Senate Judiciary Committee, March 9, 2026

Transcript

468 turns. Select a time to play that moment of the video.

1. 0:23:32

   Welcome to the Senate Judiciary Committee. We have a quorum within shouting distance. We're gonna go ahead and get started. Senator McNeel, would you like to o- open us up in a word of prayer?

2. 0:23:45

   Sure would.

3. 0:23:45

   What's, what's your mic number?

4. 0:23:47

   13.

5. 0:23:49

   All right, go ahead.

6. 0:23:50

   All right. Dear Heavenly Father, we ask you give this committee guidance as we seek through these bills. We ask for your continued prayers over our general assembly and all the lawmakers of this state, and may that we praise your name in all things that we carry and do. In Christ's name we pray, amen.

7. 0:24:09

   Thank you for that. As always, if you want to be heard on a bill, please come up here and sign up. We just collected the sheets. Anybody want to be added to one of the sign-up sheets to speak? All right. Good to have our Chief Justice with us today. Justice Peterson, thanks for joining us. Do you care about any of these bills?

8. 0:24:30

   Just one.

9. 0:24:31

   Just one. All right. I'll see if I can figure out which one it is. I may know. Good to have you with us today, and we know we have several other judges with us, and I'll get in trouble if I start trying to call everybody out, so I won't do that. But thank you all for joining us. All right, let's do this. Chairman Smith, come on down, 'cause I might have some things I need from you later, too. And we wanna go ahead and get you taken care of. You got a lot of work to... How many Senate bills do you have assigned to you?

10. 0:24:58

    You know, I understand that there were several assigned today. So once we get those, uh, all the way through the system, we will make sure to get y'all on front-

11. 0:25:09

    Oh, we-

12. 0:25:09

    ... and center

13. 0:25:10

    ... we wanna make sure you got plenty of time to focus on that. So you tell us, go ahead and start with House Bill 535, if you will.

14. 0:25:17

    Okay. Uh, members, I bring to you, uh, House Bill 535. And if y'all will remember last year, I'll refresh y'all's memory, uh, this is a bill that would fix the Kellum decision, and that was a Court of Appeals decision that has caused a little bit of confusion and inconsistency in how time served is calculated in probation revocation cases. In almost all context, if a person is sitting in jail awaiting adjudication of a case, Georgia law dictates that their time sitting in jail counts as time served if they're sentenced to more jail time or prison time.

15. 0:25:51

    However, this standard way of calculating time served does not apply to people awaiting a probation revocation hearing, uh, which has led to confusion, inconsistency in sentences that stretch, stretch longer than courts intend. I will, uh, make a personal note, I have seen cases where individuals in certain metro counties can spend up to a year or more pending a revocation hearing. So, uh, again, this inconsistency was actually caused by a Court of Appeals decision that held that time sitting in jail awaiting probation revocation hearing only counts as time served for purposes of the overall length of a probation sentence.

16. 0:26:33

    And it held that if probation is revoked, time in jail does not count as time served for any carceral sentence. And so this bill provides a very simple fix. It would count time served for probation revocation cases in the same way as any other case. This is how courts had counted time served for years before the Court of Appeals decision created the legal fiction that time in jail only counts as time on probation for purposes of time served calculations. Uh, this language, as of last year, has been cleared by DCS, and I've heard no objections going into this year.

17. 0:27:09

    And we included a cl- a clause at their request that ensures that people will not get credit for time served if their sentence is told due to the individual's reporting issues. That, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, is the bill.

18. 0:27:26

    All right, and Section 2 is your original bill that we moved out of committee last year. Isn't that correct?

19. 0:27:32

    That is correct, Mr. Chair.

20. 0:27:34

    And Section 1 was stuff that was sent to you, um, from lieutenant governor's office, some changes, some updates to our fentanyl trafficking bill as well. Is that right?

21. 0:27:45

    I think so. I have not gotten a hard copy of that yet, but I am aware of the amendment there.

22. 0:27:51

    All right, we're working off LC492562S. Are any questions for the author? Senator Parent.

23. 0:28:02

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I- I'm not sure that it's so much for the author, but I was kind of getting my bearings. And could someone speak to the, the amendment, or the, um, the Section 1 in a little more detail so I know what it does?

24. 0:28:18

    Um, I don't believe... So yes, let's, Mr. Walker, go ahead. Mr. Clay Bass.

25. 0:28:25

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My understanding is, um, during the, uh, last year's legislative session, there was actually just an oversight. Uh, there were some committee, uh, a committee substitute was proposed, and the committee substitute was prepared using an earlier version of the draft. And so the end result was that there was a, what actually passed was working off of old language, and this is just a corrective to get, uh, the language back to what was originally the intent of the committee substitute.

26. 0:28:54

    You said it much better than I was gonna say it, so thank you.

27. 0:28:57

    A- and Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, uh, I do recall over the interim, uh, speaking with those who had, uh, worked on this measure originally, and Senator Goodman's bill, and understood that a fix was needed legislatively when we got back into session. So I believe this tracks with what I discussed over the interim.

28. 0:29:17

    All right. Senator Cowsert.

29. 0:29:21

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I'm on page four, where it has the penalties on the fentanyl. It looks like we're changing the, the maxes from 25,000 to 75,000 on page 87.

30. 0:29:34

    We are.

31. 0:29:35

    Five years. So is this co- Did we get it different last year or ... This sounds like pretty dramatic increases in the fines and the s- time served.

32. 0:29:46

    Mr. Walker, am I right that this is what was ... Go ahead and discussing committee-

33. 0:29:50

    That is my, that is my understanding. Yes, Chairman. Um, this was essentially try to restore the state of the law to what was, what was intended to be passed with the committee substitute last year, and we were working off a, a previous version. Uh, it's been a little while since I put this together, but that is my recollection.

34. 0:30:06

    So we voted in committee for these higher punishments and it did not get translated into the final version that was voted on the floor?

35. 0:30:13

    Uh, my recollection is the oversight may have happened on the House side, Senators. I- I'm not sure what the Senate posture was, but I think the-

36. 0:30:21

    The-

37. 0:30:21

    ... the error occurred on the House side.

38. 0:30:23

    So this is, the version you see here is what we passed in the Senate last year. Is that right?

39. 0:30:29

    That's my recollection of this.

40. 0:30:32

    Okay.

41. 0:30:32

    Senator Bearden.

42. 0:30:32

    Senator Bearden, do you have more clarity for us?

43. 0:30:33

    I was just going to say that's what it was that we, uh, passed on the floor of the Senate last year.

44. 0:30:38

    Right.

45. 0:30:39

    From Goodman's, uh, bill.

46. 0:30:42

    But to be fair, yes, it's changes from the current law, and so it's a new substitute. So obviously, um, someone can debate or, or, um, however you want to deal with these changes, or vote for or against the changes. But, um, the intent is to go back to what we passed from the Senate last year on this. It's meant to be a cleanup, but it is a change in the law to do that, to be fair.

