his recommendations and suggestions. I feel very confident in the lieutenant governor, and I know that he'll do a great job in identifying, uh, uh, members for this committee.

29. 0:24:52

    I'm certainly not one to carry the water for, uh, Lieutenant Governor Burt Jones, but I do find it, uh, very suspicious that he is-

30. 0:24:58

    I-

31. 0:24:58

    ... not allowed to just be on this committee outright or to make the appointments directly. It's, it's, it's very unusual for this body to move in this direction. But I'll, I'll move forward. Uh, my bi- bigger concern is the lack of minority representation on this committee. Now, is it not true that these machines will be voted on or, or this new election system will be used by Democrats and Republicans alike? Is that not true, Senator?

32. 0:25:21

    Absolutely correct.

33. 0:25:22

    Uh, and is it not also true that Georgia has a plethora of both Democrats and Republicans who are coming to the polls, and so they're interested, regardless of party, in how we choose to vote? Is that not true, sir?

34. 0:25:38

    I agree. You are correct-

35. 0:25:40

    So the-

36. 0:25:40

    ... Madam Whip

37. 0:25:41

    Thank you. I appreciate that. Therefore, I would ask that you would consider when the appropriate time, um, for a friendly amendment actually to, uh, for us to add minority representation to this. I, I will remind you perhaps that a bill that passed from the House that we did not have enough time to take up that looks very similar to this allowed for appointments from both the minority leader in the House and the minority leader in the Senate. I do believe that if we want to be truly fair, um, and representative of the State of Georgia, the great people of Georgia, we should make sure that there are Democrats who are also a part of this process.

38. 0:26:16

    I appreciate the senator's concerns. I w- I would point out that nothing in this legislation preempts minority party members from being a part of this committee. Uh, the speaker, the governor, and the lieutenant governor have consistently recognized the need for minority representation. While it does not require it, it does ensure that that is an opportunity, and I would suggest that, uh, I, I, I would consider the amendment while you perceive it as friendly, th- this legislation was crafted very carefully.

39. 0:26:50

    Uh, and I wanna thank, uh, the pro tem, I wanna thank the majority leader, I wanna thank the speaker, uh, the chairman of the, uh, uh, Government Affairs Committee in the House, and the, and the, uh, governor's office for coming to agreement on this. So while y- you may be concerned about representation, I'm confident that the appointees will represent Georgia.

40. 0:27:15

    Uh, sir, to, to your point, however, the people that you just named who you say are deeply committed to diversity and representation are all from a singular party. They did not consult the minority party at all in this process of developing this legislation. That's what this committee gets to do. We get to be that minority voice, and we are asking, actually, and I will make the amendment. You guys can choose to use our democracy and our rules to approve that or not. But I am saying very clearly that this legislation needs to have minority representation on it.

41. 0:27:49

    By minority representation, I'm specifically speaking to the Democratic Party. So I, I will offer that. The last piece, if you will, uh, allow for me one last final question.

42. 0:27:58

    Sure.

43. 0:27:58

    Um, this, on line 26, you talk about, um, the advisement that the committee might seek.

44. 0:28:04

    Right.

45. 0:28:04

    And, uh, in your infinite wisdom here, you have listed a, a number of people who I think are, are groups or parties that are incredibly important, uh, for us to hear from. And so I, I would hope that you would consider instead of may, instead of that permissive language of who they seek advisement from, that we might change that to shall seek advisement from, just to ensure that, uh, the best minds who we know are subject matter experts are indeed referred to. So that would be line 26. Um, I would propose when the, the appropriate time comes that we strike may to shall, um, especially given the fact that we are not including any of those on the, uh, as members on the board itself, that we just, we just make sure we have that safeguard in place to make sure that their voices are included.

46. 0:28:48

    So, um, with that, I will, I, I will yield my time.

47. 0:28:51

    I, I, in response to your concern, Senator, I, I appreciate that. I would also suggest that this paragraph says it shall not be limited to.

48. 0:29:01

    I understand.

49. 0:29:02

    So we're not limiting it to these. We're suggesting these as potential. And, and again, I would point out that this language has been carefully crafted, and we have, uh, received consistent support from all, uh, legislative bodies and the executive branch that this is an acceptable language. And I would suggest that modifications, uh, puts that agreement in a bit of jeopardy. While I acknowledge the fact that it's a small change, I believe that this language, uh, satisfies the need to seek outside advisement.

50. 0:29:43

    I, I hear that, and respectfully, I will remind you again that the committee process is where we refine our legislation. So while I have great respect for the men who gathered together and put together, uh, this current document. And I, I, I do. I have great respect for the thought process, and I, and I, I, actually, I greatly appreciate that this is what we have in front of us. There, there are other things that you all could have brought before us that we would be much more unhappy about. Uh, so while I have great respect for the men who put this together, this is a committee, and we get to help refine this.

51. 0:30:16

    And so I'm asking respectfully that the committee consider the minority party's position here and consider some amendments that we'll offer at the appropriate time.

52. 0:30:24

    Uh, thank you, uh, Madam Whip. I appreciate that, and I'm, I'm certainly delighted to hear that you feel this is, uh, valuable legislation that you can support. Thank you.

53. 0:30:33

    All right. Let's come over to the other side here. Uh, number 11. Uh, Whip Robertson.

54. 0:30:38

    Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, Senator Burns, great job, Chairman Burns. Um, real quick, how familiar are you with the Committee on Assignments?

55. 0:30:45

    Uh, I'm, I'm quite committee with the com... uh, familiar with it. I'm not a member of the Committee on Assignments.

56. 0:30:49

    Is the lieutenant governor a member of the Committee on Assignments?

57. 0:30:51

    I believe he is. That's correct.

58. 0:30:52

    Does the Committee on Assignments assign chairmanships to committees?

59. 0:30:56

    Uh, they do. That's part of their responsibility and, and that, this is an extension of that responsibility.

60. 0:31:01

    Okay. Are you familiar with the dean of the Senate?

