Georgia Legislative Review 2023
Editors Joseph L. Jones Nykia Greene-Young
Georgia Legislative Review 2023
Copyright (c) 2023 by W.E.B Du Bois Southern Center for Studies in Public Policy, Clark Atlanta University. Digitally published in Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America. All rights reserved. The opinions herein do not necessarily reflect those of Clark Atlanta University. The mention of specific products or services within this publication does not constitute or imply a recommendation or endorsement by Clark Atlanta University or the W.E.B. Du Bois Southern Center for Studies in Public Policy unless so explicitly stated. All trademarks, copyrights, and corporate logos revert to their respective owners. Aside from the downloadable copies for personal use, this document may only be reproduced, transmitted, sold, or displayed with prior written approval from the W.E.B. Du Bois Southern Center for Studies of Public Policy of Clark Atlanta University. For citation purposes, researchers and students should use the following format:
Joseph Jones and Nykia Greene-Young. Georgia Legislative Review 2023. (Atlanta: W.E.B. Du Bois Southern Center for Studies in Public Policy, 2023 www.cauduboispolicycenter.org/glr2023
Table of Contents 01
Executive Summary
02
Diversity
03
Budget & Taxes
04
Criminal Justice
05
Education
06
Health & Human Services
07
Other Issues
08
Legislative Ratings
GEORGIA LEGISLATIVE REVIEW 2023 W.E.B. DU BOIS SOUTHERN CENTER FOR STUDIES IN PUBLIC POLICY
Contributors Joseph Jones, Ph.D., is the Director of the W.E.B Du Bois Southern Center for Studies in Public Policy and Associate Professor of Political Science at Clark Atlanta University (CAU). Alexis Harris, Ph.D., is the founder of the Madam Speaker Institute for Political Communications and an Adjunct Professor of Political Science at Clark Atlanta University (CAU). Jeffrey Williams, M.A., is a sociologist with the Technical Colleges and Schools of Georgia and has considerable experience in public policy research. Celeste White, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Clark Atlanta University (CAU). Jarrod K. Grant, M.A., ABD., is an Educator and Adjunct Professor of Political Science at Clark Atlanta University (CAU). Pilar Jackson, B.S., is a Public Health Professional and the Training and Technical Assistance Program Manager for the African American Behavioral Health Center of Excellence for the National Primary Care Center at Morehouse School of Medicine. Nykia Greene-Young, M.A., ABD., is the Domestic Policy Coordinator of the W.E.B Du Bois Southern Center for Studies in Public Policy and Adjunct Professor of Political Science at Clark Atlanta University (CAU). Klaudette Spencer, Graduate Fellow at the W.E.B Du Bois Southern Center for Studies in Public Policy. Angelica Inesia-Forde, Ph.D., Public Policy Research Consultant.
Executive Summary The Georgia Legislative Review (GLR), an institutional pillar in Georgia politics for over four decades. Emerging from a decade-long hiatus, the GLR is reinvigorated and positioned to provide insightful analysis during a period when Georgia’s political sway has become integral to national elections. In the aftermath of the 2020 election, Georgia’s significance has risen exponentially, casting the state into a pivotal role in shaping the national political landscape. The GLR seeks to illuminate this dynamic landscape, with a specific focus on the far-reaching implications of legislative decisions on Black citizens. Departing from its previous scope, the GLR now exclusively assesses bills and policies impacting Black communities, aligning with the new mission of the Du Bois Policy Center. This edition thoughtfully covers a diverse spectrum of policy issues, shedding light on critical challenges facing Black communities. Dr. Harris delves into the evolving role of diversity in the Georgia Legislative, while Mr. Jeffery Williams critically examines the Surplus Tax Refund and Omnibus Tax Bill, probing their effectiveness in addressing income inequality within the state. Dr. Celeste White offers a cautionary perspective on the Street Gang Terrorism Act, anticipating increased over-policing in Black communities. The report also meticulously analyzes educational bills, health and human services policies, and addresses issues impacting transgender communities, affordable housing, and homelessness. The GLR’s rating chapter evaluates legislators based on their voting records on thirteen significant bills affecting Black communities. These assessments are comprehensive, including breakdowns by party, gender, and race, thereby providing readers with robust data for informed analysis. This condensed edition serves as a prelude to an expanded report slated for May 2024. As we navigate the complex landscape of redistricting efforts and a special session prompted by federal intervention to address marginalized Black voters, the GLR remains steadfast in its commitment to providing timely and relevant research to enhance the lives of Black individuals in Georgia and the broader South. In conclusion, we express our gratitude for the continued support, eagerly anticipating our next comprehensive report. This forthcoming edition will provide updates on redistricting efforts and delve even deeper into the intricacies of policy-making in Georgia. The GLR is honored to be back, contributing valuable insights to benefit the people of Georgia and addressing the pressing challenges arising from the redistricting process. Dr. Joseph L. Jones Executive Director GEORGIA LEGISLATIVE REVIEW 2023
DIVERSITY
Diversity Alexis Harris
Introduction The idea of diverse representation in the political process is one of immense significance, especially in the American South. Diverse representation in government allows for those who make decisions at the political table to speak for the communities they serve. Nowhere is this notion more crucial than in the deep American South, where a dark history of racism through Jim Crow laws has cast a long shadow over the political landscape. Figure 1. Active Voters in Georgia by Race as of December 2021
Georgia Active Voters Report, https://sos.ga.gov/georgia-active-voters-report Despite the racist history in the American South, the Georgia General Assembly is more diverse than ever in terms of race and gender. As indicated in Figure 1, the majority of Georgia’s active voters as of December 2021 were white (53%) and Black (29%).[i] The Georgia Active Voters Report also showed at least 53% of the state’s active voting population are female. In a representative democracy where citizens can select their desired political leaders through formal elections, a vote is a display of confidence in a candidate's ability to carry out the will of the people. Candidates run on platforms that allow those in their district to understand how they
GEORGIA LEGISLATIVE REVIEW 2023
may vote on key issues. Yet, these platforms are only predictions. Voters have no way of knowing what will emerge from their leaders, but the allure of diversity—even if it is only a façade—typically pacifies any unease. Diversity matters in the American South and in states like Georgia, which had the largest number of Black women in its state legislature in 2021. But what happens when a Black woman runs as a Democrat for the Georgia General Assembly in an Atlanta-based district, and then completely changes her party affiliation? This article briefly explores the evolution of diversity in the Georgia state legislature, implications of symbolic representation, and what it means for one Democrat to become the state's first Black woman to serve as a Republican in the Georgia General Assembly. Brief History The state of Georgia, founded in 1777, has a rich and complex history when it comes to political representation. Since its inception, the Georgia General Assembly was predominantly composed of white men. However, this dynamic began to change as the Reconstruction era unfolded, resulting in increased representation for Black lawmakers. In 1868, a momentous event occurred as 33 Black men were elected to the Georgia General Assembly.[iii] Soon after, their white peers expelled them, citing constitutional limitations that barred Black men from holding office. Despite this setback, the 15th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guaranteed black men the right to vote could not be denied based on race, was ratified, leading to the reinstatement of these Black lawmakers. Yet, even after this progress, the Jim Crow laws emerged and had a devastating impact on electoral progress for the Black communities in Georgia. It was not until 1962 that State Senator Leroy Johnson made history by becoming Georgia’s first Black senator since Reconstruction. The true diversification of the Georgia legislature occurred in 1965, a significant turning point in the state's history. Civil rights leader Julian Bond and Grace Towns Hamilton were elected to the Georgia House of Representatives, breaking nearly a century of exclusively white representation. Their election marked a significant step toward building a legislature that was more reflective of the diverse population it served. In 1975, the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus was established, making it the largest state legislative Black Caucus in the nation. This marked a concerted effort to further promote diversity and ensure that the voices of Black lawmakers were heard and respected within the legislative process. More recently, in 2023, the Georgia General Assembly experienced another important transformation in its composition. Out of its 236 members, a notable 85 legislators were of Hispanic, Black, Asian, or Arab descent, accounting for 36% of the total. This demographic shift was seen as a significant step forward in diversifying the legislative body and ensuring that the voices of various racial and ethnic communities were represented. As Aaleah McConnell noted in the Georgia Recorder, this change brought about the formation of Hispanic and Asian American Pacific Islander (AAPI) caucuses, similar to those that already existed for women and Black lawmakers.