47. 0:31:08

    One final question.

48. 0:31:09

    Yeah, of course.

49. 0:31:10

    Going back to I think your part of the bill now on page seven, lines 157 to 160 about the full credit for time served.

50. 0:31:18

    Yes.

51. 0:31:18

    Can you just talk me through how that works? 'Cause generally now on a probation revocation, you don't get credit for time from the date you get picked up on the petition, uh, un- until you ultimately get a disposition or a sentence. Does this give you credit for time served, uh, after you've been arrested, just not from the date of the violation until your arrest?

52. 0:31:42

    That, that's my understanding. They, they-

53. 0:31:44

    Okay

54. 0:31:44

    ... would have to actually file a petition. I know that, uh, Mr. Chairman, you, you've experienced these sort of cases just as I have in the past. And that, uh, once that petition is filed, that would basically shut that time count off.

55. 0:31:59

    Okay. I got one sitting in jail in Barrow County right now that's hung up with my legislative leave, and I'm hoping he's getting credit for every day he's serving out there since his arrest. But, uh, I did understand it to be told from the time the petition for revocation was filed, at least up until we have our ... well, until he got arrested.

56. 0:32:21

    Correct.

57. 0:32:21

    Okay.

58. 0:32:22

    Yes.

59. 0:32:25

    Senator Parent, do you have another question?

60. 0:32:26

    Yes, I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I want to make sure I'm understanding. What I'm hearing is that w- we obviously passed, um, Senator Goodman's bill. It went over to the House and it got changed, and what I'm hearing is that that was a mistaken, it was an accident.

61. 0:32:44

    There was a drafting-

62. 0:32:44

    But we don't know that to be the case, right? Because this never hit the floor. So, like, I guess I'm wondering-

63. 0:32:51

    My understanding was-

64. 0:32:52

    ... how do we know that it's ... 'Cause it's being described as an accident, but to me, you can say that when everyone was in agreement and it happened, but this is never, the, these penalties never passed the House, though, so how do we know-

65. 0:33:04

    It, it, uh-

66. 0:33:04

    ... that it's an accident?

67. 0:33:05

    In a s-

68. 0:33:05

    Does that make sense?

69. 0:33:06

    In a system, uh, full of, uh, human beings being involved- ... uh, s- you know, I, I v- really do believe that that language tracks our intent of what we were trying to do. But basically, due to a scrivener's error, it was not included at the time. And so if someone would've caught it at the time, we would've made sure that the language reflected that.

70. 0:33:30

    Versus people having decided we need to m- change this because-

71. 0:33:33

    Right

72. 0:33:33

    ... it's not-

73. 0:33:34

    Right

74. 0:33:34

    ... we're not in agreement.

75. 0:33:35

    Correct.

76. 0:33:36

    Okay. Thank you.

77. 0:33:37

    It's also my understanding that these, the fines that you see listed here and the imprisonment terms will make this consistent with other trafficking crimes. I think that's also the intent of this, it was to make it consistent with the additional trafficking laws that we have as far as punishments and fines, too. And Mr. Walker, is that a nice way of putting it, too?

78. 0:34:00

    I guess

79. 0:34:03

    so. Yes.

80. 0:34:03

    Any other questions from the committee? There are a couple people that want to speak on the bill. All right. This is about as smooth as it's gonna get today probably. I blame the time change. You know, Senator Watson's not here. Is he? No. If he had just passed that bill, we could've not had to deal with the time change, you know, that's a make a joke. I thought about him this morning. All right. Let's call the people up to speak, if you don't want to sit behind there, Chairman Smith. Let's call Robert Smith up from Prosecuting Attorneys' Council.

81. 0:34:40

    Good afternoon. Uh, Robert Smith with the PAC. Could I see the sub?

82. 0:34:46

    Do you have another copy of it?

83. 0:34:50

    Mine. Do you have one?

84. 0:34:51

    Hmm. Do you have one more we can give?

85. 0:34:55

    I'll share with you.

86. 0:35:08

    I'll share with you.

87. 0:35:09

    There it is. That's what I'm talking about.

88. 0:35:11

    I put it on the record. You're almost an hour late. Why?

89. 0:35:17

    Uh-huh. I was wondering, you know, all the bills you've had up here, I've never gotten more emails about a bill than I did with your time change bill. But yet, you couldn't pull that off. What happened?

90. 0:35:26

    Uh, you know that, that Congress would have to do it.

91. 0:35:29

    You want to put that on the record? What's your mic number?

92. 0:35:31

    Yeah.

93. 0:35:33

    If ... Go ahead and say that for the record.

94. 0:35:36

    So the way we ended up is that, uh, we will go to daylight savings time if Congress allows us to do that.

95. 0:35:43

    Well, Congress isn't gonna do anything.

96. 0:35:45

    Uh, you know, that's why I'm here in the state legislature.

97. 0:35:50

    Okay. Right, right. Did I stall long enough?

98. 0:35:53

    You, yes, sir.

99. 0:35:54

    All right

100. 0:35:55

     ... um, um, just what I'm looking at is I'm trying to, I've got se- Senate Bill 79 up on, on my iPad, and I'm trying to compare the two things to understand exactly what you're doing and making sure that, you know, there is consistency. And I guess that's the best thing to say about this bill is it makes things consistent. Um-

101. 0:36:10

     That was the intent, and if you find that we didn't, obviously when, when you're able to look at this, we can make those changes moving forward.

102. 0:36:18

     Thank you, Chairman, 'cause that's, you know, I'm shooting from the hip when I'm looking at these things, and it looks like it, um, there, and that's my, that's the biggest interest I had was making sure everything is consistent. Um, you know, there is the, there is the question we have with trying to get, you know, some, you know, Chairman Cowsert pointed out sometimes these probation revocation matters do take a little bit of time trying to get to final result. And as a result of this bill, that time will now be credited towards th- somebody's new, new offense, whereas before it hadn't been.

103. 0:36:50

     That's the bigg- that's the biggest difference. That's what this bill does. But to echo the language, it makes it consistent. And if that's the policy that you wish to have, that's the policy you're gonna have.

104. 0:37:00

     Does PAC have an official position on the bill?

105. 0:37:03

     No, sir, just pointing out the fact that this is- ... this is a change. We have a ca- we have case law that tells us what to do. This is where the sta- where the General Assembly's telling the courts that you want to have a different policy. So, and we, you know, we'll adhere to that. But we're, right now we're operating underneath a certain, you know, operation that basically this is what the courts tell us to do, so we're doing that. If you change the law, we'll follow the law.

106. 0:37:24

     Okay. Any questions for Mr. Smith? All right. Thank you.

107. 0:37:32

     Thank you.

108. 0:37:32

     Next, we have Wade Askew with Georgia Justice Project.

