House Judiciary Committee, January 27, 2026 Video: https://vimeo.com/1072205230 (a timestamp t plays at https://vimeo.com/1072205230#t=s) Page: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-01-27/house-judiciary This is a machine transcript of the General Assembly's video, made by a speech-recognition model. It is not an official record and can mishear words, names, and numbers. Speakers are not identified. The video is the record: every timestamp links to the moment it plays. [0:33:59] We were gonna do Leverett, but first we did- [0:34:01] All right. Chairman, uh, Chairman Leverett is in a, uh, committee meeting that is continuing on. I'm sorry, Chairman Gunter. [0:34:12] . [0:34:12] Somebody else said, uh... [0:34:13] Oh, I'm sorry. [0:34:14] All right. [0:34:15] You say that. [0:34:15] What, what a start of the year of judiciary. Uh, Chairman Gunter is in another committee meeting that is continuing to, uh, um, do business, and he will be here shortly. So we'll convene House Judiciary Committee. Um, would, would Chairman Leverett like to say the invocation? [0:34:31] Sure, I'd be glad to. [0:34:32] Thank you. [0:34:34] Uh, please. Uh, Father, thank you for this day. Thank you for this opportunity for us to enjoy your creation yet again. Thank you for this chance for us to come together and deliberate on the, uh, best interest of the people of the state of Georgia. We ask that you be with us throughout our deliberations and make sure that everything we do is, is beneficial in your sight. We ask this in your name. Amen. [0:34:52] Amen. Thank you, Chairman Leverett. I, I notice we have, uh, many distinguished members of the judiciary, uh, here with us today. So bill sponsors, if you have some judges from your area in here, let's make sure they get recognized, uh, coming to the Capitol. Um, let's see. We got six bills on the agenda. Five bills on the agenda. Uh, first one is, uh, House Bill 999. Chairman Leverett. [0:35:20] Chairman, do you want me just to present it from here? [0:35:22] Or would you like me to get in the hot seat? [0:35:24] Uh, from there is fine. [0:35:25] All right. [0:35:26] Thank you. Thank you, sir. Uh, this bill, uh, while I'm, I'm reluctant to let the word simple bill- [0:35:33] ... uh, issue from my mouth, but I will just say I believe I can explain the bill fairly quickly. Um, th- th- this really grew out of a request by one of the magistrate courts in my district to have a technology fee to help defray that cost and not sort of impose that on the county taxpayers, but impose it upon the, uh, shall we say, the customers in the magistrate court. Uh, but there apparently was some concern in the legislative council that the way the statute on costs and fees in the magistrate court chapter was drafted, that even with a local act, that might not be, uh, uh, appropriate. [0:36:06] So the bill, um, the first section of it simply would change the language in the fee statute in ma- a- applicable to magistrate courts so that by local act, uh, you can authorize additional fees, like a technology fee or something of that nature. And there also is language to make it clear that anybody who's already done that is, is sort of covered and saved. Section Two is really intended just to correct sort of a typographical error, um, that was in House Bill, uh, 426 last year. That was the bill that made, um, magistrate courts and probate courts nonpartisan elections. [0:36:41] Of course, the probate court part of that had to be contingent upon a referendum, so there was a repealer, uh, provision that said if that, uh, uh, particular referendum didn't pass, then the provision about probate courts would stand repealed. But unfortunately, it was, the, the, the, this reference to the specific section was not included in that bill. And so arguably, as the bill is pa- uh, was passed, if the referendum regarding probate courts doesn't pass, then the nonpartisan designation of magistrate courts, which doesn't require a referendum, would also be repealed. [0:37:15] So we're just trying to fix that repealer so that the, the fate of the nonpartisan designation of magistrate court doesn't, isn't tied to the constitutionally required referendum on probate courts. And that's the bill, Mr. Chairman. As far as I... I think the magistrate judges, uh, support it, um, and I think the probate judges probably support it, too. Thank you so much. Um, looks like we have, uh, Chief Magistrate of Cobb County here to speak in support. [0:37:42] Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members. My name is Brendan Murphy. I serve as the chief magistrate judge in Cobb County. I'm also the chair of the legislative committee for the Council of Magistrate Court Judges. Thanks for having us. I think Chairman Leverett covered it, um, very well. The only thing I'd add is on the fee part, this does not authorize any particular fee. The local delegations would still be working with their local judge and county commission, uh, before any technology pe- uh, fee is passed in your community. [0:38:09] Yeah. [0:38:09] Um, and then it's just a little old bill. A little cleanup bill. But I'm glad to answer any questions if anybody has them. [0:38:15] Thank you. And I think we had a question earlier. Uh, don't know if it was for the chairman or for the chief judge, but, uh, Representative