GEORGIA LEGISLATIVE REVIEW 2023
Figure 2. Diversity in Georgia’s General Assembly
Impact on Black Communities The presence of Black women in elected office has had a profound impact on Black communities and the broader political landscape. Moreover, Black women in positions of power has broadened access to that power for some of the most marginalized groups in American society. This is particularly important because Black women are positioned to address issues that often go overlooked otherwise. Likewise, when Black people are in positions of power, they tend to shed light on issues of race, injustice, inequity, and brutality. Black lawmakers often bring a unique perspective to the political process, which can lead to more equitable policies and greater awareness of systemic issues. However, when an elected official is both Black and female, they are uniquely positioned to analyze issues at the intersection of race and gender. This dual perspective can lead to more comprehensive and effective policy solutions. In 2021, the Georgia General Assembly was home to the largest percentage of Black women in a state legislature. This was an important development because scholars have noted the tendency of Black women to serve as pillars and change-makers in their communities in terms of the issues they bring to the table when they hold elective office. When women are in positions of decision-making authority, they typically address things that are overlooked otherwise. This includes family issues, education, healthcare, wage gaps, sexual oppression, and more. When Black people are in positions of power, they typically shed light on issues of race, injustice, inequity, and brutality. In this context, the presence of Black women in elected office is not just about representation; it is about making tangible changes and improvements in the lives of the people they serve. The intersectionality of their experiences enables them to address complex issues in a holistic manner, which is essential in creating a more just and equitable society. Conclusion: Diversity in Identity, Not Ideology Georgians in District 56 believed they were electing a Black woman to represent their ideologies in the Georgia General Assembly. Representative Mainor, an African American woman, had been elected as a Democrat, and her election was seen as a step towards greater diversity and representation in the state legislature.
The Republican Party, with Representative Mainor’s switch, proudly touted the inclusion of a Black woman in their institution. The Republican Party has expanded in terms of diversity of identity, but the presence of this Black woman will not change the Republican Party because her blackness and femaleness will be subsumed under the larger priorities of the Republican agenda. This situation raises an important question about what diversity truly means in the political context. Does diversity in identity, such as race and gender, equate to diversity in ideology and policy positions? It wouldn’t be surprising to see a discussion surrounding the accountability of candidates to maintain their designated party affiliations throughout their two-year term. Representative Mainor claimed that her decision to change parties was a moral one, but it was still met with significant backlash and criticism, particularly from her Democratic constituents. The constituents who elected her as a Democrat expected her to represent their interests and adhere to the values and policy positions of the Democratic Party. This situation underscores the need for elected officials to be accountable to the voters who elected them. When voters cast their ballots, they essentially transfer power to the candidates they trust to represent their interests and values. The assumption is that the person elected will keep the promises made on the campaign trail and work towards their party's goals and policy positions. The situation with Representative Mainor raises questions about the integrity of the political process. If an elected official can easily change their party affiliation, it could lead to a sense of betrayal among voters. This is particularly concerning at a time when trust in the American political process is already facing challenges. In conclusion, diversity in identity, such as race and gender, is undoubtedly important in the political landscape. It is essential to ensure that all voices are heard and represented. However, diversity in identity must be accompanied by diversity in ideology and policy positions to truly represent the constituents' interests.
NOTES
11Alive Staff, “Georgia House rep leaves Democratic Party, citing school choice disagreement,”https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/meisha-mainor-georgia-houserep-leaves-democrats-joins-republican-party/85-8d1e4c36-bdb7-4641-934e-3b1ea83044f9. July 11, 2023. Carter, Doreen, “The History of African Americans in the Georgia General Assembly,” Savannah Tribune, July 19, 2023, https://www.savannahtribune.com/articles/the-history-ofafrican-americans-in-the-georgia-general-assembly/ McConnell, Aaleah. Listen up: new wave of Georgia lawmakers accents state’s shifting demographics, Georgia Recorder, March 20, 2023, https://georgiarecorder.com/brief/listenup-new-wave-of-georgia-lawmakers-accents-states-shifting-demographics/ Niesse, Mark. “Georgia Ranked as a Top State for Early Voting Turnout,” Atlanta Journal-Constitution, July 5, 2023, https://www.ajc.com/politics/georgia-ranked-as-a-topstate-for-early-voting-turnout-in-federal-report/OFQPMC7PQ5ASFBNJ2MNJF3ZUOA/ “New class of Georgia state lawmakers grows more diverse,” Associated Press, January 10, 2023, https://www.wabe.org/new-class-of-georgia-state-lawmakers-grows-more-diverse/ Taylor Reimann, “Georgia leads the nation in Black female legislators,” Georgia Public Broadcasting, November 16, 2021, https://www.gpb.org/news/2021/11/16/georgia-leads-thenation-in-black-female-legislators “Women Officeholders by Race and Ethnicity,” Center for American Women and Politics, accessed July 14, 2023, https://cawp.rutgers.edu/facts/women-officeholders-race-andethnicity
Budget &Taxes
2023 GEORGIA LEGILATIVE REVIEW GEORGIA LEGISLATIVE REVIEW 2023
Budget & Taxes Jeffrey Williams
Introduction The state budget, a critical legislative action undertaken by the Georgia General Assembly, serves as the centerpiece of the governor’s vision for the state. It outlines the governor’s priorities, detailing how the state intends to allocate funds and raise revenue. In 2024, Governor Kemp set revenue goals lower than those of the previous year. The state has experienced budget surpluses for the fiscal years 2022 and 2023, with General Fund revenue increasing by over 1% in 2023. By mid-2023, the state projected a collection of $32.6 billion, resulting in a surplus of $2.4 billion. This substantial surplus bolstered Georgia’s rainy day fund, indicating a robust economy despite the challenges of inflation and rising interest rates. As a result, Governor Kemp called for increased spending in FY 2023 but advocated for a more conservative budget in FY 2024. A Brief History of the Budget Annually, the Georgia General Assembly passes two appropriations bills, one amending the current fiscal year (AFY) and the other for the upcoming fiscal year (FY). During the budget process, the Governor is legally mandated to set the revenue estimate, which serves as the foundation for the state’s spending decisions. In his budget report for FY 2023, Governor Kemp proposed a spending plan of $32.6 billion in state tax revenue, marking a 7.3% increase from the initial projection. This increase aimed to fund a two-billion-dollar tax cut, maintain spending in the FY 2024 budget, and provide pay raises for state and university employees and public school teachers. The legislative branch used this report as a basis for crafting an appropriations bill for FY 2024, resulting in House Bill 19 (HB 19). HB 19: FY 2024 Budget Bill During the 2023 legislative session, HB 19, sponsored by Burns, Jones, Efstration, and Hatchett, was passed for the state’s 2024 fiscal year and subsequently signed into law by Governor Kemp. The FY 2024 budget allocated significant resources to the priority areas of health and education. In the House’s version of the bill, a $1 billion property tax cut and a $1 billion income tax cut were approved, along with a shift of $100 million into employee health insurance to ease the burden of rising premiums for public school districts. Additionally, the House approved $14.5 million for a one-time $250 bonus payments to 55,000 retired state employees. The bill also allocated funds for various investments in technology, capital projects, safety and security, economic development, and human capital. However, the House rejected Governor Kemp’s proposal to provide $25 million in grants to school systems for addressing missed learning opportunities, instead redirecting the funds to school security grants.