109. 0:37:40

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Wade Askew from Goldome Partners representing Georgia Justice Project. Don't have much to add versus what, uh, Chairman Smith has already discussed. Uh, this cleans up, uh, Section 2 specifically is what I'm speaking to, cleans up an inconsistency that we have seen, uh, impact folks who are awaiting those probation revocation hearings, and their time served right now is just counted differently than it would be in any other context. So this is just bringing consistency to that.

110. 0:38:09

     All right. Any questions from the committee? Thank you.

111. 0:38:13

     Thank you.

112. 0:38:14

     Ms. Skirton, I wasn't clear. You want to speak on this bill?

113. 0:38:18

     Not until we've had a chance to take a look at your

114. 0:38:20

     Okay. All right. That's everyone that's signed up to speak on the bill. You have anything you want to add at the end?

115. 0:38:27

     No, I just want to make sure if Senator Cowsert's still good with carrying this. I know you were supposed to last year.

116. 0:38:34

     I might, we could make sure it, uh, applies retroactively.

117. 0:38:38

     He's- Are you sure you want Chairman Cowsert carrying it?

118. 0:38:41

     I didn't know, uh, I-

119. 0:38:43

     It might go on quite a ride

120. 0:38:44

     ... I didn't know there was a court decision that, that did not allow you to get credit if you're sitting in jail waiting on your hearing. Uh-

121. 0:38:50

     Well-

122. 0:38:50

     ... I knew there was case law that if, you know, from the date of the petition being filed until you were incarcerated, you, it was tolled, I think was the phrase we used to use, but we'll see.

123. 0:39:01

     I actually have a copy if you'd like to see it.

124. 0:39:03

     I'd be delighted. Since I'm carrying the bill, I'd better be-

125. 0:39:05

     Permission to approach the bench?

126. 0:39:06

     ... updated.

127. 0:39:06

     Permission granted.

128. 0:39:08

     Thank you.

129. 0:39:08

     There we go. Leader Hatchett, did you have something you wanted to say? Just at the appropriate time I'd like to- It is the appropriate time ... make a motion to do pass. By committee substitute? Yes. LC? LC492562S. Is there a second?

130. 0:39:22

     Second.

131. 0:39:23

     Second from Senator Bearden. Any discussion? All those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. It is unanimous, and Chairman Cowsert-

132. 0:39:31

     Is carrying it

133. 0:39:32

     ... all right.

134. 0:39:36

     Let's move to your next one while you're there, House Bill 1196.

135. 0:39:41

     Okay.

136. 0:39:42

     A new one for us.

137. 0:39:43

     Yes. Yes, new, but with a old, uh, link.

138. 0:39:48

     All right.

139. 0:39:49

     So the-

140. 0:39:49

     Give us the LC number you have. Is it 481782S?

141. 0:39:52

     Yes.

142. 0:39:53

     All right.

143. 0:39:54

     And so, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, uh, Mr. Chairman, if y'all recall a couple years ago, maybe even three now, uh, we had went into the code, and I, for legislation I'd presented to this committee, uh, to clarify what, uh, criminal trespass, uh, the, the definition thereof. Uh, this time we are not dealing with anything else. Uh, I, I know we had tacked on some legislation for the ag commissioner, but this is a little bit further clarification.

144. 0:40:27

     Uh, we have not only the Atlanta Zoo, but other zoos across our state, uh, that are affected by our criminal trespass laws. And so just down to the nuts and bolts, uh, this would update our criminal trespass law by providing for criminal trespass for someone who knowingly causes a foreign object to enter an animal enclosure, and if someone interferes with the operation, functionality, or integrity of a cage, enclosure, or other area where a wild animal is housed or otherwise contained.

145. 0:41:00

     I'll note that, uh, the Department of Agriculture was very gracious in, uh, reaching out to me about this legislation. Uh, my understanding is that at least on the House side, and unless they change their mind in between, uh, it crossing over, that they were comfortable with the language there. But, uh, if everyone, uh, that has practiced law on this committee will remember, criminal law, it kind of seemed like the definition of criminal trespass would have already covered this. But as we find from time to time, sometimes we need to specify for those that are, uh, applying the law as written.

146. 0:41:35

     So, uh, that is the bill, Mr. Chairman.

147. 0:41:41

     Any questions for the author from the committee? All right, one person signed up to speak on the bill, Brian Hudson with the Hudson Group, representing Zoo Atlanta.

148. 0:41:55

     How are you? Don't lose it. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Why would I lose it? I don't know. Uh, thank you, uh, Chairman Smith, for that presentation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Um, on behalf of Zoo Atlanta, I just want to express our support for this legislation. As Chairman Smith mentioned, unfortunately, we find ourselves in a situation where patrons are, um, knowingly throwing objects at animals. Uh, there's ... We've had some situations here at, at Zoo Atlanta. Uh, but unfortunately, we, uh, we've seen some other major situations across the country where, uh, folks are throwing shoes and rocks, coins, all kinds of things that animals ingest, and it's causing a lot of harm, uh, to these animals.

149. 0:42:38

     So I just wanna thank you for, for your time, and thank Chairman Smith for, uh, for sponsoring this, this important legislation. You do have questions. Chairman Cowsert.

150. 0:42:48

     Thank you. Friendly question, but have you seen that video of the little monkey that it was shunned and somebody threw him a stuffed animal?

151. 0:42:54

     Oh, you're talking ... Yeah, I think

152. 0:42:56

     I don't believe so.

153. 0:42:57

     Would, would that be a crime under this bill? I'm not joking.

154. 0:43:00

     I think that was-

155. 0:43:01

     They threw a, threw a stuffed animal, and the little rascal, you know, fell in love with it, and then everybody adopted him again and ...

156. 0:43:06

     If they took it away, it would cause him stress.

157. 0:43:09

     I think I, I would ... The only, the only caveat I would say, Mr. Chairman, I wanna say those that ... And I can't... I'm gonna ... Zoologist-

158. 0:43:19

     Mr. Hudson, this is how you lose it.

159. 0:43:20

     I think that was-

160. 0:43:22

     Hey, I didn't call on him, you did.

161. 0:43:24

     I think the zoologist-

162. 0:43:25

     Mr. Chairman

163. 0:43:26

     ... actually provided that stuffed animal to the little monkey-

164. 0:43:30

     Okay

165. 0:43:30

     ... since it had lost its mother.

166. 0:43:32

     I can't remember its name. Tonk or something, I think.

167. 0:43:34

     Yes.

168. 0:43:34

     But, uh, that thing's precious.

169. 0:43:36

     Yes.

170. 0:43:37

     All right.

171. 0:43:37

     We are not-

172. 0:43:38

     As long as we're not, as long as we're not stopping friendly gestures like stuffed animals, I'm good with it.

173. 0:43:42

     Maybe we can bring the monkey to the floor of the Senate when we present the bill. When Chairman Cowsert presents it.