61. 0:31:03

    I am indeed. He's an excellent gentleman.

62. 0:31:05

    And, and, and, and as you know, we, we share Muscogee County.

63. 0:31:08

    We do.

64. 0:31:08

    And he's a good friend of mine. Uh, is, are he and I the members of the same party?

65. 0:31:12

    Uh, I don't believe so. I believe that, uh, you are, are in different parties.

66. 0:31:16

    Yes, sir. Does he chair a committee in the Senate?

67. 0:31:18

    He does.

68. 0:31:19

    Where did that assignment f- for him to chair that committee come from?

69. 0:31:22

    It came from the Committee on Assignment, which is heavily led by the lieutenant governor.

70. 0:31:26

    Yes, sir. And even though he's a man-

71. 0:31:31

    ... he was given that chairmanship by the Committee on Assignments, right?

72. 0:31:35

    That is correct.

73. 0:31:35

    Even though he is a member of the minority party, is that not correct?

74. 0:31:38

    That is correct.

75. 0:31:39

    Thank you. I appreciate you, Chairman.

76. 0:31:42

    All right, um, number six. Senator Mallow.

77. 0:31:47

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Senator, I just have a, a question as it relates to line 30. Um, as you're, you're a member of the I-16 Caucus with myself-

78. 0:31:58

    Absolutely

79. 0:31:59

    ... um-

80. 0:31:59

    We, we travel that road quite, quite regularly, don't we, Senator?

81. 0:32:02

    We do. Um, I wanna draw your attention to line 30 where it talks about cybersecurity experts, and I'm always concerned about the definitions page. Uh, my cousin Fred is a, a good guy, and he thinks, you know, he's a jack of all trades, master of none. When it just says cybersecurity expert, my cousin Fred can just watch a YouTube video and tomorrow say he's a cybersecurity expert, and he knows everything about elections 'cause he watched three YouTube videos. Um-

82. 0:32:29

    That's, that's possible.

83. 0:32:31

    Can we add some definition to what an expert is? Like, you got to have some kind of certifications or something like that, uh, if the committee's gonna take advice from that. Because I love Fred. Fred's a g- great guy, but he can watch four TikToks, three YouTubes, and he's a cybersecurity expert, open a company tomorrow. What's the determination to make sure my cousin Fred, who probably isn't capable of doing this, um, is not one of the folks consulted by the committee?

84. 0:32:57

    I, I, I appreciate the senator's concern and I, I would suggest to you that, uh, uh, the wordsmithing could go on indefinitely. At the end of the day, the committee will determine which cybersecurity experts they may choose to seek advice from. And unfortunately, I'm not sure that your cousin Fred would be on the top of their list. But, um, cybersecurity experts, as you point out, is a broad term, and there are many self-proclaimed individuals.

85. 0:33:29

    I believe that the wisdom of the committee will determine which ones they choose to seek advice from.

86. 0:33:36

    Senator, to further you.

87. 0:33:37

    Certainly.

88. 0:33:38

    Uh, we, we've had this debate robustly from my colleagues and the majority about, uh, how the secretary of state interprets legislation. So, uh, if I'm to believe that, if we don't put it explicitly in the legislation, it is subject to the interpretation of the will of the committee, and then we'll come back and say, "Well, that's not what we meant when we wrote it." Uh, I've, I've, I've been here for a while now. I'm close to being able to retire from the General Assembly. So I just offer that, that maybe we can, uh, define what that expert is so that we just don't have any problems in the future.

89. 0:34:10

    I, I, I appreciate the concerns. I believe, Senator, you and I came in about the same time and, and we both travel the I-16 corridor. But at the end of the day, the committee will determine the cybersecurity expertise they seek, as well as the accessibility and disability experts they seek to get input from. Uh, I'm very comfortable with this language. I, again, go back to the fundamental. This is a carefully crafted piece of legislation that has been, uh, uh, reviewed and is comfortable in, in all, uh-in both the legislative bodies as well as the governor.

90. 0:34:51

    And I would ask the committee to, while you may not think it perfect, I think you should allow the good to proceed, and let's get to the point, which is giving some, uh, firm, clear, concise, uh, path for the November 26 elections as well as all elections after January 1st of 2028. And this legislation does that.

91. 0:35:20

    Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, um, Senator, as you know, if y'all had called me, I would've came to the meeting and helped y'all perfect this legislation, but no member of the minority party was there. And so therefore I, you know, this is the process where we work to perfect that in committee. Um, but I'd like to have some input on it so it comes to the floor of the Senate, it can be 55-0, and we can send it over to the House. Uh, because I truly believe that that is, uh, the intent of my colleagues in the Senate, is we can work together to find a way to do it.

92. 0:35:50

    But if we can't come to the table, then you know I'm gonna have to hit that red button, Senator.

93. 0:35:54

    I understand your decision process. If you oppose this legislation, that is certainly your option. But I would suggest this is good legislation for Democrats, it's good legislation for Republicans, it's good legislations for Georgians.

94. 0:36:08

    All right, uh, got another one. Number four, Senator Orrock.

95. 0:36:12

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning-

96. 0:36:14

    Good morning

97. 0:36:14

    ... Chairman Burns.

98. 0:36:15

    How are you, Chairman?

99. 0:36:16

    Uh, you're familiar, I'm sure, in the, in the last session with the fact that the, um, House passed, uh, Senate Bill 214, uh, and that that language allowed two Democratic members for similar committee that this bill is addressing. So again, why only Republicans?

100. 0:36:39

     Uh, uh, this bill does not specify Republicans, Senator Orrock. It specifies members of the Senate and members of the House and electors. It does not say they have to be of one political orientation or another.

101. 0:36:54

     That's right. That's the problem, isn't it? That, that, that the-

102. 0:36:57

     Uh, I would say it is not a problem

103. 0:36:58

     ... that, that if we're gonna have a bipartisan approach-

104. 0:37:00

     It is, it is a flexible opportunity, and I have confidence in the, in the governor, I have confidence in the speaker, I have confidence in the committee on assignments, of which, uh, the lieutenant governor is a major, uh, component. They will, they will identify the right people without this committee dictating a particular, uh, uh, background or requirement.