The FY 2024 budget allocated 53% of its funding to education, 24% to health and human services, 7% to public safety, 7% to transportation, and 9% to economic development and general government services. The bill’s total spending provision was $32.4 billion, with significant highlights, including salary increases for law enforcement, K-12 teachers, certain state employees, and full funding for the HOPE scholarship program. In the realm of education, the bill raised Georgia school teachers’ annual average salary to $61,000 and their base pay to $41,092, which ranked as the highest in the Southeast. The budget also included a $20.6 million allocation for a $2,000 raise for pre-K teachers and a $1,000 raise for school custodians. School nutrition workers, bus drivers, and school nurses received a 5.1% pay raise, and $27 million was allocated to recruit school counselors. Additionally, $13.1 billion in state funds was earmarked to fully fund the Quality Basic Education formula. House Bill 19 also included a provision for free breakfast and lunch for school children, a significant step to provide over 17 million free meals to low-income public school students. This initiative aimed to address childhood food insecurity, which disproportionately affects economic and racial minorities. To enhance women’s health, the FY 2024 budget allocated an additional $50,000 for feminine hygiene grants to mitigate the rising costs of feminine hygiene products, which disproportionately affect minority students. The budget also supported the expansion of the Helping Hands Ending Hunger program (HEHP) with $200,000 to address food insecurity issues among students, especially in Black communities. The budget-maintained funding for the Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change, contributing to the promotion of racial equality and social change in Atlanta. It also provided funds to expand 2-1-1 in rural Georgia to connect individuals and families to essential local resources and services, which are crucial for addressing poverty, mental health challenges, and access to healthcare.
2023 GEORGIA LEGILATIVE REVIEW
In terms of maternal health, the budget allocated $42.2 million to Medicaid providers, with a focus on primary care and OB/GYN providers, along with $1.7 million to support home visitation programs in disadvantaged rural communities, aiming to reduce preterm deliveries and maternal mortality, particularly among Black women. To foster educational achievements, the budget included $12 million in lottery funds for the College Completion Grant program, offering needs-based financial aid to eligible students. Additionally, it provided $50.2 million in lottery funds for HOPE Scholarships and grants, which alleviated the financial burden on minority students seeking higher education. In an effort to support teen development, the bill allocated funds to operate behavioral health crisis centers and provide alternative housing options for youth with complex needs in the care of the Division of Family and Children Services. These measures aimed to address issues affecting minority youth, including sex trafficking, which disproportionately impacts minority populations. Impact on Black Communities While these budget provisions represent positive steps, the impact on Black communities varies. The increase in funding for HOPE scholarships, special education, feminine hygiene, and maternal health serves as a promising development. The budget acknowledges the unique challenges faced by Black communities and provides targeted support in critical areas. For example, the provision for special education funding addresses the needs of African American children who are more likely to have intellectual and developmental disabilities. This funding can alleviate pressures on African American parents and improve the education of minority students in public schools. The allocation for feminine hygiene products acknowledges the disproportionate burden faced by minority girls and women in terms of “period poverty,” which affects school attendance and overall well-being. Additionally, the commitment to maternal health addresses the alarming maternal mortality rates among minority women, particularly Black women. The expansion of the College Completion Grant program and increased funding for HOPE Scholarships and grants aim to increase access to higher education for Black students, potentially reducing the racial wealth gap. However, it is essential to recognize that these measures may not fully address the complex issues of racial inequality and disparities in education. Challenges and Concerns Despite these positive measures, there are notable challenges and concerns within the budget. The reduction in funding for the University System of Georgia (USG) and limited increases for technical schools may hinder the economic opportunities of Black students in colleges and universities with significant minority populations. These institutions, such as Albany State, Fort Valley State, Atlanta Metropolitan State, and Georgia Gwinnett College, may face financial strains that impact Black student access to education. Tax policy also plays a crucial role in shaping the budget’s impact on Black communities. The state budget primarily relies on revenue generated from taxes, including personal income tax, sales and use tax, fees, motor fuel tax, and corporate income tax. Legislative actions related to taxes can have far-reaching consequences.
Senate Bill 56 (SB 56) is an omnibus tax bill that incorporates several provisions, including changes to the state’s standard deduction, income tax rate reductions, and the imposition of sales tax on digital goods and services. While SB 56 includes provisions that benefit various taxpayers, the distribution of these benefits is not always equitable, potentially exacerbating racial and income disparities. House Bill 581 (HB 581) focuses on the economic analysis of tax credits and exemptions. While it aims to improve transparency in tax policy, the limitations it imposes on economic analyses may hinder the assessment of exemptions that disproportionately affect Black communities. Finally, House Bill 162 (HB 162) provides a one-time income tax refund, benefiting many Georgia residents. However, the distribution of these refunds may not equally benefit Black communities, potentially widening racial wealth disparities. Conclusion The Georgia state budget for FY 2024 reflects both positive steps and areas of concern regarding its impact on Black communities. While it allocates significant funding to critical areas like education, health, and social services, challenges remain, particularly in the realms of higher education and tax policy. The failure to address key issues, such as taxes on tobacco and vaping products that disproportionately affect minority health, raises questions about the budget’s priorities. Redirecting resources from programs and services that support working families may hinder efforts to reduce disparities across income, race, and ethnicity. It is evident that the Georgia General Assembly had significant opportunities to address the long-standing needs of African Americans and minority communities, particularly given the substantial surplus in the state’s reserves. While the budget makes strides in addressing critical issues, it falls short of fully meeting the diverse needs of Georgia’s population. The state’s commitment to education, health, and social services is commendable, but more comprehensive and equitable measures are required to ensure that Black communities benefit equitably from the state’s resources. A holistic approach that tackles systemic disparities and fosters economic opportunity is essential for achieving a fair and just society in Georgia.
NOTES Amy, Jeff., “Georgia taxes fall in April, but budget picture still bright,” Associated Press. May 9, 2023. Associated Press, “Georgia House passes Amended Budget with cash for tax breaks,” Atlanta News First., February 2, 2023. Associated Press, “Georgia House passes Amended Budget with Cash for Tax Breaks,” March 30, 2023 Cronin, Julie-Anne., DeFilippes, Portia, and Fisher, Robin., “Working Paper 122 Tax Expenditures by Race and Hispanic Ethnicity: An Application of the U.S. Treasury Department’s Race and Hispanic Ethnicity Imputation,” The Office of Tax Analysis. January 2023 https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/WP-122. Feeding Georgia, “Children,” https://feedinggeorgia.org/#:~:text=More%20than%20half%20a%20million,on%20their%20health%20a nd%20future. Feeding Georgia, “Why we Do It,” https://feedinggeorgia.org/. Hernandez, Natalie D., Aina, Angela D., Baker, L, Joy, Blake, Sarah C., and Others, “Maternal Health Equity in Georgia: A Delphi Consensus Approach to Definition and Research Priorities,” BMC Public Health. March 30, 2023, https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889023-15395-3. House Budget and Research Office, “Fiscal Year 2024 State Budget: HB19 Conference Committee Highlights,” March 29, 2023. House Budget and Research Office, “2023 Session: Way and Means Legislative Highlights,” Georgia General Assembly - Legislation Search (ga.gov)
Kanso, Danny., Georgia Revenue Primer for State Fiscal Year 2024,” Georgia Revenue Primer for State Fiscal Year 2024. June 27. 2023. Krumperman, Katie., “Period Poverty in the United States,” Ballard Brief, Vol. 2023, Issue. February 2023. Nolin, Jill., “Governor Warns of Budget ‘Holes’ After Georgia Lawmakers Sign Off on New Spending Plan?” Georgia Recorder. March 30,2023 Office of Special Program, “OSEP Fast Facts: Black or African American Children With Disabilities,” August 26, 2020 https://sites.ed.gov/idea/osep-fast-facts-black-or-african-american-children-with-disabilities-20/. Powell, Stephany., “Sex Trafficking in the African American Community is a Human Rights Violation,” National Center on Sexual Exploitation. February 1, 2023. https://endsexualexploitation.org/articles/human-trafficking-in-the-african-american-community-is-ahuman-rights-violation/ Schaefer, David, “Sine Die 2023 Recap,” March 31. 2023. United Health Foundation, “Food Security in Georgia,” America’s Health Rankings https://www.americashealthrankings.org/explore/measures/food_insecurity_household/GA. University System of Georgia, “Additional State Budget Decrease of $66 Million Will Hurt University System of Georgia Institutions,” March 30, 2023 https://www.usg.edu/news/release/additional_state_budget_decrease_of_66_million_will_hurt_universit y_system_of_georgia_institutions.
