02/09/2026 Senate Committee on Rules

Rules committee to order. And senator Dolezal, if you'll lead us off in prayer.

One. Lord, thank you for the gift of being alive today and able to serve your people. Pray that we would do so with wisdom and humility, and and that you would continue to bless our steps. In your name, we pray.

Amen. Amen. Alright. So in standing committee, we have S b 395, senator Kirkpatrick. If you'd like to deliver yours

Thank you.

Address right there.

For those of you who don't know, what this is about, the cannabis cards are produced by the Department of Public Health. The application goes through there, but the enforcement goes through the medical board. And currently, they don't have a data sharing agreement, so they can't share information. So the program is there's a gap in there. There was some other stuff in this bill when we passed out a committee.

And on talking with ledge counsel and working on it some more, it turns out that that's already in the law. And so the only part that's left in this bill is the part about the communication between the boards. That's it.

Okay. Are there any questions? Alright. Go ahead, sir. Senator.

Thank you, mister chairman. Senator, in your original bill, it allows 19 to 21. You you asked for the board to confirm that a physician had a doctor patient relationship with their person they've given the card to and that they were treating them for a specific condition that was listed. Why have you removed that? That seemed like good policy and there was no objection to that in health committee.

It is good policy. It's also already in the code.

K.

And I can give you the citation if you want it.

So you just did you don't need it because we already got it somewhere else.

Exactly.

Thank you.

And I think the point is more, we're gonna have to have more emphasis on the on the enforcement side of it. Right. If there's a problem, which would there clearly is because, you know, we know one doctor at a a different state, New York, that's issued a, what, a couple thousand

Almost 4,000.

And People. Kinda hard to believe someone out of New York has a relationship with that many

Exactly.

That many patients. So, okay. Any other questions? What's the will of the committee?

Do pass.

Got a motion do pass from the chairman of which the bill came out of.

Is that how you say? By

from the minority whip. Any further discussion? All in favor, raise your hand. Alright. Motion carries unanimous.

Alright. We're gonna end that meeting, and we're gonna start a new one. Alright. We're in our rules calendar committee, committee meeting. Got a lot of bills today.

Committee chairs are doing good work, getting us some good bills. Alright. First up, we have SB two sixty one. Senator Harvin, you may approach the podium.

Thank you, mister chairman. I appreciate the man from, Coweta County. We pass on the highway together. Do we not?

We do. I'd probably pass you, but I

thought I was driving faster.

You probably leave before me, but I'll pass pass you anyway.

This is a bill for the magistrate judges. It does not involve any state funds at all. It is simply changes in their, retirement plan. It changes the makeup of the board. It also increases the membership dues.

It, also allows for early retirement at 65, but with a reduction, for each, year earlier than 60, a 3% reduction. And then it changes the, multiplier effect, but there's no, dollar effect upon the state at all. And And it also has got the actuarial certification that it does not affect the, quality of the plan and the, stability of the plan.

K. And got a question here from chairman Kauser.

Thank you, mister chairman. I guess it's my day to ask questions. You said two things there. Can they now retire before 65? Yes.

So that what it

what's this change then?

This moves that to 55, but 60 was the normal. And what happens if you do that, there's a 3% reduction for each year you retire earlier than 60.

As of today, you can can I follow-up? As of today, you can can retire at age 60? Correct. And what's 65 got to do with it? You

That does does not. In this bill, that's not addressing that, that piece.

Maybe you said 55.

55.

Okay. So 60 today, and now you Going to 55.

50. But a 3% reduction each year that you do that prior to 60. So someone that, let's say, does five years, they've got a 15% overall reduction, 3% per

year. K.

Alright. Any further questions? Alright. Good job. Thank you, sir.

Alright. Senator Hatchett, you got two bills. You can cover them both, senate bill three eighty four and senate bill three ninety eight.

Thank you, mister Three

eighty four, we've heard, so you can be brief.

Yeah. Three eighty four is a bill that will allow consumers in Georgia when they go to get their, tag for the vehicle to purchase a five year tag instead of a one year tag.

I do have a question on that.

Okay.

What about in areas where you're part of the MPO as required by federal law and you gotta take the emissions test yearly. How does how will that work?

So I work closely over the past six months with the Department of Revenue and the Department of Driver Services. When you buy a five year tag, it's completely optional. Optional. And what you do when you buy the five year tag is you opt in automatically to an electronic notification, and you still will have to fulfill the requirement to get your emissions tested. And if you don't, you'll be electronically notified that your tag is expired.

So the rules don't change. The only thing that changes is that you if you choose the five year tag, you will opt in to the electronic notification system.