105. 0:37:23

     But there's zero guarantee of Democratic involvement, uh, in the language of this bill.

106. 0:37:28

     There's no guarantee of Republican involvement, Madam Chair.

107. 0:37:33

     Well, do you recall the, uh-

108. 0:37:37

     Uh-

109. 0:37:37

     Do you recall what percentage of voters voted Democratic in the May primary?

110. 0:37:42

     I, I believe you had a very strong turnout, and I'm grateful. I'm sure you are, too, that they showed up, a- as I am every legitimate elector

111. 0:37:49

     Well, it's a swing state that we're living in now. That's what those numbers say to you. And there's not an argument for excluding Democrats from the process.

112. 0:37:57

     There's not an argument for excluding Republicans.

113. 0:38:02

     Republicans are clearly included. The bill was crafted by Republicans, brought by, uh, a, a committee chaired by Republicans, brought by, with a repub- Republican majority. But, uh, it is more than appropriate that we ask for, uh, Democratic participation to be l- uh, listed.

114. 0:38:19

     I appreciate your input. Thank you.

115. 0:38:21

     Uh, a, a further question is the risk-limiting audit.

116. 0:38:26

     Mm-hmm.

117. 0:38:28

     Now, what we've been given here is a piece of paper from an unknown organization stating what they think a risk-limiting audit is.

118. 0:38:40

     That is a-

119. 0:38:40

     What, what... How is this document germane at all?

120. 0:38:43

     It, it is simply background information if you had a question. This is the process by which risk-limiting audits are conducted. Secretary of State's office does this routinely. Uh, we have, we have, uh, local election officials who do this routinely. This was provided to me through, um, uh, Gavero, uh, through the Georgia Association of Election and Registrars Officials. And it's simply background information.

121. 0:39:15

     It is not a part of the legislation. It's just if you ask what is a risk-limiting audit, that is what this is to help you understand.

122. 0:39:25

     Wouldn't, wouldn't, wouldn't it be appropriate to place that in the definition section of a bill-

123. 0:39:31

     Uh-

124. 0:39:31

     ... rather than presenting some-

125. 0:39:32

     Well, I-

126. 0:39:33

     ... unknown organization that's got a-

127. 0:39:34

     Uh, uh, that, I appreciate your input, but we cannot go in and m- and create minutia which limits the committee, its ability. The, the risk-limiting audits are not created by this legislation. Risk-limiting audits con- are conducted today. They have been conducted for any number of years. The current secretary of state, I want to give him great credit, and the current elections director, uh, Blake Evans, I want to give them great credit in the way they have conducted elections in Georgia and the way they've worked with a flawed system, a current flawed system, to ensure that, uh, our elections are fair and accurate and consistent.

128. 0:40:14

     This is a tool, a tool to ensure that the outcomes are accurate. And it is widely used and widely accepted. We are simply in this legislation expanding the use of an existing tool.

129. 0:40:29

     Uh, but isn't it true that, that, uh, this is outside the scope of the proclamation that w- that brought us into special session?

130. 0:40:36

     It, it is within the scope of the election legislation dealing with, uh, the challenge we face from a July 1st implementation date, uh, of, uh, removing QR codes from Georgia's ballots. This is legislation, it goes back to 2024, SB 189. Uh, we can, we can rehash the, the, the timeline on that, but the reality is we had two and a half years to fix it. We didn't.

131. 0:41:04

     That's right.

132. 0:41:04

     We didn't. You're 100% right. That wasn't the legislature's, uh, responsibility or fault. Uh, secretary of state chose not to take that up.

133. 0:41:12

     Uh-oh.

134. 0:41:12

     At the end of the day, at the end of the day, I'm not wishing to go back to yesterday. I wanna move forward. This bill moves Georgia forward in a positive and prudent and reasonable way.

135. 0:41:27

     But Mr. Chairman, how can you point a finger at the secretary of state when this body

136. 0:41:37

     does the budget and failed-

137. 0:41:39

     That may

138. 0:41:39

     ... to put a penny in the budget for this?

139. 0:41:41

     Again, we're rehash- I would prefer not to rehash that issue. I want to thank the secretary of state for his efforts in ensuring that Georgia elections are secure. I, I really appreciate the fact that he took, um, uh, a concept that we w- that we supported years ago to do a, uh, character recognition review of every ballot to verify, uh, our situation. We won't need that in the future simply because there won't be any character rec- recognition. There won't be any QR codes. But at the end of the day, um, we are positioned to move forward.

140. 0:42:14

     By the way, this bill sets the legislature up in January to identify a system moving forward and providing appropriate resources to implement that. Um, it's a, it's a very positive step, and I would ask the, uh, all members of the committee and all members of the legislature to support this concept, and let's move forward.

141. 0:42:37

     Uh, well, Mr. Chairman, wouldn't it be wise, and I'd like to suggest, that we should request legislative council to draft a severability provision so that this QR code sunset extension is preserved if the rest of the other parts of this legislation are found to be unconstitutional?

142. 0:42:58

     I would, I would suggest that this bill was crafted with the legislative council's, uh, advice and support. Uh, we have had it vetted extensively from a legal perspective as well as from the, uh, political legislative bodies, both bodies, uh, the House and the Senate. And, uh, I see no need to go in, and again, uh, the minority party is here today to try to, to try to wordsmith a piece of legislation to, to make it difficult for us to move forward.

143. 0:43:30

     And I want you to know-

144. 0:43:31

     Uh-

145. 0:43:31

     ... this legislation needs to move forward, needs to move forward today.

146. 0:43:34

     But, uh, m- but Mr. Chairman-

147. 0:43:35

     I, and I appreciate you, Senator.

148. 0:43:37

     Yeah, but, but, but is it not true that this won't-

149. 0:43:39

     Thank you for your question. Thank you for your question

150. 0:43:39

     ... this will not impede anything moving forward?

