Judiciary 01.27.26
Video Transcript
Duration: 49 minutes
Speakers: 10
We're gonna do Leverett to go first so you just Alright.
Chairman,
chairman Leverett is in a,
committee meeting that is continuing on. I'm sorry. Chairman Gunter.
Somebody else said,
alright.
What what a start of the year of judiciary.
Chairman Gunter is in another committee meeting that is continuing to,
do business, and he will be here shortly. So we'll convene
house judiciary committee.
Would would chairman Leverett like to say the invocation? Sure. Goodbye too. Thank you.
Please.
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, best interest of the people of the state of Georgia. We ask that you be with us through our deliberations and make sure that everything we do is is beneficial in your sight. We ask this in your name. Amen. Amen.
Thank you, chairman Leverett. I noticed we have, many distinguished members of the judiciary,
here with us today. So bill sponsors if you have some judges from your area in here, let's make sure they get recognized,
coming to the capital.
Let's see. We got six bills on the agenda,
five bills on the agenda.
First one is,
house bill
nine ninety nine. Chairman Leverett.
Chairman, what do you mean? Present it from there. Would you like me to get in the hot seat? From there is fine. Alright. Thank you. Thank you, sir. This bill well, I'm I'm reluctant to let the word simple bill,
issue from my mouth, but I will just say I believe I can explain the bill fairly quickly.
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,
shall we say, the customers in the magistrate court.
But there apparently was some concern in 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,
appropriate. So
the bill,
the first section of it simply would
change the language in the fee statute in applicable to magistrate court so that by local act, 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,
that was in house bill,
04/26
last year. That was a bill that made,
magistrate courts and probate courts nonpartisan
elections.
Of course, the probate court part of that had to be contingent upon a referendum. So there was a repealer,
provision that said if that,
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
was passed,
if the referendum regarding probate courts doesn't pass, then the nonpartisan
designation of magistrate courts, which doesn't require referendum, will also be repealed. So we're just trying to fix that repeal or so that the
the fate of the nonpartisan designation in magistrate court doesn't isn't tied to the constitutional required referendum on probate courts.
And that's the bill, mister chairman. As far as I I think the magistrate judges,
support it, and I think the probate judges probably support it too. Thank you so much.
Looks like we have, chief magistrate of Cobb County here to speak in support.
Good afternoon, mister 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 Levrick covered it, very well. The only thing I'd add is on the fee part,
this does not authorize any particular fee that local delegations would still be working with their local judge and county commission,
before any technology p fee is passed in your community. Yeah.
And then it's just a little old bill, little cleanup bill. But I'm glad to answer any questions if anybody has them.
Thank you. And I think we had a question earlier. I don't know if it was for the chairman or for the chief judge, but,
representative Jones chairman Jones.
Thank you, mister chairman. Chairman Leverett, just real quick. You said there was one small change in section two.
Where is that small change?
Well,
it it section two is the one that corrects
the provision.
So the the entirety corrects it.
The entirety of section two? 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 Okay. They I guess because it's not existing code, they didn't 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 actual stand automatically repealed, which would be both probate and magistrate. We're now just adding section four of on line 52. Thank you, mister chairman.
Good good point, though. Thank you.
Representative Scoggins.
It's a proper time, sir.
Do you have any more questions? I think now It's a proper time. A motion do pass.
We have a motion. We have a second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed.
Alright. The bill does pass.
Thank you, mister chairman. Thank you.
And I would like to know we have the chief justice of the Georgia Supreme Court, justice Peter chief justice Peterson here. Thank you.
Alright.
HR two fifty one, representative Neu.
Come on up.
Members, can I have a judge
would
and,
for a bill?
And as Director.
In just a moment. Is justice Bethel here? Did I hear that? No. Judge. Alright. Justice Bethel. Welcome.
Representative Newn. Thank you.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today about house resolution
two fifty one. We're working with l c four seven three three three nine.
This resolution was passed
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 running nonpartisan because we need to maintain the public's confidence and independent judiciary.
Requiring some judges to run-in partisan elections makes it difficult for them to comply with the 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. The first was h b four twenty six, 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 coauthored a letter in support of this legislation, which I've put
in your packets for your review.
Are there any questions?
Do we have any questions for representative?
Alright. Chief,
chief judge Wood, would you,
let us know any judges who were who've made the trip down here and support this? Do we have to yes, sir.