Okay. Sir, again, you got a question?

Yes, sir. Thank you, mister chairman. Senator, one of the things that, people have really good driving records around Atlanta, and I always worry when I get here, am I gonna be able to drive my vehicle for five years? So they, because somebody might take it out in an accident. What happens in that case with the when you bought a five year tag, does it you buy another vehicle, does it go to the new vehicle?

How does that work?

So there are already laws on the books right now. If you were to be in a car accident now, you'll be able to transfer your tag to the new car you purchased if it's the same type of vehicle. This does not change that. If you have a five year tag and it's in an accident in year three, you buy a new car that's the same, the same kind. You know, you don't buy a commercial vehicle if you have a regular vehicle.

You you will be able to transfer it.

Yes. And if somebody eliminates a vehicle, you know, in their fleet or in their thing, what happens with that? They just lose the money?

There are no refunds. That's right. You choose to opt in and then, you know, you pay a $120 instead of 20, and you don't get a refund if you decide to drop a vehicle.

Is there a discount for buying a volume? There are no discounts. Five years versus one one at a time?

No. You pay the same rate. It's completely optional, and it's honestly just a convenience.

The discount is the time you save going to the DMV. Yep. If you don't do it online, which is available. Senator Jackson.

Yes. Thank you, mister Sherman. So, can you just help me understand this? So would you just automatically get a sticker in the mail when renewal comes? Like, how how would that process work?

Or does the tag? I'm just wondering for law enforcement purposes or tag readers, how will they know, that your tag is valid and that you've done the emissions check if you're in an emissions check location?

So it would not change the system at all as it is. The only thing that would change is instead of having a green there's like a a rotation of colors for the year. This will have its own stand alone color.

Got it.

It's completely up to the Department of, revenue, but I have requested, at the request of my daughters that it be hot pink.

Love it. And then to the emissions piece, though, how would a law enforcement officer know about looking at the tag that you've complied with the yearly emissions?

Same way they do now.

No. Right now, they look at the color of your tag, and they see that you have an expired tag, which then prompts them to do their other checks. But if you if your tag's not gonna expire, then there's no there's there would be no if they don't have a visible signal to say, oh, this tag is expired. I better check to see if they did their emissions test. There's no there's no visible thing there to to

I see

what you're saying. So if in in that case, they would have to go off of their their tag readers, which I think a lot of them do now. I think the the color system now, while it is used, I don't think it's the primary, system that law enforcement officers use now.

Okay.

Thank you.

Is that okay.

Senator Robertson.

Who? Senator and Wells. Correct. The the everything's electronic. It goes into the system.

The the you could lose the sticker and all this. The the tag readers read the tag, go into the system, tell us whether the tag is is good or inactive. And based on what the senator's testified to, if you refused or failed to get the emissions, they would suspend the tag in the system. Therefore, when the tag reader read it, it would show the tag as suspended.

That's right. Yep.

So that hot pink, would it be a hunter safety hot pink?

I think that's fluorescent.

Ah. Yeah.

K. But it could be.

Alright. Let's move on to s b three ninety eight.

Okay. S b three ninety eight is, a bill that would create a felony for someone to take a photograph of a real person and use AI to generate pornographic or obscene material.

K. Questions? Senator Kauser, you like you? Kinda itchy today. I like it.

I like it. Senator Cowzer's watching. That's a warning for all y'all about to come before this distinguished committee. Alright. No questions.

Thank you, mister

chairman. You, senator Hatchett. Senator Burns.

How are

you today, mister chairman?

I'm doing very well, mister chairman. Thank you very much. Committee, we've looked at this before. It's senate bill 400. It's an agency bill from the Georgia Nonpublic Postsecondary Education Commission.

It expands their ability to protect Georgia students. It provides some, protections for the tuition guarantee trust fund and for student records. I'd appreciate your favorable consideration. Let's get it on the floor and get it out of here.

Any questions? Senator Kouser?

Not on

this one, mister chairman.

Alright. Alright. Alright. I just wanna be

Thank you, mister chairman.

You get first right of refusal today.

Thinking of one for me.

Alright. Senator Goodman. Well, hold on. Let me queue up your walk up music. Okay.

It's done.

I was I was hoping for a little bit of Elvis, mister chairman. Senate bill four thirty

five He left the building.

He hasn't he's left the building. He has. This simple name change bill, and it's really, something that is threatening a mistake that

I did.

The legislature made sixty six years ago. And, I can go into detail on that if anybody would like. But, at any rate, we're simply adding, agriculture back into the naming of the Georgia Development Authority. It was originally the Georgia Livestock Development Authority. And if you want me to explain why we're doing this or what the mistake was, I'm glad to.