Jones. Chairman Jones. [0:38:24] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Leverett, just real quick, you said there was ma- one small change in section two. W- where is that small change? [0:38:31] Well, it, it... Section Two is the one that corrects the provision- [0:38:36] Oh, I... So the enti- the entirety corrects it? [0:38:39] Uh- [0:38:39] The entirety of section two? [0:38:41] Well, the, the only... It, it does, although I think the only thing they've added is on line 52, the word section four was added. Section four of. [0:38:50] Okay. [0:38:51] They... I guess because it's not existing code, they didn't- [0:38:54] Right [0:38:54] ... they didn't show it in the sort of usual formatting. But basically, as we passed it, it says if the amendment is not so ratified, then this act shall stand automatically repealed, which would be both probate and magistrate. We're now just adding section four of on line 52. [0:39:07] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [0:39:09] Good, good point, though. Thank you. [0:39:11] Representative Scoggins. [0:39:13] At the proper time, sir. Do we have any, any more questions? [0:39:17] It's the proper time. [0:39:18] A motion to pass. Second. [0:39:20] We have a motion, we have a second. All in favor, please say I. [0:39:24] I. [0:39:24] I. [0:39:24] All opposed. All right, the bill does pass. [0:39:29] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [0:39:31] Thank you. And I would like to note we have the chief justice of the Georgia Supreme Court, Justice Peters- Chief Justice Peterson here. Thank you. All right, um, HR 251, Representative New. Come on up. [0:39:49] Chairman. Members, can I have Judge Keith Wood and, um, Courtney Mill- [0:39:55] And is- [0:39:56] ... director [0:39:57] ... in just a moment, is Justice Bethel here? Did I hear- [0:40:01] Yeah. [0:40:01] All right, Justice Bethel, welcome. Representative New. [0:40:06] Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today about House Resolution 251. We're working with LC473339. This resolution was passed unanim- unanimously in this committee last year. It proposes an amendment to change the Constitution that would ensure all probate judges are elected in nonpartisan elections. It also includes a plan for this change to be approved or rejected by the citizens of Georgia. Judges should be running nonpartisan because we need to maintain the public's confidence in independent judiciary. [0:40:39] Requiring some judges to run in partisan elections makes it difficult for them to comply with a code of conduct and maintain impartiality and the appearance of impartiality. And as we all know, that is central to the rule of law. They are the only judges now that have to run partisan. So out of 1,600 judges in Georgia, 53 have to run in a partisan election. So for parity, we need to move forward and allow these judges the opportunity to run nonpartisan. This legislation is the second of a two-bill package. [0:41:10] The first was HB 426, which provided for the nonpartisan election of magistrate judge- judges. It achieved final passage and was signed by Governor Kemp last year. And this resolution is supported by the Council of Probate Court Judges, the Council of Magistrate Court Judges, the Judicial Council of Georgia, which is chaired by none other than Chief Justice Nels Peterson there. And former Georgia governors Nathan Deal and Roy Barnes, who have co-authored a letter in support of this legislation, which I've put in your packets for your review. [0:41:42] Are there any questions? [0:41:46] Do we have any questions for Representative New? All right. Chief, uh, Chief Judge Wood, would you, um, let us know any judges who were, who've made the trip down here in support of this? Do we have ... [0:41:58] Sir, yes, sir. Um, from Fayette County, Judge Angela Lingard. And, and she's in Fayette County, which currently runs as a partisan election. And then Judge Scott Chastain, who's our council president. He's from Gilmer County, and he also runs. Um, in Cherokee County, I run nonpartisan, so Nick's backing. [0:42:20] Thank you all for coming. Uh, any other testimony? Any questions? Do we have a motion? [0:42:28] Motion. [0:42:29] All right, we have a, uh, motion by Representative Oliver. We have a second by, uh, Representative Scoggins. Um, all in favor, say aye. [0:42:39] Aye. [0:42:39] All opposed, nay. All right, the bill does pass. [0:42:44] Thank you. [0:42:45] All right. Thank you. [0:42:46] Good work. Thank you. [0:42:49] All right. Chairman Hawkins, House Bill 557. [0:42:52] Can I speak from here? [0:42:53] Absolutely. [0:42:54] Thank you, sir. Uh, you have 40 557. It's a substitute. Uh, the reason for the substitute was w- I dropped this bill last year. Uh, our judges decided to wait and, and go this year, let someone go before them for the sixth. So th- they're, uh, uh, asking for a sixth superior court judge. So the changes are on line 23. That was January 1, '26, 2026, changed to '27. And then on line 109, same thing, date change, '06 to '07. [0:43:27] Uh, I've got, uh, two of my judges here, uh, Judge Jason Deal and Clint Bearden. And, uh, Jason Deal's actually gonna address the bill. [0:43:41] I'll keep it very short. We- Judge Deal ... we would like it, and we hope that you'll support it. [0:43:49] Thanks so much. All