174. 0:43:47

     Well, uh, I'll drag it in there behind me, uh.

175. 0:43:49

     That sounds like a fun day.

176. 0:43:52

     That might be a freshman bill.

177. 0:43:53

     That, yeah. Let's get a motion first. That's not a bad idea. Look, um, any questions from the committee for Mr. Hudson? At the appropriate time, it is the appropriate time.

178. 0:44:04

     Yeah, you have not presented a bill yet, have you?

179. 0:44:06

     No.

180. 0:44:07

     Okay. I would like to make a motion do pass and also a motion that he carry this.

181. 0:44:10

     So it's a caveat on the motion, means he has to be the one that carries it based on our Senate rules. So we have a motion do pass, um, that includes Senator McNeel carrying the monkey bill. And with it's been seconded. Any discussion? Uh, discussion?

182. 0:44:25

     I think we heard you say carrying the monkey bill and carrying the stuffed monkey.

183. 0:44:30

     Yeah, the stuffed monkey.

184. 0:44:30

     And the monkey.

185. 0:44:31

     Right.

186. 0:44:31

     That's-

187. 0:44:31

     It's important

188. 0:44:31

     ... that's what I seconded.

189. 0:44:32

     We'll have to act it out on the floor so we can make sure we understand the bill. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor, please raise your hand. It is unanimous, so- Thank you, Mr. Chairman ... unfortunately, a freshman will be carrying your bill to the Senate floor.

190. 0:44:50

     That's okay. Well, his w- his, the senator, uh, his wife hails from the clothing capital of the South, uh, otherwise known as Bremen, Georgia.

191. 0:44:58

     Yeah.

192. 0:44:58

     So I'd be glad to have him-

193. 0:44:59

     That's awesome

194. 0:45:00

     ... present it.

195. 0:45:00

     It'll be a good first bill. All right. Thank you.

196. 0:45:04

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

197. 0:45:05

     Anything else we can do for you, Mr. Chairman?

198. 0:45:06

     You know what? Just stand by for, uh, good bills from y'all's chamber being heard this week in our committee.

199. 0:45:12

     Awesome. Thank you.

200. 0:45:13

     Thank you.

201. 0:45:13

     Appreciate you. All right, let's go back to the top of the agenda. House Bill 162, Representative Hagan. A bill that we heard last year,

202. 0:45:28

     and I believe we passed out last year, right?

203. 0:45:32

     Yes, Mr. Chairman. Actually, you also passed it out unanimously in 2024 as well.

204. 0:45:36

     Oh, third time.

205. 0:45:37

     So this is the third time, and there has been no changes since it was heard in committee last year. Did not come out of rules for a vote on the floor.

206. 0:45:47

     LC481476S?

207. 0:45:50

     Correct.

208. 0:45:51

     Do you wanna remind the committee briefly what it does?

209. 0:45:53

     Sure. Um, the First Offender Act was enacted in the 1960s to prevent an isolated incident from, uh, leading to a lifetime of barriers for so- for someone, like workforce, um, housing, licensure, anything else a person needs to succeed that requires a background check. Uh, the bill does not change who is eligible for a first offender plea. It does not change a judge's discretion to not accept a first offender plea.

210. 0:46:28

     What it does do is it changes the timing of the sealing of the records. Currently, records are restricted at sentencing, but they're sealed upon successful completion of that first offender sentence. This bill would both restrict and seal the records at sentencing to make sure that this person's, uh, truly does receive that second chance that, that we're stating in the code currently that they, that they should receive. And we know d- from GCIC data that 98% of the people who, uh, use that first offender plea do successfully complete their sentence.

211. 0:47:05

     So this really could ha- impact a lot of people and have their, their second chance to, to make good decisions and have a successful life.

212. 0:47:14

     All right. Any questions for the author? Seeing none. There are two people signed up to speak on the bill. Sully Sullivan with Georgia Black Republican Council, wanna come on up. And just for the committee's sake, we will have to make some changes on some dates to the bill if the bill's gonna move.

213. 0:47:30

     Thank you.

214. 0:47:30

     We can do that once we get a motion. Welcome back.

215. 0:47:36

     Thank you. Thank you for having me, Mr. Chair. Um, I want to explain why this is a good bill. Um, one, re- rewards personal responsibility. This bill strengthens, promotes the Georgia First Offender Act, giving someone who made a mistake a chance to prove they can live responsibly. Offenders must still complete probation and meet all court requirements. If they fail or commit another crime, their record can be unsealed and treated normally. This reinforces- Uh, people should be accountable, but redemption should be possible after accountability.

216. 0:48:12

     To encourages w- work instead of welfare. One of the biggest barriers for first-time offenders is employment. Criminal records often prevent hiring even when the person was never formally convicted. Um, House Bill 162 helps solve that by automatically sealing records for qualified first offenders, allowing them to get jobs, support their families, paying taxes instead of relying on government programs. Three, reduces government bureaucracy.

217. 0:48:43

     Currently, people, uh, often must file petitions with the court to seal records, which costs time and money. House Bill 162 simplifies the process. Uh, records are automatically restricted and sealed at the sentencing for eligible cases. A court still maintain access for law enforcement and government agencies. This reduces the paperwork, the backlogs, administrative case, uh, administrative costs, sorry. In other words, less government red tape, and it maintains public safety. This bill does not weaken law enforcement authority, but key protections remain.

218. 0:49:17

     Judges still decides whether someone qualifies for a first offender, uh, status. Law enforcement and courts can still access the records. If probation is violated, the record are unsealed. This keeps the system tough on repeated offenders, while fair to first time offenders.

219. 0:49:38

     Fifth, reflects, uh, reflects, uh, as a conservative, meaning a conservative supports smart on crime and policies that reduces repeated crime while preserving accountability. Um, second chance policy often work because people with jobs commit fewer crimes. Stable families reduces recidivism. Courts can focus on resources on serious of- and serious and repeated offenders. And I believe that HB 162 fits the philosophy by helping people move forward after a single mistake, rather than creating permanent dependency on the government system.

220. 0:50:15

     Um, HB 162 rewards responsibility, reduces bureaucracy, strengthen families through employment, maintains law and order, safeguards, making it practical and limited government reform. Thank you.

221. 0:50:30

     All right. Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. Any questions from the committee? All right, thank you. Mr. Eskey, you wanna, Georgia Justice Project, you wanna come back up? You're good to waive?

222. 0:50:39

     For it.

223. 0:50:40

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

224. 0:50:46

     Motion to pass.

225. 0:50:47

     Motion to pass from Senator Parent, second from Senator Cowsert. Any discussion? All those in favor.

226. 0:50:51

     Mr. Chairman.

227. 0:50:52

     Oh, amendment.

228. 0:50:52

     Mr. Chairman, we've made some amendments.