151. 0:43:42

     Thank you.

152. 0:43:42

     This is a committee process-

153. 0:43:43

     Thank you for your question

154. 0:43:43

     ... where we offer amendments, and- Senator ... legislative council- We, we got more- ... can draft a severability provision which occurs in countless bills.

155. 0:43:52

     Thank you.

156. 0:43:52

     We've all seen it. We've all participated in it. The gentleman from, uh, Muscogee County is familiar with it, I'm quite sure. Thank you, Senator Orrock. We got some more questions here we need to- Thank you, Mr. Chairman ... try to get around. Thank you, ma'am. All right. Let's go to the end down there. Uh, Chairman Strickland.

157. 0:44:08

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Senator, Mr. Chairman I guess I should say, who ultimately will decide what type of voting system we have moving forward? Who makes that decision?

158. 0:44:18

     Ultimately, the committee makes the recommendation to the legislature. The s- legislature will then a- do a exercise its oversight and authority by the appropriations process. The Secretary of State in 2027 will be a partner in that, but they will not be the, uh, y- the sole deciding factor. They can certainly participate in that decision and discussion once the standards and specifications are provided, but the, at the end of the day, the legislature will control the resources that will be appropriated to acquire any system.

159. 0:44:56

     And, uh, I've been asked is this d- been drafted for any particular vendor? The answer is absolutely not.

160. 0:45:01

     Well, some of the questions I've heard today, it seems like we are delegating, based on the questions, delegating our authority to somebody else. We're worried about whether or not the people we delegate our authority to are gonna make the right decisions, who they're gonna listen to, who's gonna be on this committee. But isn't it true this is basically a study committee-

161. 0:45:19

     It is

162. 0:45:19

     ... that's gonna gather facts, spend the next rest of this year studying what would be the best system for us, but ultimately, whoever gets elected in November and takes these seats will make the decision about any sort of system we have moving forward?

163. 0:45:32

     Absolutely correct. Thank you.

164. 0:45:33

     Thank you.

165. 0:45:34

     All right. Um, number five, um, Minority Leader Jones.

166. 0:45:38

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks, Senator. Um, if we wanted to go back to that page two, which w- was dealing with, um, the experience level of, of persons who are gonna be appointed to the org review hearing, uh, from the committee. And one of those was gonna be the cybersecurity experts, which Senator Mallow actually talked about. But I would say that that's extremely important because we have... Re- remember after the 2020 election, we had persons running around all over the country actually literally giving testimony, trying to overturn elections, stating that they were experts within this area of cybersecurity.

167. 0:46:10

     So I think there may be a requirement actually to kind of narrow that down, because we've seen that l- legislative bodies heard from people who possess, pro- profess to be cybersecurity experts, and they were making decisions on some of these ex- so experts' testimony. So I do think it's really important to kind of narrow who those p- people are instead of just leaving it kind of broad, because we've seen where that can be very problematic.

168. 0:46:35

     Well, I, I appreciate the senator's concern and, and the, the leader's concern. At the end of the day, the committee will seek advice from those experts that, uh, that they deem worthy, that they deem qualified. And those individuals who are, who are, uh, not as well-versed or not as knowledgeable or their expertise is limited, we won't be in a position or not to, to hear from them. At this point today, we can't go out there and identify individual A, B or C.

169. 0:47:09

     We can not necessarily provide credentialing, because credentialing would suggest that it would limit certain individuals and focus on an area that might not be in the best interest. Let's allow the committee to do its work. And, a- and, and Senator Strickland pointed out, uh, this is a study committee with advisement and recommendations. Ultimately, the legislature in, in, um, um, session in 2027 will make the ultimate decisions.

170. 0:47:39

     If I could have one more follow-up on same area, line 28, just more specific, line 28, on the Executive Director of State Election Board.

171. 0:47:46

     Sure.

172. 0:47:47

     Of course, that person does not necessarily ha- have to have experience with elections. Could it be better maybe to just have like a, a local board of election chair and then say with like 10 years experience or something with elections? Because the, the chair of the State Election Board may have zero real experience with elections.

173. 0:48:02

     I, I would agree, and I would suggest to you that the operative word in line 26 is may, and it's also the operative words shall not be limited to. So we fully expect local election officials to be participating in this process, either as an appointee by the governor, as an elector, or as the committee as they seek advice from individuals that are a part of our elections community. The vero is all election officials in Georgia.

174. 0:48:34

     It is spelled out that we want to hear from them, but it doesn't limit any participation.

175. 0:48:40

     I, I just think one of the concerns would be that because they are named specifically, that maybe they would carry more weight possibly because they're named in there, and I think that would be a legitimate concern from persons, um, you know, that they would have.

176. 0:48:51

     I, I appreciate your, uh, your thoughts. I, I don't share that concern. Uh, I believe that the State Election Board and the Elections Director of the Secretary of State's office are both valid people who should be a part of the conversation, not on the committee, but advising the committee.

177. 0:49:07

     All right.

178. 0:49:07

     Let the Senate decide.

179. 0:49:08

     All right. Thank you.

180. 0:49:09

     Thank you, Mr. Leader.

181. 0:49:10

     Let the Senate decide.

182. 0:49:10

     All right. Um, Majority Leader Anavitarte.

183. 0:49:15

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, I hear all this discussion about cybersecurity and, and I'm glad everybody's f- uh, all of a sudden interested in cybersecurity. Um, I mean, I think s- as we have cybersecurity experts listed here, I know we had a study committee in the Senate back in '23, '22 to study the, the state of cybersecurity related to state government. And I know through that process we in- we invoked the private sector, people from CISA, um, cybersecurity ex- experts from other states, CIOs, um, even our own federal government, um, you know, in talking about that.