Criminal Justice
GEORGIA LEGISLATIVE REVIEW 2023
Criminal Justice Celeste M. White
Introduction The year 2023 brought a substantial transformation to Georgia’s criminal justice landscape with the enactment of SB 44, also known as The Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act. On June 5, 2023, Governor Brian Kemp signed this legislation into law, marking a critical juncture in the state's continuous endeavor to address gang-related criminal activities. This law, modeled after California's 1987 Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act (STEP), is geared towards curbing street gang-related crimes, including murder, rape, burglary, and robbery, which pose a significant threat to public safety. However, a comprehensive examination of the historical backdrop, the provisions, and the societal implications of SB 44 is essential, with particular focus on its impact on Black communities within Georgia. Brief History Georgia's venture into anti-gang legislation began in 1992 with the introduction of SB 735, recognized as the Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act. This early legislation sought to criminalize active participation in criminal street gangs and set out penalties for such involvement. It marked the initial steps in addressing the budding issue of gang-related criminal activities. In the early 1990s, Eldrin Bell, serving as Atlanta’s Chief of Police, voiced concerns about the potential proliferation of gang activity in Georgia, especially in urban areas. Despite the absence of an immediate gang crisis, law enforcement argued that proactive legislation was needed to prevent the emergence of a more severe problem. Nevertheless, this approach raised concerns about potential civil rights violations and infringements on individual associations, particularly in communities already under the spotlight for crime-related issues. In 1998, Governor Zell Miller signed HB 1391, an amendment that expanded the scope of felony acts that could be prosecuted under the juvenile code. This modification shifted the focus from gang membership to a member's active engagement in criminal activities. While this amendment aimed to address concerns about potential police harassment and the arrest of minority youth, it also raised questions about its impact on civil rights and constitutional protections. Subsequent amendments introduced penalties for those who lead, recruit, and engage in acts of intimidation within gangs, with mandatory minimum sentences ranging from 2 to 5 years in prison. These measures underscored the importance of deterrence and accountability. In 2022, O.C.G.A 16-15-4 underwent further amendments through HB 1134, granting the Office of the Attorney General concurrent jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute gang activity statewide. This amendment aimed to strengthen the state's ability to enforce and prosecute violations of anti-gang laws and provided funding for the enforcement of previous iterations of the Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act.
Bill Analysis To gain a deeper understanding of SB 44’s significance, it is essential to delve into its specific provisions and their potential ramifications. Under SB 44, the act of recruiting individuals into criminal street gangs is explicitly criminalized. The legislation states that it is unlawful for any person to directly or indirectly cause, encourage, solicit, recruit, or coerce another individual to become a member or associate of a criminal street gang, participate in a criminal street gang, or engage in criminal activity. This provision reflects the legislature's determination to not only target the criminal acts of street gangs but also to dismantle the structure by stifling the recruitment process. One of the most notable aspects of SB 44 is the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences for those found guilty of violating the Act. The severity of these mandatory minimum sentences varies depending on the number of convictions. For a first conviction, an offender may face a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment ranging from five to twenty years. This sentence is to be served consecutively to any other sentence imposed, and no portion of the mandatory minimum sentence can be suspended, stayed, probated, deferred, or withheld by the sentencing court. The legislation takes an even stricter stance when the violation involves another individual who is under 17 years of age at the time of the offense. In such cases, the consequences are more severe. Upon the first conviction, the offender shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of ten years but not more than twenty years, which will be served consecutively to any other sentence imposed. In case of a second or subsequent conviction, the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment escalates to fifteen years but not more than twenty-five years. These sentencing provisions are unyielding and reflect a robust deterrent strategy against those involved in recruiting young individuals into criminal street gangs. The legislation also empowers the district attorney or prosecutor to request the sentencing court to impose a reduced or suspended sentence for individuals who have been convicted of violating this code section and who provide substantial assistance in identifying, arresting, or convicting any of their accomplices, accessories, co-conspirators, leaders, or principals. This provision incentivizes cooperation with law enforcement, potentially encouraging those within the criminal network to assist in dismantling the gang's structure.
Impact on Black Communities As with any legislation, especially one as impactful as SB 44, its potential impact on marginalized communities, particularly Black communities, becomes a critical concern. The historical context of the United States is replete with examples of laws that disproportionately affected Black individuals and communities. In the realm of criminal justice, this has often translated into overpolicing, racial profiling, and harsher sentencing for Black Americans. Critics of SB 44 argue that its strict enforcement measures may exacerbate these historical disparities, leading to the over-policing of Black communities and potentially resulting in a higher number of convictions among Black individuals. Such concerns are not unfounded. Research has consistently shown that Black Americans are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system, and this legislation may exacerbate these disparities. Additionally, there are concerns about the potential for civil rights violations. Laws that are perceived as targeting specific communities, particularly if those communities are predominantly Black, can lead to infringements on individual liberties, including the right to association, the right to due process, and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. It is imperative that the enforcement of SB 44 is carried out equitably and without racial bias, a challenge that law enforcement agencies must be vigilant in addressing. Moreover, the potential for over-policing raises a significant dilemma. While the legislation's intent is to combat gang-related activities, overzealous enforcement can lead to a breakdown of trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve. Building and maintaining trust are essential for effective policing, and any erosion of this trust can have detrimental effects on overall public safety. Finally, while SB 44 represents a significant step in Georgia's efforts to combat gang-related criminal activities, it is crucial to remain mindful of its potential impact on Black communities. The state’s commitment to public safety is clear, but it is equally important to ensure that the legislation is enforced fairly and equitably without infringing on individual rights and liberties. The delicate balance between law enforcement measures and civil rights remains a substantial challenge in the ongoing journey of anti-gang legislation in Georgia.
Conclusion As Georgia continues to grapple with the complexities of addressing gang-related criminal activities, there are several key considerations that should shape the path forward. Firstly, it is imperative to evaluate the effectiveness of anti-gang legislation critically. While tough-on-crime measures may deter some individuals from engaging in gang-related activities, they may not address the root causes that lead young individuals to join gangs. Comprehensive programs that provide alternatives to gang involvement, such as education, mentorship, and employment opportunities, are vital in tackling the issue at its core. Furthermore, law enforcement agencies must be diligent in ensuring that the enforcement of anti-gang laws is conducted without bias. This includes regular training on issues of racial and ethnic bias, as well as oversight mechanisms to prevent over-policing and civil rights violations. Community engagement and collaboration are also essential components of any successful antigang strategy. Building trust and partnerships with communities, particularly those most affected by gang-related activities, can help bridge gaps and create a more supportive environment for at-risk youth. Ultimately, anti-gang legislation must be viewed as just one facet of a multifaceted approach to tackling gang-related criminal activities. Balancing public safety with individual rights and the well-being of affected communities remains an ongoing challenge for Georgia. Future efforts in anti-gang legislation should prioritize a comprehensive and balanced approach that seeks not only to suppress gang activity but also to provide opportunities for youth to escape the cycle of gang involvement. In conclusion, Georgia’s anti-gang legislation journey has evolved over the years, with each amendment and new law representing a response to changing public safety priorities. The state's commitment to public safety is clear, but the delicate balance between these efforts and civil rights remains a significant challenge. The future of anti-gang legislation in Georgia will likely involve ongoing debates, amendments, and a continued focus on the well-being of the communities affected by gang-related activities and law enforcement measures. Achieving a comprehensive approach that addresses the root causes of gang involvement while protecting individual rights, particularly in Black communities, remains a significant challenge for the future of anti-gang legislation in Georgia.