From Fayette County's judge Angela Langard,
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.
In Cherokee County, I run nonpartisan.
So Nick's back.
Thank you all for coming.
Any other testimony?
Any questions?
Do we have a motion? All
right. We have a motion by Representative Oliver. We have a second by,
Representative Scoggins.
All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed?
Nay.
Alright. The bill does pass. Thank you.
Alright. Thank you.
Alright. Chairman Hawkins,
House Bill five fifty seven. I speak from here. Absolutely.
Thank you, sir.
You have four You557.
It's a substitute.
The reason for the substitute was I dropped this bill last year.
Our judges decided to wait and go this year, let someone go before them for the sixth. So they're,
asking for a six superior court judge. So the changes are online
'23.
That was January
2026.
'6, changed to '27.
And then online, 01/2009,
same thing.
Date change, o six to o seven.
I've got,
two of our judges here,
Judge Jason
Deal and Clint Bearden. And,
Jason Deal is actually going to address the bill.
I'll keep it very short.
Judge Deal.
We would like it, and we hope that you'll support it.
Thanks so much.
Alright.
Any other testimony in support of the bill? Any questions
for
the author or
No. We have a motion due passed
by chairman Smith. We have a second by
chairman Jones.
All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay.
The bill does pass. Thank you. Thank you.
Alright. The next bill is, close to home, house bill nine sixty.
Wannett delegation chair, jazz representative Jasmine Clark.
Thank you, mister chair. Thank you, members of the committee.
I am here presenting
house bill nine sixty l c four seven three four eight zero.
This is this is a very simple bill that adds a twelfth judge
to the Gwinnett Judicial Circuit.
Currently,
the Gwinnett,
Judicial Circuit has demonstrated a need of 14.6
superior court judges, but we're only asking for one more
today.
And,
we have,
a work value or workload value of 1.32,
which has us third behind northeastern and middle judicial circuits.
So there's a demonstrated need,
that has also been recognized by,
the, judicial council.
And,
I have a letter from our sup
chief superior court judge, Tim Hamill. He could not be here today, but he did provide a letter to members of the committee,
demonstrating that need.
This was
signed with bipartisan support from the overwhelming majority of the Gwinnett Delegation,
meeting our,
our bylaws for,
local bills even though technically this isn't a local bill. But since it affects
a local judicial circuit, I thought that was important as well and happy to take any questions.
Thank you, representative Clark. Any questions
for representative Clark?
Let me just say 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 she said
she was in line, there were so many jurors in there. They're trying,
criminal and civil cases day in Gwinnett Superior, and they did so as quickly as they could after COVID. And,
they definitely stay busy and can use all the help 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, and you were right. They they definitely have weighed in and are asking for
the seat.
Do any any questions for
representatives?
We have a motion due passed by vice chair Hong. We have a second by majority leader of arbitration. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay.
The bill does pass.
Thank you. Thank you. Alright. Last but not least, we've got,
house bill six seventy six, representative Clifton.
Thank you, sir. Members of committee. I'll be brief as this bill was passed through the committee last year.
I was a little late dropping it and did not have enough time to get it, all the way through, but,
excited for this bill. This is a,
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 mechanics lien.
It has become a threat,
that entities have decided to use to bully people into doing things.
This, 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,
attorney's fees and court costs.
Thank you, representative Clifton. Any questions?
We do have a question by vice chair Hall. Thank you, mister chair. Thank you, representative.
I've
represented
several homeowners
having to
deal with all of this.
I'm just curious
what are we seeing more
cases
where there are fraudulent liens being filed? What brought this bill up?
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,
are doing so because
most people give in instead of finding them through the court's process through,
having some sort of relationship in order to remove the lien, whether it be through a bond, through cash.
And what I'm seeing and hearing of people unfortunately, attorneys saying, you know what? Well, you don't have any rights to file that lien.
The answer is, well, make your life hell in the process. You don't even realize how many people will pay it. So, it's
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,
it's just disappointing bad actors
and preventing this from becoming a bullying tactic.
Thank you.
Any further questions?
Alright. No further questions. Do we have a motion?
We have a a motion by the majority leader to pass.
We have a second by,
Representative Scoggins.
All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay.
Alright. The bill does pass. Thanks, sir. Thank you.
Having
having no further business, the committee is adjourned.