Or

I don't. But does anybody else Yeah. Senator Kauser?

He was just on tune up.

Okay. Alright. He's queued up. Any questions? Alright.

We're good. Thank you. Alright. And I didn't mean to, but SB 405. I accidentally skipped that.

Thank you, mister chairman. Members of the committee, s p four zero five is a bill that takes the maximum threshold for claims and small claims court from $15,000 and allows claims up to $50,000. Oh, yeah. This was changed the last time twenty eight years ago. It was changed in 1998 session.

It was last time it was tripled from 5 to 15,000. And what it simply does is citizens of ours need to be able to represent themselves in small claims court without hiring an attorney, allows regular individuals represent themselves. As as you right now, people who have a $2,530,000 dollar claim, they have to spend $1,015,000 dollars for legal counsel to solve an issue. This allows them to put facts in front of the judge and get something solved in a streamlined process. That's what it does.

K. Yeah. Senator Kauser, I know you have a question.

I've I've got a couple for you if you don't mind, sir. I've missed the vote in judiciary, but in our folders was a letter from the state court judges opposing the bill. And they said they opposed the bill last year, raising it from 15 to 25,000. Some of them opposed anything, but a lot of them opposed going to 50 because your insurance only covers up to 25. You're because your insurance only covers up to 25, your minimum insurance.

And these judges, a lot of them aren't even lawyers. So you're not getting a jury trial and you might be personally held responsible for, you know, 25,000 above your own insurance.

Well, I mean, the the question is, first of all, master court judges make determinations on probable cause of murder cases. And these are not people that are just, you know, little league baseball coaches and don't have any legal background. These are former law enforcement officers. In the case they're not attorneys, they have they they have an intimate understanding of our system. There's not a specific requirement because some communities choose to use, again, law enforcement folks versus attorneys to be mandatory court judges.

But they are they are making probable cause determinations on murder and felony cases. So these are not legal neophytes for sure. But what it is is it allows folks to come in and and bring in a fact specific case, to put the facts before a judge. Right now, no matter how simple or how fact specific it is, you cannot bring any claim above $15,000. Now state court judges may I can't get inside their thinking about case load.

I think it's if it if it decreases their case load, I think that's probably not a bad thing. But I will tell you right now that, to have to secure an attorney is a big cost for a homeowner. One very important thing for members to understand too that we didn't have time to talk about this in committee is as a business owner, if you have an LLC that owns a house, you may not represent yourself pro se in state court. No matter how simple it is, you can't go and put a case in front of a judge in state court even as an LLC. It's prohibited by law.

You can do that in match court. If it is a fact specific case, it allows a streamlined process to have and it's very important for access to justice. It doesn't pay attorneys. It keeps allows individuals represent themselves.

One follow-up.

You may be aware that in magistrate courts, you're not allowed to conduct discovery. You can't send interrogatories or request for production of documents or take depositions to prepare for trial. You can't learn about previous medical conditions, about what medical treatment somebody received it, for example, in a personal injury case. So you're basically going in there blind and now being held up to 50,000 responsible without a jury. And these magistrates, by the way, they don't give a verdict on those killers.

They just say there's probable cause to go to a jury. Correct.

But but you also understand that if there's a every case that goes to master court is appealable to a state or a superior court. So there are evidentiary concerns the judge has. The judge says, wait. I can't sort this out. I'm not comfortable with the documents that are put in front of me.

That can get kicked to state in superior court easily. The challenge is, though, on simple cases of a certain dollar threshold, no matter how simple they are, they cannot be adjudicated without going to those higher courts. And that cost a lot of money for people to solve very simple things.

You wanna be in court all day? You got another follow-up?

I'll save them

for the floor if it makes it. And, so I just I felt like we addressed every single question the state court judges raised. And, again, I've got I've had master court judges call me off the record that they weren't speaking for their circuit for themselves publicly. They said, yeah. This is the right thing.

This is the right thing to do. There's a lot of cases. I mean, you take somebody I mean, the average cost of a car is $50,000 now. You take somebody who's trying to get their house renovated, the roofing and siding in their house, the contractor walks off and doesn't doesn't deliver the job. You have to go to state court to to to solve a roofing issue dispute.

If if you're getting a roof put on your house, shouldn't have to do that. You should be able to go to a small claims court and make that claim, and all we're doing is change the dollar threshold.

Senator Robertson and senator Jackson.

Senator Seltzer, I wanna start out by saying I like your bill. Yes. Remind me, what's the current threshold cap in state court on civil?