NOTES Darnell, Tim, and Pierrotti, Andy., “Court-appointed YSL defense attorneys concerned over low pay, long hours.”, Atlanta News First., April 14, 2023 https://www.atlantanewsfirst.com/2023/04/13/court-appointed-ysldefense-attorneys-concerned-over-low-pay-long-hours/ Frequently Asked Questions About Gangs. "What kind of gangs are there?" National Gang Center., U.S. Department of Justice. https://nationalgangcenter.ojp.gov/about Gang Bill Would Increase Penalties, Atlanta J.& Const, Feb 11, 1998. See concerns raised by Rep. Tyrone Brooks. Georgia General Assembly https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20232024/213068 Klien, Malcom, W. Gang Cop: The Words and Ways of Officer Paco Domingo. Walnut Creek. California. Alta Mira Press. 2004 “Measuring the Extent of Gang Problems.” National Gang Center., U.S. Department of Justice https://nationalgangcenter.ojp.gov/survey-analysis/ Packer, Herbert L. “Two Models of the Criminal Process.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review. Vol 113. No. 1, November 1964
Education
GEORGIA LEGISTATIVE REVIEW 2023
Education Jarrod Grant
Introduction Georgia has recently enacted a series of new education laws that have raised concerns regarding their potential impact on racial equality. Notable bills in this context include HB 1178 – Parent’s Bill of Rights, HB 1084 – Divisive Concepts and Ideologies, SB 226 – Remove Obscene Materials from School Libraries, and SB 588 - Transparent School Board Meetings, among others. These measures are viewed as part of a larger effort to redefine the concept of racial discrimination, reflecting national trends. In recent years, Georgia's educational landscape has undergone significant changes. In 2023, the state’s education legislation reflects a conservative agenda influenced by developments in the 2020s, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the Black Lives Matter movement, and changes in civil rights legislation. These changes have shaped the political landscape and impacted education policy in Georgia, particularly regarding racial equality. Brief History The historical context of Georgia’s current educational legislation is crucial to understanding the state's ongoing debates and policy changes. In the 2020s, various significant political and legislative developments unfolded, impacting Georgia and the United States. During this period, several events and trends came to the forefront, greatly influencing the trajectory of education and racial equality in the state. In 2020, the world faced the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. Simultaneously, the Black Lives Matter movement gained prominence, leading to widespread protests against systemic racism and incidents of police violence. The year also saw notable civil rights figures passing, such as Joseph Lowery, C.T. Vivian, and Congressman John Lewis. These events stirred the public consciousness and fueled discussions about racial equity in Georgia and across the nation. Legislation played a pivotal role during this period. The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act aimed to restore provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and was passed in the House of Representatives in 2021. The Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder had previously weakened the Voting Rights Act. Furthermore, the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the subsequent nomination and confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett in 2020 had significant political implications, especially concerning civil rights and voting rights.
In June 2023, the Supreme Court made a significant ruling in the case Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, overturning Affirmative Action policies. This decision had far-reaching consequences, including the termination of diversity, equality, and inclusion executives in several major corporations. The impact of this ruling was deeply felt by minority communities, who saw it as a step backward in the fight for racial equality and inclusion. During this time, there was a notable conservative movement, which was influenced by the Trump administration's executive order on “Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping.” This movement led to the enactment of legislation in conservative states governing education, with a particular focus on topics such as Critical Race Theory (CRT), Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), and Affirmative Action. Georgia followed this trend by implementing similar legislation in alignment with the conservative movement's approach to education. Bill Analysis In 2023, Georgia introduced several education bills, including HB 1178 (Parent's Bill of Rights), HB 1084 (Divisive Concepts and Ideologies), SB 226 (Remove Obscene Materials from School Libraries), SB 588 (Transparent School Board Meetings), and HB 147 (The Safe Schools Act). These bills have raised concerns about their potential to be used as instruments of racial discrimination. HB 1178 – Parent’s Bill of Rights: This bill formalizes parents’ rights but raises concerns about potentially undermining diversity, equity, and inclusion measures in education. It establishes processes for accessing instructional materials and review periods. Critics argue that this bill can be used to challenge diversity and inclusion measures, particularly those that incorporate the African American experience into the curriculum. HB 1084 - Divisive Concepts and Ideologies: This bill aims to prevent divisive concepts in the classroom but has sparked concerns about its potential impact on African American content in the curriculum. Critics worry that it may target subjects like Black History and other African American content, regardless of their historical significance or potential to contribute to a comprehensive understanding of American history. SB 226 - Remove Obscene Materials from School Libraries: This bill addresses the removal of materials from school libraries but could be applied to African American literature and content. The definition of obscenity as laid out in the Supreme Court decision of Miller v. California in 1973 could potentially affect African American books, documentaries, and films if they are not considered to have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value in education. Additionally, obsceneness has been identified in the context of discussions surrounding Critical Race Theory (CRT), a subject typically taught at the university level. It has been reconceptualized to create fear and xenophobia in public education, potentially affecting African American literature and history. SB 588 - Transparent School Board Meetings: This bill aims to promote transparency but raises concerns that it may be used to reverse diversity and equity measures in education. While the bill presents itself as promoting transparency in school board meetings, some argue that it may serve to empower conservative parent groups to impose their ideas and political agendas during these meetings. Critics worry that this could enable some parents to disrupt established research-based curriculum and instruction without a thorough and objective evaluation of new ideas in comparison to current curriculum standards.
Impact on Black Communities Georgia's conservative general assembly has consistently introduced and passed legislation that some argue diminishes the progress achieved by civil rights laws. Notable examples include HB 1178 (Parent’s Bill of Rights), HB 1084 (Divisive Concepts and Ideologies), SB 226 (Remove Obscene Materials from School Libraries), SB 588 (Transparent School Board Meetings), and HB 147 (The Safe Schools Act). Critics contend that these laws may negatively impact racial inclusion and promote exclusion and disharmony. The issue of school vouchers, like SB 233, continues to be a point of contention, particularly in the broader context of attempts to reshape public education. This involves initiatives such as charter school systems and state-controlled charter schools. The desire to redirect student funding through vouchers represents a major strategy of conservative lawmakers to reduce public school funding. Despite partisan differences, Georgia lawmakers rejected SB 233, with some arguing that it didn’t adequately support low-income students or those in rural areas. Concerns were raised about the affordability of private education, particularly for low-income students, and the potential to augment the education of middle- and high-income students at the expense of public schools. Moreover, the current climate involves debates surrounding diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in education. Some parents have raised concerns about the influence of DEI and CRT in schools, leading to debates and even personnel changes. The comprehensive reform on public education, as demonstrated by laws like HB 1178, HB 1084, SB 226, SB 588, and HB 147, reflects an ongoing challenge of how race should be taught in schools in Georgia. This legislative trend is perceived by some as a reversal of civil rights gains, threatening to roll back decades of progress in the fight for racial equality. In summary, the complex interplay between education, civil rights, and public policy in Georgia is marked by ongoing debates, legislation, and challenges. What is certain is that these debates and contentions will be with us for the foreseeable future. The impact on Black communities is a central concern, as the policies and bills introduced have the potential to hinder progress and further exacerbate racial disparities in education. Conclusion In recent years, Georgia’s educational landscape has been deeply influenced by a conservative agenda, as reflected in the state's 2023 education legislation. This conservative approach to education policy, particularly in a state with a Republican governor and a majority Republican general assembly, has raised concerns about its potential impact on racial equality, particularly within Black communities. The introduction of bills like HB 1178, HB 1084, SB 226, SB 588, and HB 147, which address issues such as parental rights, divisive concepts and ideologies, the removal of obscene materials from school libraries, transparent school board meetings, and school safety, reflects an ongoing conversation about the redefinition of racial discrimination. Critics argue that these bills may inadvertently perpetuate racial discrimination and negatively impact racial inclusion, particularly in African American communities.