229. 0:50:53

     I got too excited. You want to tell us a couple places, Mr. Walker? I count, counted two.

230. 0:51:00

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes. Uh, lines, uh, 116 and line 209, I think each should be pulled forward to reflect 2026, July 1 of 2026 in both places.

231. 0:51:13

     So moved, Senator Cowsert. Is there a second? Second from Senator Bearden. Any discussion on the amendment?

232. 0:51:18

     I got a question.

233. 0:51:20

     Senator Rhett, what's your mic, 5?

234. 0:51:22

     Yes.

235. 0:51:22

     All right.

236. 0:51:23

     Just a friendly suggest question.

237. 0:51:25

     All right.

238. 0:51:26

     Is this your first bill today?

239. 0:51:29

     No, it's not my first bill today.

240. 0:51:31

     Okay.

241. 0:51:32

     Thank you. Today?

242. 0:51:34

     That's, that's the joke we're playing.

243. 0:51:35

     Today it is. It's your first bill today.

244. 0:51:37

     Well, I had a bill in rules today.

245. 0:51:38

     Oh, never mind.

246. 0:51:40

     First bill in this committee.

247. 0:51:42

     In this committee today.

248. 0:51:42

     In this committee today.

249. 0:51:43

     But I'd love to have another one very soon.

250. 0:51:45

     Well, we'll see if we can get to any more. We'll, we'll see soon. All right. All those in favor of the amendment, please raise your hand. All right. Back, it passed unanimously. Back to the motion do pass by committee. No, back to the motion to pass now as amended. All those in favor, raise your hand. It is unanimous. Who's carrying this one?

251. 0:52:07

     Well, last year when it passed out, Senator Cowsert agreed to carry it, but now that he is carrying that very important bill of Chairman Smith's, I don't know if he's, can handle the workload of-

252. 0:52:16

     You want to carry it?

253. 0:52:16

     ... this bill.

254. 0:52:18

     Glad to. Only because I did it last year and can still remember every minute detail of it.

255. 0:52:22

     Of course.

256. 0:52:22

     That helps.

257. 0:52:23

     Of course.

258. 0:52:25

     All right. Sounds good.

259. 0:52:26

     Thank you.

260. 0:52:26

     Thank you.

261. 0:52:27

     Thank y'all very much.

262. 0:52:27

     And we'll see you again soon.

263. 0:52:29

     I hope so.

264. 0:52:31

     All right. Representative New, House Resolution 251.

265. 0:52:40

     Thank you, Chairman. Members, um-

266. 0:52:42

     How are you?

267. 0:52:42

     I'm well. How are you?

268. 0:52:43

     Good.

269. 0:52:44

     Um, is it okay if I ask Judge Keith Wood to join me?

270. 0:52:48

     Yes.

271. 0:52:48

     He's the Cherokee County Probate Judge and Legislative Chairman for the Probate Council. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today about House Resolution 251. It's LC473339.

272. 0:53:01

     All right.

273. 0:53:01

     This resolution 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 by putting it on the ballot and letting them decide. Judges should be running nonpartisan because we need to maintain the public's confidence in an independent judiciary. Requiring some judges to run in a partisan election makes it difficult for them to comply with the code of judicial conduct and maintain impartiality and the appearance of impartiality.

274. 0:53:34

     These are the only judges now that run partisan. Out of 1,600 judges in Georgia, 53 run partisan. For parity, we need to move forward and allow these judges the opportunity to run nonpartisan. The, this resolution is brought to us and supported by the Council of Probate Court Judges, the Council of Magistrate Court Judges. It's also supported by the Judicial Council of Georgia, chaired by Chief Justice Nels Peterson, who said during his State of Judiciary Address to all of us that this bill was a priority for them We also have the support of two amazing Georgia leaders, former Georgia governors Nathan Deal and Roy Barnes, who have co-authored a letter in support of this legislation.

275. 0:54:16

     I placed a copy of this for you guys to review. That is the bill.

276. 0:54:25

     All right, Judge Wood, do you wanna add anything?

277. 0:54:27

     I, I, she always does a good job of presenting this bill. I, I, the only thing I wanna add is this is a bill that is probate judges wanting to be nonpartisan. That is it. We just wanna be nonpartisan at this point. Um, with the 53 that are left are the only ones left that are partisan judges.

278. 0:54:50

     You have a question, Senator Parent?

279. 0:54:51

     Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much, both of you. Um, forgive my ignorance, but, um, w- tell me the circumstances of the 53. Is it, are they not able to change it themselves? It has to be done this way through a constitutional amendment? How is it that the others have-

280. 0:55:08

     Sure

281. 0:55:08

     ... been changed?

282. 0:55:09

     The, so right now every, every judge except for probate judges are nonpartisan. Magistrates became nonpartisan last year. Um, in order for a probate judge to become nonpartisan, they have to have a local legislation. They're the only judges that have to have local legislation in order to become nonpartisan. So what this does is the amendment to the Constitution will make them all nonpartisan so they don't have to go through that process of trying to get local support to become a nonpartisan judge.

283. 0:55:42

     It intrigues me, f- uh, follow-up.

284. 0:55:44

     Mm-hmm.

285. 0:55:45

     It intrigues me that it's, would be easier to do a constitutional amendment than just get their local delegations to act.

286. 0:55:53

     Well-

287. 0:55:53

     That seems, uh, uh, is there resistance?

288. 0:55:56

     Uh, uh... Well, always. You know, that, that, there's always gonna be resistance at some point. But for, so someone like me, I'm in Cherokee County, I'm nonpartisan. I became nonpartisan in 2021, but that doesn't mean that I couldn't become partisan again because it's local legislation. So I could have the legislators say, "Well, we've now changed our mind, and we now want you to go back to partisan again." This gives us, it locks us in just like any other judge so that we're now nonpartisan.

289. 0:56:30

     Thank you for the explanation.

290. 0:56:32

     Yes, ma'am.

291. 0:56:33

     Any other questions from the committee? All right, we have two others that wanted to speak on the bill. Um, Judge Bryson.

292. 0:56:49

     Good to have you with us.

293. 0:56:52

     Good to be here, Mr. Chairman, members. Thank you so much. I'm Brandon Bryson, chief magistrate of Bartow County. I won't rehash all the points you just heard on this bill. I think you all understand it. But I just wanna be here on the behalf of the Council of Magistrate Court Judges and let you know that we support this. You know, it helps increase the confidence in a fair and impartial jurist, and faith of the rule of law. I think that's very important, especially these days. Uh, secondly, out of 42 of our members of our magistrate courts, they also are probate judges, and they run as probate judges.

294. 0:57:26

     So there we also have an interest. So I'll just ask for your consideration in supporting this.

295. 0:57:31

     Thank you, Judge.

296. 0:57:31

     Thank you.

297. 0:57:31

     Any questions from the committee? All right, thank you.