184. 0:49:51

     I, I mean, I would be interested. I, I think As we have it on line 30 is s- is more than sufficient. But if there's specific recommendations on these positions or these types of people, I'd like to hear from the minority party who, who is this, you know, expert that should be named, um, just out of curiosity to, to kind of hear, um, what, how much further they wanna go. But I mean, I think this is sufficient. And I think also, too, uh, Mr. Chairman, uh, Chairman Burns, going back, you know, in the appropriations process, I know I was sitting there with you amongst both our Republican and Democratic colleagues when, um, you know, we asked the Secretary of State to budget for cybersecurity.

185. 0:50:30

     Um, he basically came up with kind of a white paper budget that wasn't even through the official budget process related to a lot of the discussion we're having in terms of, um, you know, the concerns. I think cybersec- I know that cybersecurity experts, um, that testified back in '22, '23 in terms of the state of cybersecurity, even some of the major, you know, national and global platforms that are based here in Georgia and across the country, um, would also say that, you know, cybersecurity of elections is their number one threat as they work with governments in the private sector across the state.

186. 0:51:02

     So, um, I think any sort of, you know, just continuous, you know, just ho- honestly obstruction to, you know, try and, you know, dilute what we're trying to do around cybersecurity is just unnecessary. And I think as this process goes out, as Senator Strickland highlighted, um, you know, as this is, you know, further investigated and, and other things. And I know there's been other committees. I, I get all that stuff. But I think to have a real process, a transparent process where people who maybe don't totally understand the nuances of, of the technology and everything involved with cybersecurity, um, you know, can take place.

187. 0:51:43

     I mean, we- we've seen born out of Georgia Tech, you know, almost literally the innovation of cybersecurity, you know, companies and individuals like ISS and others, um, founded here in Atlanta. So I, I think what you have here is, is more than sufficient, and I look forward to, to hearing the testimony from state leaders, national leaders from the private sector that do this every time that keep Americans safe.

188. 0:52:09

     Uh, thank you, Mr. Leader. I appreciate that, and I, I agree with you. I think that cybersecurity is gonna be a key, uh, specification, a key standard that we have to, uh, address. I believe we will be seeking input that, that supports that, and I think this legislation allows that to happen without a restriction, and I think that's important.

189. 0:52:33

     All right. Thank you, uh, Vice Chair Williams.

190. 0:52:37

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, on line 29, I want to point out the Georgia Association of Voter Registration and Election Officials. So this is a state recognized organization of election officials, the people who conduct these elections. I was a member of VRAG for 16 years. At every meeting, at every training session, you couldn't tell who was Republican and who was Democrat.

191. 0:53:13

     You're not registered that way in Georgia. These people are the professionals, and they don't wear a Democrat or Republican hat when they're conducting elections. I know those people. I've worked with them, they're friends, and I've known them for many, many years. They're out to conduct elections lawfully, legally, and that's what the majority of the Georgians want that I know, is to do elections correct, fair, and lawfully, and legally.

192. 0:53:51

     And that's why I have complete confidence in those people and how they will represent how elections should be done in the state of Georgia. Thank you.

193. 0:54:02

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, and I agree. GAVRO has been a strong partner through this election, uh, legislative process for the last, I guess now going on six years, and, uh, we appreciate them. Uh, we, we carefully and, um, attentively listen to their suggestions and recommendations and, and partner, uh, with them as we make decisions. I see this as no different.

194. 0:54:26

     All right. Minority Leader Jones.

195. 0:54:29

     Did you have something?

196. 0:54:30

     Do you have a follow-up?

197. 0:54:30

     Thank you. Yes, I did. Well, I was just gonna mention, we just actually got this particular bill, um, to know actually what cybersecurity experts are using. Of course, we, we're deal- knowing we're gonna be dealing with cybersecurity experts. But I will also say, so I had to go dust off my, my work that I've done myself on this particular issue, it had nothing to do with this particular bill. So I'm telling you point blank, there are people running around this country who are actually, actually trying to overturn an election, and quite frankly, all, ought to be in jail. But I can tell you who not to go get. Don't go get Lewis Salazar, who the president actually relied upon to actually say that, um, Dominion voting machines had something to do with Venezuela.

198. 0:55:06

     Don't get a, a, a guy, you know, Joe Oatman, who claimed that he knew for a fact that, uh, Dominion was gonna steal the election. Don't go get those two. These are people that the President of the United States relied on. So it's serious. Thank you.

199. 0:55:20

     All right. Uh, Senator Mallow?

200. 0:55:23

     The, my... Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was just gonna ask of my friend, uh, the gentleman of the, from the 20th, uh, and the 31st and the 29th, the 40th and 23rd, all you all had a copy of this, uh, piece of legislation, so I'd be more than happy to provide a list of cybersecurity experts. But I think my copy of the legislation must have been on the Pony Express coming down I-16, and it didn't make it to Savannah, because if I had this, uh, earlier than today, I would've been h- more than happy to provide that list if I had it.

201. 0:55:54

     But it must still be on horseback coming by satchel to Savannah. So by the time I get home, it'll probably be there.

202. 0:56:02

     I thank the senator for his concerns about the delivery of packages by Pony Express. And I'm, I'm hopeful that, you know, improvement of service in Savannah will, will, will be on, in the horizon. Uh, I would suggest to you that this legislation, um, oh, about 24 hours maybe. Not... I mean, this, this wasn't on any Pony Express, um, route last week 'cause it wasn't there last week. And I want you to know, I wanna thank again the majority leader, the pro tem, the speaker's office, the governor's office for working with us in crafting what we believe is solid policy moving forward, and I ask the committee to support this bill.

203. 0:56:53

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, and it, it was dropped yesterday, so Senator. Um, got a few follow-ups here, and then we need to kinda tie this up. Uh, Majority Leader Anavitarte, do you have a follow-up?

204. 0:57:05

     Yeah, I just, just wanna note for the record, I mean, we didn't hear specific examples of who are these cybersecurity experts. I, I also wanna remind my dear friend, the minority leader, back in '22 you served on my cybersecurity meeting, and we actually hosted a meeting in Augusta, Georgia, in your community at the Cybersecurity Center. Um, and I know we've, we have deliberated back and forth, you know, as colleagues the notion, I know you, you have some beliefs and I have some bel- beliefs as it relates to n- you know, national security and what's being done or not being done.