The impact on Black communities cannot be ignored. The introduction of school vouchers, the debates surrounding diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), and the potential influence of Critical Race Theory (CRT) in schools have raised concerns about the erosion of progress in the fight for racial equality. The potential for these policies to roll back decades of progress and further exacerbate racial disparities in education is a central concern. In conclusion, the complex interplay between education, civil rights, and public policy in Georgia is characterized by ongoing debates, legislative changes, and legal challenges. The path forward remains uncertain, but the impact on Black communities is a central concern. The fight for racial equality and inclusive education is ongoing, and the outcome will shape the future of education in Georgia and beyond. It is imperative that policymakers, educators, and advocates work together to ensure that the pursuit of racial equality remains at the forefront of the education agenda in the state. Only through a commitment to equity and inclusion can Georgia hope to provide a quality education for all its students, regardless of their racial background.
Adler, Jessica L. 2022. "Florida's Divisive Concepts Bill Mistakes What Historians do, dire." History News Network, June 12. Annie E. Casey Foundation. 2010. Learning to Read: Early Warning! Why Reading by the End of the Third Grade Matters. Reading Analysis, Baltimore: www.aecf.org, 62. Budiman, Abby, and Luis Noe-Bustamante. 2020. Black eligible voters have accounted for nearly half of Georgia electorate’s growth since 2000. December 15. Accessed 15 2023, June. www.pewresearch.org. Evans II, David. 2018. Georgia Higher Learning and Earnings. The Georgia Office of Student Achievement. Flamini, Monica, and Haley Steed. 2022. 2021 Georgia K-12 Teacher & Leader Workforce Report. Teacher & Workforce Report, Atlanta: Georgia's Office of Student Achievement. Georgia Department of Education. 2022. Georgia High-School Graduation Rate Rises in 2022 School and District Level Graduation Rates. October 6. Accessed July 1, 2023. www.gadoe.org. —. 2023. Quick Facts on Georgia Education. Accessed July 1, 2023. www.gadoe.org. 2022. Georgia Department of Public Health. December 19. Accessed June 15, 2023. dph.georgia.gov. Hatfield, Jenn. 2023. "Partisan divides over K-12 education in 8 Charts." Pew Research Center, June 5. LegiScan. 2023. Georgia Legislature 2023-2024 Regular Session. July 1. Accessed June 15, 2023. https://legiscan.com/GA. McCutchen, Kelly. 2015. Where does Georgia Rank in K12 Education. Research Study, Georgia Public Policy Foundation. Migration Policy Institute. 2023. Georgia Demographics. Accessed June 15, 2023. www.migrationpolicy.org. National Center for Education Statistics. 2022. Students' reports of Gangs at School. Condition of Education, U.S. Department of Education, Washington D.C.: Institute of Education Sciences. Odabas, Meltem and Aragao. Carolina. 2023. "School District Mission Statements Highlight a Partisan Divide Over Diversity, Equity and Inclusion in K-12 Education." Pew Center Research, April 4.
Office of the Governor. 2022. Governor Brian Kemp Office of the Governor. February 2. Accessed July 1, 2023. https://gov.georgia.gov. —. 2023. Governor Brian P. Kemp Office of the Governor. April 13. Accessed June 15, 2023. https://gov.georgia.gov/press-releases. Owens, Stephen J. 2020. Education in Georgia's Black Belt: Policy Solutions to Help Overcome a History of Exclusion. Atlanta: Georgia Budget and Policy Institute. Owens, Stephen J. 2023. "The State of Education Funding." Analysis, Georgia Budget & Policy Institute, Atlanta, 10. Accessed July 1, 2023. www.GBPI.org. Peebles, Will. 2022. "Georgia passed a Parents' Bill of Rights this year, but it doesn't give parents much new power." Savannah Morning News, April 29. Accessed September 1, 2023. https://www.savannahnow.com/story/news/education/2022/04/29/explainer-what-does-georgiaparents-bill-rights-do/9537549002/. Perdue, J. Thomas. 2023. "Bill limiting zoning moratoriums advances." Georgia Public Policy Foundation, March 9. ProPublica. 2022. White Parents Rallied to Chase a Black Educator Out of Town. Then, They Followed Her to the Next One. by Nicole Carr June 16, 2022, 5 a.m. EDT Cecelia Lewis was asked to apply for a Georgia school district’s first-ever administrator job devoted to diversi. Nicole Carr. June 16. Accessed July 1, 2023. www.propublica.org. Sieder, Jill Jordan. 2023. "State Affairs." With HOPE fully funded, how can Georgia students maximize their state scholarship options?, June 13. The United States Congress. 2023. Congress.Gov. July 1. Accessed July 30, 2023. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4/all-info. USA Facts. 2022. USA Facts Georgia. July. Accessed June 15, 2023. https://usafacts.org. Wheatley, Thomas. 2022. "Immigrtion means Georgia's Black population is diversifying." Axios Atlanta, January 28. Williams, Ross. 2023. "School Voucher bill fails, public dollars for private schools non-starter in state House." Georgia Recorder, March 30. World Population Review. 2023. Gangs by State. March 1. Accessed July 1, 2023. https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/gangs-by-state.
Health & Human Services
GEORGIA LEGISLATIVE REVIEW 2023
Health & Human Services Pilar Jackson
Introduction The concept of race, often viewed as a social construct, has had a profound and enduring impact on health, leading to persistent disparities that affect generations of individuals. Understanding and addressing these disparities, while examining the underlying social determinants of health, is crucial for improving the well-being of diverse communities. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention's Healthy People 2020 has defined Social Determinants of Health (SDOH) as the environmental conditions encompassing birth, living, learning, working, playing, worshiping, and aging that significantly influence health, functioning, and quality of life outcomes and risks. These determinants are categorized into five domains: economic stability, education access and quality, health care access and quality, social and community context, and neighborhood and built environment. Healthcare Disparities Within the Georgia healthcare systems, there are pervasive inequities that disproportionately affect people of color. These disparities are linked to gaps in healthcare access, health insurance coverage, and overall quality of care. For instance, extensive studies have demonstrated that African-Americans face disproportionately high mortality rates from diseases such as heart disease, cancer, and AIDS when compared to other racial and ethnic groups. These health disparities are exacerbated by differences in socioeconomic status and limited access to healthcare services. Human Services Brief History The field of Human Services, aimed at assisting individuals in achieving stability and well-being, has a history marked by evolving definitions and practices. Jane Addams’ work on Democracy and Social Ethics laid the groundwork for the field, although, in practice, diverse policies regarding human services have not always aligned with principles of social equity. As defined by Scott Wilson, human services encompass a wide array of support, including addressing basic needs such as food and shelter, providing guidance, counseling, and substance abuse treatment, all with the ultimate goal of promoting self-sufficiency and happiness in people’s lives. Human services often directly address the social determinants of health, which are the conditions that influence a person's susceptibility to disease risk. It is important to recognize that there exist policies, practices, and laws within education, criminal justice, and welfare systems that have systematically disadvantaged people of color, particularly African-Americans.