right. Any other testimony in support of the bill? Any questions for the author or ... [0:43:58] Move to- [0:43:59] Ch- [0:43:59] Second. [0:43:59] We have a motion to do pass by Chairman Smith. We have a second by Chairman Jones. Um, all in favor, please say aye. [0:44:08] Aye. [0:44:09] All opposed, nay. The bill does pass. [0:44:11] Thank you. [0:44:12] Thank you. Thank you. [0:44:17] All right. The next bill is, uh, close to home, House Bill 960. Gwinnett Delegation Chair Jas- Representative Jasmine Clark. [0:44:32] Um, thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. Um, I am here presenting House Bill 960, LC473480. This is, this is a very simple bill that adds a 12th judge to the Gwinnett Judicial Circuit. Um, currently, um, the Gwinnett, uh, Judicial Circuit has demonstrated a need of 14.6 superior court judges, but we're only asking for one more today. Um, and, um, we have, um, a work value, a workload value of 1.32, um, which has us third behind Northeastern and Middle Judicial Circuits. [0:45:13] So there's a demonstrated need, um, that has also been recognized by, uh, the, uh, Judicial Council. And, um, I have a letter from our Sup- Su- Chief Superior Court Judge, Tim Hammill. He could not be here today, but he did provide a letter to members of the committee, um, uh, demonstrating that need. Um, this h- was, um, signed with bipartisan support from the overwhelming majority of the Gwinnett delegation, um, meeting our, um, our bylaws for, um, local bills, even though technically this isn't a local bill. [0:45:49] But since it affects a local judicial circuit, I thought that was important as well, and happy to take any questions. [0:45:58] Thank you, Representative Clark. Any questions for Representative Clark? Uh, let me just say a constituent of mine, Tammy Brewer, texted. She was on jury duty in Gwinnett today, and even though it was the first day back after a snowstorm, that as she said, she was in line. There were so many jurors in there, uh, they're trying, uh, criminal and civil cases today in Gwinnett Superior, and they did so as quickly as they could after COVID. And, uh, they definitely stayed busy and can use all the help that they can get from my perspective in Gwinnett. And the Gwinnett judges have been very in touch and have made the case over a period of years for this. [0:46:32] Uh, and you were right, they, they definitely have weighed in and are asking for this seat. Um, do any, any questions for Representative- [0:46:42] Move to pass. [0:46:43] We have a, a motion to pass by Vice Chair Hong. We have a second by Majority Leader Efstration. All in favor, please say aye. [0:46:49] Aye. [0:46:50] All opposed, nay. The bill does pass. [0:46:53] Thank you. [0:46:54] Thank you. All right. Last but not least, we've got, um, House Bill 676, Representative Clifton. [0:47:06] Thank you, sir, members of the committee. Um, I'll be brief, as this bill ha- was passed through the committee last year. Um, I was a little late dropping it and did not have enough time to get it, uh, all the way through, but, uh, excited for this bill. This is a, um, frivolous lien bill. So the code is very specific on what you need in order to place a lien on a property, what's called a mechanic's lien. Um, it has become a threat, um, that entities have decided to use to bully people into doing things. This, uh, essentially just puts a penalty, so if people file a lien when they do not have their rights in order to do so, there is a penalty of $1,500 plus, um, attorney's fees and court costs. [0:47:47] Thank you, Representative Clifton. Any questions? [0:47:55] We do have a question by Vice Chair Hong. [0:47:56] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative. Um, I've represented several homeowners having to deal with all of this. Um, I'm just curious, what... Are we seeing more cases where there are fraudulent liens being filed? What brought this bill up? [0:48:17] Um, yes. So this has become a bit of a weapon where when entities that do not have the ability to file or do not have the legal parameters to file a lien, um, are doing so because most people give in instead of fighting them through the courts process, through, um, having some sort of relationship in order to remove the lien, whether it be through a bond, through cash. Um, and what I'm seeing and hearing are people, unfortunately, attorneys saying, you know, "Well, you don't have any rights to file that lien." Um, the answer is, "Well, I'll make your life hell in the process," which is why so many people will pay it. [0:48:51] So, um, it's, uh, again, we're not changing anything other than if you knowingly file this when you don't have the rights to, there's a penalty to it. So, um, it's just disciplining bad actors, um, and preventing this from becoming a bullying tactic. [0:49:07] Thank you. [0:49:10] Any further questions? [0:49:14] All right. No further questions. Do we have a motion? [0:49:17] Move to pass. [0:49:17] We have a, a motion by the majority leader to pass. Uh, we have a second by, uh, Representative Scoggins. Uh, all in favor say aye. [0:49:27] Aye. [0:49:27] All opposed, nay. All right, the bill does pass. [0:49:31] Thank you, sir. Thank y'all. [0:49:32] Having, having no further business, the committee is adjourned. [0:49:38] Good to see you, Stacey. [0:49:42] I second.