205. 0:57:38

     Um, but I think we've had years to come up with if there are specific experts, um, related to this legislation or any other legislation that maybe should be considered. So, um, I just wanna note that for the record, that, um, we didn't hear that today. I think we're more than welcome to hear recommendations, um, of who those, you know, private sector or even public sector leaders are, um, you know, in, you know, from across the country. Um, even those that work for emergency management agencies and homeland security agencies, um, that I know in other states, you know, have purview over managing elections.

206. 0:58:17

     And we've seen, you know, those models, you know, uh, created and looked at and investigated by this Senate body, Republicans and Democrats, in states like Michigan, um, and even Ohio, um, amongst others. So I think, you know, I look forward to having, you know, that conversation. And Mr. Chairman, as this bill moves through and becomes law, um, if I can support that process and at least provide guidance, um, with, you know, between myself and the minority leader, um, you know, I think we're w- we're all willing to, I think, chip in and, and make sure, you know, Georgia's elections are secure.

207. 0:58:56

     Um, thank you. Uh, Whip Robertson, did you have a follow-up?

208. 0:59:00

     Just a point of clarification. Um, Chairman, I'm looking on line 32, and, and I, this is my first time seeing this legislation today. Haven't seen it before. It says, "By January 31st, 2027, the committee shall prepare a report which shall provide its recommendations for specification, standards, and requirements for a new uniform system of election equipment."

209. 0:59:23

     Correct.

210. 0:59:23

     "Such report shall be of sufficient detail so as to allow legislative and executive policymakers to develop appropriations, procurement, and implementation plans to provide for the use of such new uniform system of election equipment in the 2028 election cycle." Is that correct?

211. 0:59:37

     That is correct.

212. 0:59:38

     Okay. So basically what we're asking them is to prepare all the specs needed to prepare an RFP so that companies that meet the requirements within that RFP. So if there's the opportunity that we got some clown on this committee and they come up with some silly thing that the industry cannot provide, it cannot be part of an RFP that can be bid on. Is that correct?

213. 0:59:59

     That is correct.

214. 1:00:00

     Because RFPs are written in a way to where people can disqualify themselves very quickly by being unable to provide a particular piece of technology, particular piece of security software or something like that, right?

215. 1:00:12

     Absolutely.

216. 1:00:13

     So all this committee's doing is putting together an RFP of specs, specs that have to be available or it cannot be done. Is that not correct?

217. 1:00:23

     This committee will define the standards and specifications that any potential vendor must meet. And if they cannot meet those specs, then they would not be, uh, considered as a viable option.

218. 1:00:34

     Thank you. Um, and so this committee's not gonna be the one to approve any election equipment or anything like that.

219. 1:00:40

     No.

220. 1:00:40

     They're just gonna do the deep dive study to see what's available out there. And I ran Homeland Security for the City of Columbus for four years, and I know a lot of people consider themselves experts. I've served in the Senate for eight years with a lot of people that consider themselves experts. And so, but those of us who think somewhat logically, curmudgeons if you will, understand what, um, what qualified individuals look like and what they appear to be, right?

221. 1:01:07

     You are correct, Senator.

222. 1:01:08

     Thank you.

223. 1:01:10

     Thank you.

224. 1:01:10

     All right, uh, Senator number seven.

225. 1:01:12

     Uh-huh. Thank you, Mr.-

226. 1:01:13

     Senator Jackson.

227. 1:01:14

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, just two points. So one, I wanna turn us to section two, which is around the risk audit limitations. Uh, based on my reading of the governor's proclamation, I do not believe that including risk limiting aud- audits, uh, fits within the purview of the proclamation. We were tasked and charged with addressing the QR code issue, and so, um, I'm concerned that this portion of this, uh, particular legislation may be unconstitutional.

228. 1:01:45

     Um, it, it, it does not necessarily ife- impact the stuff that we're here for, but I do wanna just name that I have grave concerns about that. Um, I- I'll allow you, if you wanna respond to that.

229. 1:01:53

     I, I, I appreciate your concerns. I do not share your concerns. Uh, we have thoroughly reviewed this legislation with the governor's office. I believe that, uh, they are comfortable with this proposal. Um, at the end of the day, this allows us to strengthen- The audit process in Georgia in 2026 and give the public more assurance that our elections are fair and accurate.

230. 1:02:23

     Yes, sir. I just wanted to note for the record, I do believe it may be un- constitutional. Then secondly, my follow-up, and I, I want to be clear here. Um, I have the great honor of being elected by the people of District 41. Um, they've asked me to come down here and to make sure that our voices are represented, and so, um, it is, it is in fact my duty to be clear that minority representation needs to show up in committees that have grave importance to how we move forward. And if what we are seeing today, which is that people in another room outside of our committee selections are the ones who actually write all of our legislation, and that the committee process is really essentially just a sham and a show, if that's how we're gonna operate, sir, then if this is an example of how we're gonna operate, then I am left to believe that this committee right here on this legislation will operate in the exact same way, that minority voices will not be included, and that no matter who is elected come the November election, because this committee will have already been selected by all Republicans, it will still be all Republicans.

231. 1:03:32

     Voting is a multi-partisan experience. Our election machines matter to Democrats and Independents and, and Republicans alike. And so when it comes to doing all of this deep dive, bringing in all of these security experts and all of these people in order to develop trust, this is about trust. We want Georgians to trust in our election system, because currently they don't. In order to build in trust, Democrats need to know that they were represented in the process. They need to know that they were represented in the deep dive process, and that they weren't just railroaded through in a committee that's essentially a sham, because you're not gonna accept any amendments.

232. 1:04:10

     That's my concern, and that's why I'm so passionate about this, is that I'm trying to ensure that all Georgians can trust in this new system that we develop, and so we need to be a part of it from the very beginning.