These systems are vital for providing stability, meeting basic needs, fostering happiness, and enabling self-sufficiency. While many of these policies are debated at the federal level, they are predominantly carried out at the state and local levels with the use of federal resources. For example, the welfare system has been a crucial resource for reducing income disparities, as it provides assistance to those in need. However, the issue of race remains a predictor of access, leading to varying policies and support structures from state to state. To comprehend how these systems function today, it is essential to examine the historical context from which these policies and systems emerged. Impact on Black Communities Throughout history, specific policies have disproportionately impacted African-American communities. Georgia, in particular, presents challenges for African-Americans during childbirth, as they face double the risk of death from pregnancy-related causes compared to their White counterparts. Shockingly, over 80% of these deaths are preventable. It is critical for the state to enact legislation that supports African-American mothers throughout their lifespan and addresses the root causes of health inequities contributing to the maternal mortality crisis. In recent years, Georgia legislators have taken measures to tackle maternal health issues. Legislative Efforts One such legislative effort is House Bill 129, also known as Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF). While this bill provides financial assistance to low-income families with children, it excludes pregnant mothers, leaving some of the most vulnerable in need of support. In an attempt to rectify this, the General Assembly passed a bill that would expand welfare benefits to encompass low-income pregnant women. House Bill 129, sponsored by Representative Soo Hong, aimed to broaden access to pregnant women and eliminate the TANF family cap, a program rooted in racism that was designed to discourage women receiving assistance from having more children. Furthermore, though House Bill 129 passed, it failed to address the severity of the financial burden facing many. It is notable that two bills, House Bill 79 and Senate Bill 118, were proposed to create a state Earned Income Tax Credit and a Child Credit. Unfortunately, these bills did not pass, leaving Black families in Georgia more likely to face low incomes compared to White families. Passing these bills could have enhanced the financial well-being of families, particularly Black birthing mothers, and reduced barriers related to social determinants of health. Recent Achievements Recent legislative accomplishments include the passing of State Bill 338, which extends Medicaid coverage for low-income mothers for up to one year postpartum. Additionally, House Bill 19, the General Appropriations bill, allocated funding to support seniors and children in need. The funds are directed toward protecting seniors from elder abuse, exploitation, and neglect, as well as aiding children who have been removed from homes due to child maltreatment. Additionally, there is financial support for child victims of sexual exploitation. These legislative achievements underscore the commitment to improving health and human services. Medicaid access was extended, allowing permanent residents, including Black birthing individuals and immigrants, to receive quality prenatal and postpartum care, thus reducing infant mortality. House Bill 19 also aided Senate Bill 106, which established a remote maternal and fetal health monitoring program for Medicaid-eligible, high-risk mothers.
Senate Bill 61, known as the Family Care Act, provides workers who have earned paid sick days the ability to use up to five of those days per year to care for a family member. This legislation, previously passed in 2017 with a temporary “sunset” provision, was renewed, ensuring families, especially those in the Black community in Georgia, can care for their loved ones without financial repercussions. This bill, which aids Black maternal health, allows mothers the time they need to care for themselves and their infants, reducing barriers such as mental health concerns and financial burdens. Research has indicated that employer-provided medical leave is essential for postpartum recovery and reducing infant mortality rates. House Bill 78, known as the Paid Sick Leave Act, requires employers with twenty-five or more employees to implement a paid sick leave policy, allowing workers to accrue a minimum of 56 hours of paid sick leave each year. Similar to Senate Bill 61, this legislation is backed by growing evidence of its benefits for birthing individuals. It allows them to recover, care for their babies, and protect their infants from mortality. Unaddressed Behavioral Health and Tobacco Issues: However, not all proposed bills have become law. House Bill 520, intended to strengthen behavioral health services and support, did not pass. This is a significant concern as mental health conditions, suicides, and overdoses, particularly within Black communities, have been on the rise. To address the current behavioral health crisis, legislation is necessary to bridge the gap between racism and stigma and focus on behavioral health needs. Tobacco and Vaping: Georgia faces challenges related to tobacco and vaping usage. In 2020, 15.7% of adults in the state smoked cigarettes, exceeding the national average of 15.5%. Additionally, 17% of high school students used electronic vapor products for at least one day over thirty days. Unfortunately, House Bill 191 and House Bill 192, which aimed to increase taxes on cigarettes and vapes, respectively, did not pass. Both bills could have acted as deterrents for users, especially young individuals, but their non-passage continues to encourage consumption. Immigrant Communities: House Bill 131, known as The Opportunity Tuition Act, provides Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients with a more affordable path to attend college. However, the bill was not voted out of the committee, putting undocumented students at risk of deportation. Conclusion Addressing health disparities and advancing health and human services in Georgia remains an ongoing process. While significant strides have been made, some critical issues persist, particularly in the domains of maternal health, tobacco control, and support for immigrant communities. Legislative efforts are crucial to bridge the equity gap, reduce disparities, and promote well-being for all residents of Georgia. It is imperative that policymakers continue to explore and enact measures that address the multifaceted determinants of health, reduce disparities, and foster an environment of equitable care and support for all communities.
NOTES Brian D. Smedley, Adrienne Y. Stith, and Alan R. Nelson.,“Introduction and Literature Review.” Care, Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Understanding and Eliminating Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health. National Academies Press (US), 2003 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK220344. Georgia General Assembly https://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/all Gutierrez, Elena R., Bringing families out of ‘captivity: The need to repeal the CalWORKS maximum family grant rule (Issue Brief). April 2013 https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/bccj/CRRJ_Issue_Brief_MFG_Ru le_FINAL.pdf. Floyd, Ife Finch., “Legislation Could Better Address Georgia’s Black Maternal Health Crisis.” Georgia Budget and Policy Institute. July 5, 2023. https://gbpi.org/legislation-could-better-addressgeorgias-black-maternal-health-crisis/. Johnson, Vanessa D., “Impact of Race and Welfare Reform on African American Single Mothers’ Access to Higher Education.” Journal of Black Studies 40, no. 6, October 2008 pgs. 1041–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021934708323986. Johnston, Jocelyn. “Welfare Reform: A Devolutionary Success.” Intergovernmental Management for the Twenty First Century, edited by Timothy J.Conlan and Paul L. Posner, pgs. 124–56. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. 2008 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services., “Social Determinants of Health.” Healthy People 2030. 2020. https://health.gov/healthypeople/priority-areas/social-determinantshealth. Wilson, Scott.,“The Definition of Human Services - Human Services Edu.” June 14, 2021. https://www.humanservicesedu.org/definitionhuman-services/ Ziliak James P.,“Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.” In Economics of Means-Tested Transfer Programs in the United States, Vol. 1, edited by Robert Moffitt, 303–94. Cambridge, MA. 2016. National Bureau of Economic Research and University of Chicago Press
Other Issues
2023 GEORGIA LEGILATIVE REVIEW SDG PROGRESS REPORT 2020
Other Issues
Nykia Greene-Young & Klaudette Spencer Senate Bill 140, a piece of legislation concerning transgender youth, garnered significant attention and sparked intense debate during the legislative session. This debate revolved around the challenges arising from the intersection of race, gender, and sexuality, a concept introduced by Kimberle’ Crenshaw in 1989, known as “intersectionality.” It originated from the legal realm, highlighting the difficulties faced by Black women who were often misunderstood and misrepresented in the legal system, confronting both racial and gender-based discrimination simultaneously. This underscores the complexity of identity and the corresponding complexity of experiencing oppression. Transgender individuals, particularly Black transgender and Black gender non-conforming individuals, confront high levels of discrimination, which are exacerbated by structural racism. According to the National Black Justice Coalition and the National Center for Transgender Equality, Black transgender individuals experience disproportionately high unemployment rates, homelessness, low household income, and an increased likelihood of suicide attempts. Discrimination against them includes employment disparities, police violence, and disparities in healthcare access. The rights of the LGBTQIA+ community, including transgender individuals, have faced ongoing challenges and threats, including within the Georgia state legislature, where recent legislation has partially restricted access to gender-affirming care for transgender individuals. Gender-affirming care encompasses various medical treatments that help individuals align their physical bodies with their gender identity. These treatments can be vital in addressing gender dysphoria, a condition causing discomfort when one’s physical appearance doesn't align with their gender identity. For many transgender youth, gender-affirming care is life-saving and associated with a reduced risk of self-harm and depression. Access to such care is crucial in promoting their mental and emotional well-being. Senate Bill 140, sponsored by several Republican Senators, significantly restricts access to gender-affirming care for individuals under 18, including outlawing hormone replacement therapy and surgical procedures for those experiencing gender dysphoria. This bill imposes penalties for non-compliance, such as medical license revocation, civil fines, and criminal charges. As of July 1, 2023, Senate Bill 140 is in effect, although it contains certain exemptions for those who began treatment before this date and specific situations where hormone therapy and surgery remain available. This legislation is part of a broader trend of efforts to limit access to care for transgender individuals in Georgia.