298. 0:57:35

     Thank you.

299. 0:57:35

     All right, Sully Sullivan. Is he still... There you are. Come on down. Close us out. Georgia Black Republican Council.

300. 0:57:49

     This is my last one.

301. 0:57:52

     Welcome to speak on any of them.

302. 0:57:53

     So y'all get up out of here. Um, House Resolution 251 proposes a thoughtful reform to strengthen public confidence in our judiciary system, uh, ju- sorry, judicial system by making probate judges election nonpartisan. Probate judges handle deeply personal matters for Georgia families, wills, estates, guardianships, and marriage license. These responsibilities require fairness, professionalism, and impartially, not political affiliation.

303. 0:58:25

     By removing, by removing party labels from these elections, this resolution help ensure probate judges are evaluated based on qualifications, integrity, and commitment to the law rather than partisan politics. Importantly, H.R. 251 does not impose this change unilaterally because it is a constitutional amendment. The final decision would be placed directly in the hands of Georgia voters for ratification. To respect, disrespects the conservative principles that the people should have the ultimate say in a major structural change for government.

304. 0:59:01

     This proposal does not grow government, create new spending, or change the role of probate courts. It simply helps protect the integrity and neutrality of our local judiciary system. For these reasons, I res- respectfully support H.R. 251 and encourage the committee to allow the Georgia voters to consider this important reform, and thank you for your time and consideration.

305. 0:59:25

     Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. All right, no questions. What's the pleasure of the committee? Motion to pass. Motion to pass, and Senator Bearden, a second from Senator Watson. Any discussion? All those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand.

306. 0:59:44

     It was just unanimous. All right. Am I carrying this one?

307. 0:59:48

     I hope so, sir.

308. 0:59:49

     All right, I'll carry it. Thank you.

309. 0:59:51

     Appreciate you.

310. 0:59:51

     All right, thank you. Appreciate y'all's work on this. Thank you, Chief Justice, for your work on this, and bringing this to our attention as well.

311. 1:00:02

     That was an enthusiastic yes.

312. 1:00:04

     I thought so too.

313. 1:00:07

     Yes.

314. 1:00:10

     All right, let's go back now to House Bill 999. Chairman Leverett, no stranger to our committee, set the record the last couple years for the most bills presented by a house member. I'm assuming there are so many, and you're back again already.

315. 1:00:26

     I'm back again, Mr. Chairman. Always good to be here.

316. 1:00:30

     Good to have you. Working off 473834. The floor is yours.

317. 1:00:39

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I appreciate y'all hearing, uh, these two bills for me today. The first one, House Bill 999, has to do with magistrate courts. So it does basically two things. First, it amends the statute on fees in magistrate courts so that magistrate courts can, by local act, assess and recover certain other fees, like technology fees and that sort of thing. That was the main genesis of my carrying this bill because one of my, uh, magistrate judges in my district wanted to assess a technology fee.

318. 1:01:09

     Customarily, that is done by local act, and there are many courts that assess fees. However, legislative council opined that in their view, the statute actually is written so it would not allow a local act like that to be effective, so we're trying to fix that to make it effective for everybody who already has one and for those like my magistrate judge, who was rather studious about it and did not wanna have a local act unless it was absolutely permitted by statute. So we're just trying to fix that, that, um, I would say that, that impediment in the current statute to allowing the local fees, um, like technology fees and that sort of thing, but it would still have to be by local act.

319. 1:01:47

     They couldn't just impose it themselves. They'd have to have a local act passed to do it. Secondly, we try, in section two, we try to address, um, I guess what you would call a typo in House Bill 426 last year. That was the, um, bill that provided for magistrate courts and probate courts becoming nonpartisan. Uh, uh, Representative New sponsored that bill, and she just presented to you a resolution that would call the referendum on probate courts 'cause they're our constitutional officers, so we have to have a referendum to make them, um, nonpartisan.

320. 1:02:20

     So in the bill, we have a standard repealer that says if the referendum doesn't pass, the particular section dealing with probate courts would not, would be repealed. However, in, the language did not specify the section of the bill. It just said the entire bill would be repealed, which would have the effect of tying the magistrate courts being nonpartisan to the referendum on probate courts, which is not the intention, obviously. So we're, we're kind of... We're trying to fix two things here, I guess, Mr. Chairman. One is the, the state of the law with respect to the ability of courts to assess technology fees and other fees by local act, and two is the sort of initiative to allow the public to vote on probate courts while also making magistrate courts, which are not constitutional officers, nonpartisan.

321. 1:03:06

     We're trying just to fix that, that, uh, typo, if you will, in House Bill 426 from last year-

322. 1:03:12

     All right

323. 1:03:12

     ... the bill.

324. 1:03:12

     You have a question from Senator Cowsert.

325. 1:03:16

     I wanted to know what Title 15-23-7 refers to. On line 28, you say, "All sums collected pursuant to that."

326. 1:03:25

     That's local act.

327. 1:03:26

     Uh, is, is that all of them by local act?

328. 1:03:30

     I don't know that-

329. 1:03:31

     Or is, or is that one of the specific type of, you know, law library or retirement or-

330. 1:03:36

     It is, I think, uh-

331. 1:03:36

     ... whatever else we've tacked on?

332. 1:03:38

     Give me a minute. I think I had made a note. Uh, it's ADR fees.

333. 1:03:44

     Okay.

334. 1:03:48

     So the act, the, the... We're, we're tracking the language in the probate court fee statute, which is 15-9-60. Um, and apparently, the, the only other code section where we provide for particular kinds of fees is 15-23-7, so they just reference it in that section.

335. 1:04:04

     Fair enough. Thank you.

336. 1:04:06

     Any other questions for the author? All right. Judge Bryson, do you wanna weigh in on this one?

337. 1:04:13

     Unless anybody has any questions. This is-

338. 1:04:14

     Anybody have any questions for Judge Bryson? All right, what's the pleasure of the committee?

339. 1:04:19

     Move do pass.

340. 1:04:20

     Move do pass from Senator Cowsert. Do we have a second? Second from Senator McNeel. Any discussion? All those in favor, please raise your hand. It is unanimous. And who's carrying this one?

341. 1:04:34

     Um, I believe Senator Hatchett had agreed to carry this one.

342. 1:04:40

     Okay. He's not here, so he's carrying it.

343. 1:04:44

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you. You're much more persuasive, I'm sure, with him than I can be.

344. 1:04:47

     Well, Senator McNeel has his hands full, so...

345. 1:04:52

     He's throwing stuffed animals.

346. 1:04:54

     You may wanna go to the zoo and do a visit so you can learn firsthand what happens at the zoo, so you can give that expertise when you present the bill.

347. 1:05:03

     Yes. Might be entertaining.

348. 1:05:05

     Yeah. Wednesday's a committee day. You might could go Wednesday. We'll get with Mr. Hudson to schedule that. All right, House Bill 530.