Well, for for magistrate court

No. No. State court.

The state court level above what we're talking about? I don't I don't even know that first.

Okay. Thanks. Yeah. Appreciate that.

Senator Jackson.

I don't I

don't think there's a gap yet.

This question is may I ask senator Kauser since you brought this up, or can I only ask him? I'll ask him and

let's see if he can answer the question.

Yeah. Uh-huh.

And then

he can he can tell him something, and then he can ask.

So there was a question about, raise around insurance for I assume magistrate judges, are only covered up to $25,000. So I just wanna be clear before I get in trouble in DeKalb County. Are there any magistrate judges who have been on the record saying that they are in support of this bill, and have any of them named the issue around insurance and how they might fill that gap.

No. Let me let me let me be very clear. I have not stated specific magistrate court judges in public support. That's why I was very clear about that. I've and individuals come to me and tell me this is this is I'm on exactly the right track.

But there's none on the record.

Not not that they wouldn't. I've not asked them to, but there's no. No. There there there are none on the record that have that have said, hey. This this because this is not a a a court opinion.

So for or against it.

What's that?

For or against it?

They've not I've not I've not asked them to comment on it. I don't wanna create a war between judicial groups.

Either way.

This this is an issue that comes on on behalf of constituents. Out to your your question of insurance, a false premise was put out there that said, well, wait a minute. You know, insurance is only at this this level for for car insurance. Therefore, we actually be limited to that. That's tying back to something you know, there was some discussion twenty eight years ago.

Hey. What's what's the threshold for for the minimum threshold of car insurance? We need to create some linkage there. That's a false linkage. This is not about what the maximum amount or the minimum amount of car insurance is for for for a motorist.

It's for me, what's the cost of a car? The average car is about $50,000 now. The the cost of putting a roof and siding on your house is around $50. Those kinds of things folks ought to be protected from. If they're screwed by somebody, a contractor putting a roof on or siding on their house faulty, that'll be on a small plane go to small claims court, lay very simple facts out, and and get a ruling without hiring an attorney for $15,000.

Senator, have you ever heard of Wright said Fred?

No, sir.

He's a old singer. When you said it was the right thing to do, I thought about calling you right, said Ed.

Thank you, sir.

Any other questions? Alright. Good job.

Thank

you, mister chairman. Alright. Senator Kirkpatrick, s b four forty four.

Thank you, mister chair. This is a consumer protection bill. It has to do with prior authorization, and it says that if AI is used, a human clinical peer must be part of the process before an adverse determination. That's all it does.

Any questions? Hearing none. Okay. Representative Seeball, did you have something?

I don't see it on the sheet, but I'm happy to present two bills.

It's up to you. I will I will allow. Just be brief because you're not on the sheet. That's never too early to lobby.

Be brief. Thank you. I've got House Bill 61. It's a squatter, reform act. It clarifies Georgia law to close loopholes exploited by criminal squatters and bad actors.

The bill protects lawful tenants and paying hotel guests while restoring clear authority for property owners and law enforcement to address unlawful occupancy. Appreciate your full consideration on that.

Alright. Thank you, sir. Just so you kinda know the status, we're we're kinda focusing on senate bills just because we're we got a shot clock.

I understand.

Y'all do not at the moment, but we are sprinkling in some house bills. So

Okay.

You can never too early to be lobbying the committee. Thank you.

I've got one more if I can.

You might wanna hold it.

Alright.

Let's not press our luck. Alright. Let's pick a few. Alright. We left off.

Did he use his ding ding? He used it.

Okay. Alright. So we'll do that. Alright. Senator Gooch.

But I like my ag people so much. I think I'll pick senate bill 435.

430 My

sweet mate. 5

for the Elvis impersonator. Alright. 435. Alright. Send her again.

I'm not sure if it's a good idea, but I'm a pick s b 384 to get my tag for five years. I hopefully, I can keep my car

that long.

What if you pay for your senate tag and then you lose?

Yeah.

Has anybody thought about that?

You get us do you get

I mean, I was thinking about that. You get a suit There might better be a two year two year option. A little presumptuous if if any of us go with a five year. Just saying.

Floor amendment.

Floor amendment. Floor amendment coming. Alright. That's probably good for tomorrow. Alright.

I've got senate bill three eighty four and senate bill four thirty five. What is the will of the committee?

No, man.

I got a motion from my vice chairman.

Second.

I got a second from senator Anderson. Sure. Is he still our secretary? Have we fired him? No.

Okay. I I ask that about every other meeting, don't I? Okay. We got a motion, a second. Any further discussion?

All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no. Motion carries unanimous. Meeting adjourned.