233. 1:04:23

     Thank you, Senator. I, I appreciate that. I want you to know, I have the honor of representing the 23rd Senate District. Not every constituent I have is an, a Republican. Many are Democrats. I represent both Republicans and Democrats, and in your district, I suspect that you have some Republican st- constituents as well. So we represent not a D or an R, but we represent Georgia. At the end of the day, this process of bringing a legislation to the table followed the exact same process of all legislation.

234. 1:04:55

     A concept, an idea begins the process of saying, "How can this be resolved?" We were able to put together, uh, a, a group of like-minded individuals that, uh, eventually created consistent, uh, agreement, which then ultimately resulted in this piece of legislation. It's no different. Now, the difference is we're under a very strict, uh, timeline, a, a very strict schedule, which means that this legislation needs to move forward, and it needs to move forward in this current form.

235. 1:05:35

     I recognize in the fact that it provides great flexibility, great flexibility for both Democrats and Republicans, and I look forward, you know, to both parties supporting a reasonable approach. This is a reasonable approach. Thank you.

236. 1:05:51

     Let me just respond real quickly.

237. 1:05:52

     Yeah.

238. 1:05:52

     Briefly.

239. 1:05:53

     Briefly.

240. 1:05:53

     To be clear, S- Mr. Chairman, procedurally, if we were to amend this bill today, it does not change the timeline in any way, shape, or form. Procedurally, we can amend and it still gets read out. It still pos- moves on in the same expeditious fashion that you all are needing, that we all need so that we can all go home and, and, and, and harvest our crops, sir. So procedurally, changing this does not change it. Now, if the, if the men in the, in the, in the other room who made decisions decided that they're not gonna take amendments and then it's gonna slow it down and halt it, that's on them.

241. 1:06:24

     But procedurally, we can amend today and still maintain our timeline.

242. 1:06:28

     Well, I acknowledge that you are correct. What it would do is jeopardize the agreement that we have come to to ensure that we can move this legislation forward and provide clarity to Georgians. Thank you.

243. 1:06:38

     All right. Senator Orrock, I, I'm gonna recognize you, but I ask you to be brief. We've got to finish up this meeting.

244. 1:06:43

     Well, I, I can see brevity is the order of the day, uh, clearly by some people that are here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I'd like to point out that this new Election Equipment Specifications and Standards Committee that's gonna select a new statewide voting system is not... If we will all recall the 2018 Safe committe- uh, Safe Commission, what did it do? It took public input across the state.

245. 1:07:15

     It had hearings. It had a process. Uh, people were able to be, uh, quite extensive in their commentary. Uh, that whole process was extensive. This, no, there's no public input requirement in the, uh, language of this bill.

246. 1:07:32

     I, I appreciate the input. I would, I would point out that this committee does not select the equipment, does not make any procurement decision. I would also say that this legislation allows for this committee to seek input from all sources, from any venue-

247. 1:07:46

     Thank you

248. 1:07:46

     ... from any location. So it, as, uh, Senator Strickland pointed out, is a focused study committee that has a deadline to provide specifications and standards. I would anticipate- That the description that you have of, of seeking input across a broad spectrum of, uh, constituencies will be indeed what is done. And I appreciate your input. I appreciate your support.

249. 1:08:11

     Well, w- w- well, it, then why not have it in the bill if we're all in favor of that? We, the, the people that are here today have, have been, been allowed to bring no, no testimony, no information. And so to move forward and create a structure that does not call for public input in the language of the bill, I think would, would just be a slap in the face to the public.

250. 1:08:33

     Again, I would-

251. 1:08:33

     Uh, and I, I'm astonished actually that that's what's being proposed.

252. 1:08:36

     I, I would challenge the fact that we have no input. We have requested input. We've requested that input be in writing. We also have requested individuals to state whether they support or oppose this legislation. We have input, and we appreciate that.

253. 1:08:50

     And who are they?

254. 1:08:50

     I would say this committee authorizes the, the Specifications and Standards Committee to do exactly what you would like to see.

255. 1:09:00

     It authorizes it, but doesn't mandate it, does it?

256. 1:09:03

     I would suggest to you-

257. 1:09:04

     No, it doesn't mandate it

258. 1:09:04

     ... that my colleagues will recognize their responsibility and seek input from all sectors. Thank you.

259. 1:09:10

     But, but, but w- we, we don't leave things to chance here about- ... that if they're in so, so inclined to do it, that they do it. We put it in language that ma- makes clear mandates for public input, Mr. Chairman, and that, that is what is, uh, missing in this, uh, it, it, it, it, completely and entirely.

260. 1:09:28

     It is standard, uh, and appropriate for committees to seek input, and i- and in no, in all the study committees that I've been on, including the study committee that you chaired-

261. 1:09:38

     I chaired

262. 1:09:38

     ... it was not mandated that we seek input, but yet we did, and we, we, we did it extensively in the area of higher education funding, and I appreciate that input.

263. 1:09:49

     And that, that happened to be because the chair led the committee that way.

264. 1:09:52

     Well, that was because of you.

265. 1:09:54

     But could have turned out completely differently.

266. 1:09:55

     I believe that was because we all-

267. 1:09:57

     Yes

268. 1:09:57

     ... and I was on the committee, and we worked together on that.

269. 1:09:59

     We did indeed.

270. 1:10:00

     We, we did that because we wanted to hear from all sectors, and I appreciate that.

271. 1:10:06

     All right. Ms. Rhett.

272. 1:10:06

     But I would just think in an abundance of caution, uh, to return to this question of severability, uh, we want that QR code date to hold, don't we? And, and I-

273. 1:10:17

     That is a component of this legislation

274. 1:10:18

     ... and I, I wouldn't imagine that there, there would actually be a lawyer on the other side of, uh, of the other party on th- uh, today that would offer that amendment because if a Democrat offers it, I'm not sure it would be accepted. But it needs to be in there if you really care about preserving that date for sever- uh, the severability language needs to be in there. And it's common, it- it's common. We all know how to do it. It, it's in, uh, a plethora of bills that we all vote on.