349. 1:05:14

     530. So, uh, Mr. Chairman, this is from last year, I believe we presented it last year. This is the bill that would allow electronic filing in probate courts. Um-

350. 1:05:22

     And you have the sub on that one for us?

351. 1:05:23

     Yes, sub-

352. 1:05:23

     You got that LC?

353. 1:05:24

     LC 49-2500S. So we tried to address some concerns that had been raised in committee. Um, so if you... I, I, what I'll do, Mr. Chairman, I can go through and give you the specific word by word changes, but I might just first of all just hit conceptually what the changes are. Um, line 17 through 18 are basically just intended to, to clarify that the intent of the legislation is the same.

354. 1:05:53

     Hold on one second. I don't think we all got-

355. 1:05:56

     What's the number again, Senator?

356. 1:05:57

     I don't think it got passed out.

357. 1:05:58

     49-2500S.

358. 1:06:01

     49-

359. 1:06:01

     Yeah, give us just one second. Let us get the sub.

360. 1:06:09

     Mm-hmm.

361. 1:06:11

     Yeah, I guess it should.

362. 1:06:12

     Mm-hmm.

363. 1:06:14

     It didn't before.

364. 1:06:14

     Yeah.

365. 1:06:14

     Now we've got that and that other deal in the house.

366. 1:06:16

     Well, let's not bring that up.

367. 1:06:17

     Yeah.

368. 1:06:18

     Senator McNeel, you want to turn your mic on? What's your mic number?

369. 1:06:24

     13.

370. 1:06:25

     13.

371. 1:06:27

     I got one. Yeah, thank you.

372. 1:06:30

     Have you had a chance to review the sub yet?

373. 1:06:33

     No.

374. 1:06:34

     Do you want to talk about the monkey bill while we're stalling for a minute or...?

375. 1:06:40

     I'll get ready for the monkey.

376. 1:06:42

     Okay. Everybody have the sub? All right. Now you can start over.

377. 1:06:48

     Right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry. Um, so, uh, just, just to sort of hit conceptually, kind of broadly what the changes are intended to do, in lines 17 through 20 at the top of page two, and, and on down into a couple other lines of that next paragraph, we're just trying to clarify that the electronic filing after a certain point is to be mandatory. The, the way the bill was, as filed, was originally drafted, it said we would provide for it, but it didn't really say that's how you have to file after that, that system is up and running.

378. 1:07:18

     Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

379. 1:07:18

     So we're trying to make sure it's mandatory. In lines 24 through 28, uh, and this I think was a concern the committee expressed last year, is that we, we've provided that reasonable accommodations have to be provided for self-represented litigants. Uh, so the court is prohibited from not refusing them to make filings in person. It basically says that, uh, to protect and promote access, court shall reasonably accommodate pro se parties by accepting and then converting, and then maintaining in electronic form pleadings or other forms of paper documents related thereto.

380. 1:07:51

     I think there probably is supposed to be an S after the word document on line 27. I might just ask Legislative Council to check, and if that, that's correct, that might be one, a tw- a tweak we'd like to make, uh, uh, in committee. But I, I could be wrong. Um, so the idea is if, you know, if, if a, a pro se litigant comes in and doesn't have access to a computer or doesn't have electronic, that they would be able to... Uh, the, the staff would accommodate them by converting their paper filing into an electronic one they could then file in the electronic system.

381. 1:08:23

     And there also is, uh, sort of to complement to that, in lines 29 through 32, uh, the court has to provide, have a public terminal available for people to do those filings, uh, as well. So again, all of that is sort of, was addressing issues I think the committee, concerns the committee had last year with us not closing the courthouse door to those who either didn't have the money or the technological know-how to generate an electronic copy of something. Uh, and then in lines 79 through 84, this is basically, um, uh, trying to provide for some, a transition, uh, phase where if you've got a case pending and you're filing it before the commencement of electronic filing, you continue to pay fees applicable to the case on the day of the first filing.

382. 1:09:10

     'Cause, you know, many times in, in probate court cases, they're, they're not just like superior courts. You've got an estate where you file one petition, you have another petition. Uh, and part... But a party can elect to go to the electronic system and file those fees, um, and that provision though would, would expire for attorneys after a year. So attorneys get a one-year grace period. The rest of the world gets a longer grace period, as I would think most, uh, non-attorneys would feel it should be, Mr. Chairman. So, um, those are the, the, the main changes in terms of categories, but I, I'd be glad to go back through and, uh, describe the specific, uh, in perhaps granular, painful detail, the specific changes that were made to the bill as passed the House, if the chairman would like it.

383. 1:09:55

     Any questions from the committee for the author? Senator Cowsert.

384. 1:09:59

     All right. This was my day for questions. I'm gonna leave everybody alone next meeting.

385. 1:10:04

     I don't believe that would go on.

386. 1:10:05

     I, I think you were accommodating some of my concerns from last year, that so many of these type of pleadings in probate courts are filed without attorneys or are filed in person, less sophisticated people, and, you know, wills and whatnot for probate, um, or guardianships or whatever. I wanted to make sure you didn't have to use the electronic filing system. I like your language that you came up there on 27 and 28, where the court would convert it for you, basically. You can, like the old days, give them the...

387. 1:10:35

     Well, like current days, hand them the paper, get you a stamp, filed copy, and then they can feed it into the computer instead of you having to do it.

388. 1:10:42

     Yes.

389. 1:10:43

     Uh, do you have a problem with using that same type of language on line 71 and 72? Y- you've got it, um, set up where a, an attorney can physically present it at the courthouse, but you're making them go to that public terminal. What if they didn't want to do that, and they wanted to hand it to the clerk and let them convert it like they do for the-

390. 1:11:07

     I, I mean, I-

391. 1:11:08

     ... people? Is that a, a, a problem with you, or is there a reason for that, or am I complicating your life? 'Cause it-

392. 1:11:13

     I, I don't believe you would be, Mr. Chairman. If I could phone a friend just to inquire. I, I don't think we would have any problem with that. Is the chairman suggesting we would take the language, uh, see-

393. 1:11:25

     Lines 25 through 28, basically, just not specifically for a pro se party. It would go under the section that you got beginning on line 68, if it's physically presented by an attorney or a designee or a person that's not an attorney, which could be a pro se party as well.

394. 1:11:46

     So would the specific change be to add another provided however at the-

395. 1:11:52

     Right. After, at the end of line 72, after clerk, you would either say, "Or by allowing," and then track that language from

396. 1:12:02

     lines 20, you know, 6 to 28.

397. 1:12:05

     So I, I would say maybe, uh-

398. 1:12:06

     By accepting them and converting

399. 1:12:13

     After, so on line 72, you have subsection is designated by the clerk. We would change the period to a semi- or insert a semicolon, um-

400. 1:12:24

     And then say, "Or by the clerk accepting and then converting and maintaining," you know, track the rest of that line 26 through 28.

401. 1:12:31

     Okay. Or by the clerk accepting and then converting and maintain. So we would probably just need a comma and then-

402. 1:12:36

     Add that additional phrase.

403. 1:12:41

     Yeah, I, I think that would be fine, Mr. Chairman. And I'm assuming that we need to change document to documents-

404. 1:12:48

     Correct

405. 1:12:48

     ... on line 27 as well.

406. 1:12:50

     Mr. Walker.

407. 1:12:57

     I don't know if document needs to be changed or not, but I'll let y'all ...

408. 1:13:00

     I ... Thank you, Chairman. I do agree that document should be plural on line 27. That's the easiest part of my consideration at this point.

409. 1:13:06

     All right.

410. 1:13:08

     Um, it, it would be pretty straightforward to mimic the provision, uh, starting at the end of, uh, line 24 and going through 28, inserting that at line 72 after designated by the clerk. Chairman Leverett's correct, uh, we would just, uh, replace that period with a semicolon and then insert the provision there from lines 24 through 28. Um ...

411. 1:13:41

     That seems like the simplest to describe in real time, at any rate.

412. 1:13:46

     Uh, another way to accomplish that-

413. 1:13:48

     Yes

414. 1:13:48

     ... it would just be to pull the attorneys up into the, into this sub, uh, this division number two in lines 20 through 28, but that's going to require-

415. 1:13:59

     That's pro se, pro se parties or attorneys.

416. 1:14:01

     Correct. If you just pull them up to the top of the bill, then it just applies to everybody, and you wouldn't really need, um-

417. 1:14:09

     You could remove except as provided in paragraph six.

418. 1:14:11

     You could remove line 68 through 75. Um, if the idea is that it's really not gonna be required for attorneys, I don't know that you would need the provision. You're basically saying it's required for attorneys, but it's not required for attorneys. Um, I'm not sure if that's a perfectly-

419. 1:14:31

     Well-

420. 1:14:31

     ... accurate statement of the policy objective, but that ...

421. 1:14:34

     Yeah, it, it does say in the second portion there about presented physically at the courthouse, so that might be something that you would want. I think it accomplishes your goal, uh, Representative Leverett, of essentially digitizing these documents and making them electronically filed. They still end up online.

422. 1:14:55

     Yes, sir.

423. 1:14:55

     It's just, do you have to do it from your home computer, or could ... You gotta do it from the terminal in the lobby, or can you hand it to them and let them just-

424. 1:15:01

     Let them handle it for you

425. 1:15:02

     ... scan it in for you, basically, and then it's still publicly accessible.

426. 1:15:08

     I would agree. I just, I'm, I'm trying to make sure I understood exactly what change we need to request be made in the form of amendment. Um, i- i- in my opinion, the, the cleanest and one that would avoid confusion would be to add

427. 1:15:29

     an attorney at line 28 so that the, this,

428. 1:15:38

     the, the receipt and the uploading them to the terminal by the clerk would be a- an option that is available both to pro se parties and attorneys. So on line 28, by a pro se attorney, or, or excuse me, a pro se party or an attorney.

429. 1:15:58

     And in line-

430. 1:15:59

     We strike 68 through-

431. 1:16:02

     Correct

432. 1:16:02

     ... 75?

433. 1:16:04

     It, it ... Yes, that would be un- unnecessary.

434. 1:16:08

     'Cause that was, that, that's a, that is an ex- that's, that's a circumstance in which certain provisions of the e- of the, of the statute don't apply.

435. 1:16:17

     Correct.

436. 1:16:17

     So I ... It would seem to me we could just remove it there 'cause we're basically providing the same thing above.

437. 1:16:24

     Correct. And it, and, and them existing in two different places in the statute, I think, would actually create some confusion-

438. 1:16:29

     Indeed, it would

439. 1:16:29

     ... because you're basically carving out an exception to a rule that doesn't exist, and I think that would just beg questions.

440. 1:16:35

     Be careful how you do it, though, because at line 21, you say, "Except as provided in paragraph six," and if you're deleting paragraph six ...

441. 1:16:45

     You also have pro se parties mentioned-

442. 1:16:46

     That's a problem

443. 1:16:47

     ... 25 and 26, too.

444. 1:16:48

     Well, uh, we're not deleting all of six. I don't think. We're just deleting paragraph-

445. 1:16:51

     Correct

446. 1:16:52

     ... B of six.

447. 1:16:53

     Correct.

448. 1:16:53

     Subparagraph B would be coming out, but there are other exceptions that would, that you would want to maintain in paragraph six. So my, my recommendation would be to remove line 68 through 75, and then-

449. 1:17:09

     You gotta renumber 68

450. 1:17:10

     ... re- yeah. Re-

451. 1:17:11

     Why don't we ... We can take more question in the committee. Why don't we do that as a sub for the next committee hearing so we make sure we get it right?

452. 1:17:17

     Okay.

453. 1:17:17

     That way we aren't doing it on the fly and having to come back. Of course, that won't be my problem or your problem, Bill, but next year having to correct it, so

454. 1:17:24

     Yeah.

455. 1:17:24

     Um, but let's ... Why don't we plan to do that if, if the committee is in agreement with that change? It appears everybody is. Um-

456. 1:17:31

     Yeah, let's get it right.

457. 1:17:32

     The ... And so ... But Senator McNeel, did you have a question?

458. 1:17:36

     Yeah, just one little question about whether this bill requires a uniform system across the state, electronic systems, or are we gonna be dealing with a, a myriad of electronic systems that practitioners and pro se parties would have to weave and bob through and-

459. 1:17:52

     Well, I, I, I think it's contemplated that there will be a uniform system much as we have for superior courts, um, 'cause it does say in conformance with standards and rules promulgated by the Council of Probate Judges, all probate courts shall provide, uh, for electronic filing. And I'm ... My recollection is that is the idea, that we would have one uniform system statewide. As, as unthinkable as that might be to get all the judges to agree to, I think they're, they're resolute they plan to do so.

460. 1:18:19

     Yeah.

461. 1:18:21

     Any other questions from the committee?

462. 1:18:26

     Judge Wood, do you wanna add any testimony?

463. 1:18:29

     I think he, he's done a good job covering-

464. 1:18:31

     Okay

465. 1:18:32

     ... what we need.

466. 1:18:33

     All right. If there's no other questions, we'll hold on taking action. If you wanna get us a new sub, and we will have another committee hearing on Thursday. And if it's ready by then in advance, let's go and distribute it to the committee, and then we'll, um ... And Senator Cowsert, if you wanna take a look at it and make sure it's got the language before Thursday, we can move it out Thursday.

467. 1:18:49

     That would be great, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much.

468. 1:18:51

     All right. Thank you. That is all the business we have today, so we are adjourned. Thank you.