275. 1:10:44

     All right.

276. 1:10:44

     And I think I've-

277. 1:10:46

     Thank you

278. 1:10:46

     ... convinced somebody on the committee.

279. 1:10:47

     Thank you. Thank you, Senator. We got, got another final, final question here, uh, number 12. Senator Hatchett.

280. 1:10:52

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, and to my friend, um, I agree the legislative intent 100% is that the QR codes, uh, language and the effective date, um, should take effect regardless of whether the rest of the bill is considered unconstitutional. The one thing that I would point is one of the first titles that we have under OCGA 1-1-3 allows severability by default, and courts look at the intent of the general, uh, it looks at, looks at the intent of the legislation, so if the provision can stand on its own and be constitutional, then the rest, uh, can be severed.

281. 1:11:29

     So a severability clause is actually, uh, more tradition and not necessary. So your concern should be addressed there that later on if it is found to be unconstitutional due to some discrep- indiscrepancy with the call, it will still stand as long as it is the legislative intent for it to, and I think it's very clear that that is the legislative intent. And, and for the viewers at home that may be concerned about this Committee on Assignments, just for clarity, uh, it is a committee designed to make assignments. It is tradition, it is standard practice that that committee assigns, um, members to the committee.

282. 1:12:06

     You're looking at one right now. This committee, every member of this committee got a letter from the Committee on Assignments appointing them to this committee. There are members from both sides. There is no requirement in the Senate rules that we have, um, a particular makeup, but this is the makeup that we have. So I think, uh, I, I want just to chill any concerns that, um, this is in some way trying to make a committee that's only Republicans or only Democrats.

283. 1:12:37

     Um, there's a lot of noise in the room. I just want to assure you, uh, this is the way it's done, and, uh, there are... I've never seen a committee or a study committee that was appointed without representation from both sides. And then the last thing that I just, just to address if there's any concerns about the definition of cybersecurity expert, um, it's very clear under Georgia law if a specific term is not defined, that courts usually look at their ordinary and basic meaning. Uh, there's a pretty, um, robust standard that I deal with a lot in my practice called the Daubert standard, and that looks at, um, education, professional experience, experience in a given area, and I think if there were to be any challenge to whether or not someone is an expert, it would go to the courts as is already in law and doesn't have to be spelled out.

284. 1:13:30

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

285. 1:13:31

     All right. Thank you. Just a few final comments, and then I'm gonna entertain a motion here. Um, obviously, to, uh, go back to what the, uh, chairman said about the COA, it is my understanding that the COA, uh, already makes, uh, appointments, as he mentioned, including things like the, uh, PAQC. Uh, and so this is not a new model that we have, uh, developed. Um- But also to the fact, not to, not to start more conversations, but, um, you know, it's also been my understanding that in, in Fulton County and on the county elections board, there's been some, some denials there and, uh, entities that have not allowed, uh, representation there in, in Fulton County, even though the judicial system has, uh, required and asked and demanded them to.

286. 1:14:18

     So, but just appreciate that and, and add that for a comment. Third thing I wanna say is this is the, this is the call. Uh, we addressed number one on the call yesterday, which was the redistricting portion of, of what we were supposed to do, and that was handled. Uh, the second thing is what we're doing here today, and, uh, I hope that we can get that completed and off in the process. And then three, four, and five are, are in motion as well. So, uh, we're doing what the governor asked us to do, and, um, I wanna go home and be with my family and, and, uh, pick cucumbers and squash.

287. 1:14:48

     Um, so at this time I will, uh, entertain a motion.

288. 1:14:51

     I make a motion do pass.

289. 1:14:53

     I've got a motion. Do I have a second?

290. 1:14:54

     Second.

291. 1:14:55

     All right, we got a motion and a second. Any further discussion?

292. 1:14:58

     Mr. Chairman, I have amendment.

293. 1:14:59

     All right, number seven.

294. 1:15:00

     Mr. Chairman-

295. 1:15:01

     Ma'am

296. 1:15:01

     ... uh, thank you for recognizing me. Um, I would like to offer the following amendment, that beginning on line 26, that we insert three members of the Senate to be appointed by the minority leader of the Sente- Senate. And the next line would be three members of the House of Representatives to be appointed by the m- minority leader of the House of Representatives.

297. 1:15:30

     Second.

298. 1:15:31

     All right, got a motion and a second on amendment one. Uh, all those in favor, uh, please raise your hand. One, two, three, four. All those opposed. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, uh, eight. Your, uh, motion fails.

299. 1:15:54

     Four opposed, four-

300. 1:15:56

     It was, uh, eight to, uh, four. All right, any further discussion? All right, seeing none, let's, uh, vote on this, uh, legislation. All those in favor-

301. 1:16:07

     Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. Um, I, I have a, a constituent who has submitted written comments-

302. 1:16:15

     Mm-hmm

303. 1:16:15

     ... uh, uh, on this, and what's the proper way to enter this into the record?

304. 1:16:21

     Uh, we have, uh, everyone that's signed up, you should have, uh, testimony in your folder as you have. And, and I'll ask the audience if there's any more comments they want to submit to please get that in there and we will distribute that to the, to the members appropriately so they, they have that in their possession.

305. 1:16:37

     Fine. I just wanted to make sure that this was officially entered into the record.

306. 1:16:40

     Yes, we will do that.

307. 1:16:42

     Thank you.

308. 1:16:43

     So, um, all right, let's, uh, vote on, uh, LC47,

309. 1:16:50

     uh-

310. 1:16:51

     4392

311. 1:16:52

     ... 4392. All those in favor, please raise your hand. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. All those opposed, please raise your hand. Four opposed. All right, uh, the bill passes. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your work on this. Um, uh, people that are here, thank you for being here. Please, again, I ask that you sign up if you're for or against. This is a process. This bill will, will move forward through the Senate, uh, and then on to the House of Representatives.

312. 1:17:24

     And thank you for being here. We, uh, are adjourned.