In the realm of voting rights, Senate Bill 129, signed by Governor Kemp on May 4, 2023, is a notable piece of legislation. It amends Chapter 2 of title 21 of the official code of Georgia annotated and provides a two-hour time off period for employees to facilitate voting during primaries, elections, and early voting. This bipartisan bill aims to increase voter turnout and was sponsored by Republican Senators, receiving favorable support from both political parties in Georgia’s General Assembly. Despite the recognized need for affordable housing and the housing challenges in Georgia and the metropolitan area surrounding Atlanta, the General Assembly made limited efforts to address these issues. Several housing bills were introduced, but disagreements and controversies arose regarding the extent to which the state government can restrict local housing regulations. House Bill 514, titled the “Housing Regulation Transparency Act,” was a bipartisan initiative sponsored by State Representative Dale Washburn (R-Macon). Its objective was to reduce housing costs in Georgia. Representative Washburn also chaired a House study committee during the previous session, known as the House Study Committee on Regulation, Affordability, and Access to Housing. The committee held hearings to explore how to increase housing supply to accommodate the growing labor force, which is a primary factor contributing to rising housing costs. The shortage of affordable housing is a significant issue in Georgia, affecting not only local residents but also people who struggle to find affordable housing near their workplaces. The Act aimed to prevent local governments from extending moratoriums on new housing construction beyond 180 days, thereby fostering more affordable housing for first-time homebuyers. It also proposed allowing local governments to waive certain zoning and permit fees for single-family developments with homes not exceeding 2,500 square feet. The bill faced opposition from those who advocate for reduced government regulation, particularly in housing. Washburn's main rationale for the bill was that local governments often mandate larger homes, which drives up prices and makes homeownership less attainable for middle-class and lower-income individuals, disproportionately affecting Black communities. The bill passed in the House with a vote of 127-43 but did not progress further in the Senate. Opponents of the bill argue that it encroaches on local control and does not adequately address the housing demand. They contend that housing and zoning should be managed at the local level. One of Georgia's housing challenges is the population growth over the years, primarily due to affordable homes and a better quality of life with lower salaries, allowing individuals to afford housing that was out of reach in their hometowns or cities. However, recent developments have led to increased housing prices, diminishing affordability. HB514 passed through the Senate Committee on Economic Development and Tourism during the session, limiting local governments’ ability to impose moratoriums on new housing construction to no more than 180 days. The bill also addressed the concept of “Build-to-rent” homes to expand the housing supply.
Georgians for Quality Housing Options contributed over $60,000 to state political candidates as a response to perceived local government regulations hindering the construction of single-family rentals. Builders and investors advocated for easier home construction and an increase in supply to lower housing costs. According to Brian Eason, a journalist for the Atlanta Journal Constitution (AJC), large investment firms have acquired over 65,000 homes since the Great Recession, converting them into rental properties. This trend is making homeownership increasingly unattainable for middle-class families, with a disproportionate impact on Black communities. Eason highlights that renters are facing unfavorable conditions, high fees, and frequent eviction filings by landlords who do not reside in Georgia and have purchased investment propertied. Metro Atlanta is particularly affected by this investor takeover. Some opponents of “Build-to-Rent” homes argue that middle-class families in Georgia are being taken advantage of, despite the increased housing supply. The central question revolves around the regulation of housing in Georgia—whether it should be a state or local matter. Another housing-related bill, SB 62, was passed with a 99-76 vote in the Senate and signed into law. This legislation has adverse implications for some of the most vulnerable populations, including the Black homeless community. Dubbed the “Homeless Bill,” it mandates that cities and counties enforce existing bans on public camping or sleeping for unsheltered and homeless individuals. The bill also prohibits hospitals and local governments from relocating unsheltered and homeless people to other counties without the receiving county's permission, an amendment added by House members. Democratic lawmakers in the General Assembly opposed this bill, as it is perceived as criminalizing homelessness and poverty, a practice with a historical precedent.
NOTES ACLU of Georgia. “SB 140: Georgia’s Ban on Gender Affirming Care,” July 5, 2023. https://www.acluga.org/en/campaigns/sb-140-georgias-bangender-affirming-care. Amy, Jeff., “Georgia lawmakers get incomplete grade in transition year.” The Associated Press, March 30, 2023 https://apnews.com/article/georgia-legislative-session-jones-burnsc23b6069e6a70116f352d153d22b8a17 Amyx, Reese Rathjen. “Analysis Shows Startling Levels of Discrimination against Black Transgender People.” National LGBTQ Task Force, June 23, 2023. https://www.thetaskforce.org/news/analysis-shows-startling-levelsof-discrimination-against-black-transgender-people/. Bartlett, Katharine T., and Rosanne Kennedy. Feminist Legal Theory: Readings In Law And Gender, 2019. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA13937493. Denson, Chris., and Emrath, Paul., Government Regulation in Price of Multifamily Housing: Georgia., April 6, 2023 https://www.georgiapolicy.org/publications/government-regulation-in-theprice-of-multifamily-housing-georgia/ Rummler, Orion, The 19th Explains: Everything You Need to Know about Gender-Affirming Care.” The 19th, June 20, 2023. https://19thnews.org/2023/06/everything-to-know-about-gender-affirmingcare/#:~:text=For%20very%20young%20kids%2C%20gender,through%20th eir%20feelings%20about%20gender. Georgia General Assembly https://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/all Grapevine, Rebecca., “Little action taken to address affordable housing in Georgia General Assembly.” Athens Banner-Herald, April 10, 2023 https://www.onlineathens.com/story/news/homelessness/2023/04/10/afforda ble-housing-bills-got-little-traction-in-georgia-legislature/70093911007/
Legislative Rating
2023 GEORGIA LEGILATIVE REVIEW
Legislative Rating Methodology The Georgia Legislative Review continues the tradition of raising awareness of Georgia legislators’ voting preferences. To that end, a mixed method case study was employed using a purposive sample consisting of chosen Senate bills (SB) and House bills (HB) on budget and taxes, criminal justice, education, health, and human services, and other issues to determine the possible impact they could have on the lives of people of color in Georgia. Fifty percent of the selected bills were defeated or died in the chamber. One percent of the selected bills were introduced and passed during the previous 2021-2022 session. Bills passed in earlier sessions were excluded from consideration. Nine bills for the 2023 legislative session were considered and reviewed: SB 44, SB 62, SB 129, SB 140, SB 160, HB 19, HB 129, HB 147, and HB 440. Policy evaluators applied a historical approach grounded in critical race theory to estimate the impact adopted legislation could have on Black communities in Georgia. The impact evaluation was based on similar laws that have and continue to affect Black communities. The chapters were structured as follows: Introduction, Brief History, Impact on Black Communities, and Foreseeable Problems for the Black Community. Consistent with previous editions of the Georgia Legislative Review, data will be presented as follows: “Y” represents the Yea vote, “N” represents the Nay vote, and “X” signifies a No Vote or Excused Absence. A Yea vote was awarded 1 point because it suggests support for policies that favor advancing people of color and other disadvantaged Georgians. A Nay vote indicates a lack of support for a bill that could improve the lives of Black people and other disadvantaged Georgians. The Nay vote earned 0 points. However, because legislators leverage multiple responsibilities as public servants to enhance constituents’ lives, a .02 point was given to the No Vote and Excused Absences. The highest total score possible was 10. Quantitative data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics v26. The Chi-Square Test for Independence was performed, and statistically significant results were found. Findings and Conclusion Georgia’s 2023 legislative session has 236 members. Of these, 57% are Republicans and 43% are Democrats. Close to 40% of Georgia legislators are women, compared to 65% of men. Of significance is the finding that there are more Black women legislators than Black men legislators and non-minority women. Georgia's legislators are predominantly non-minority males (see Figure 1). There is a significant difference between the number of women legislators in the Republican party (31%) and the Democrat party (70%).
Of 2,826 votes tallied for the selected 12 bills (prior to the narrowing down to none bills) 71.8% were Yes, 24.5% were No, and 3.7% were No Vote (see Figure 2.). Less than two legislators who voted for the selected bills showed a consistent pattern of abstaining from voting. Only one legislator missed all 12 opportunities to vote for the passage of legislation. The generally observable pattern in this study is that legislators generally support bills that originate in their respective chambers. However, there are exceptions. Moreover, about half of the bills selected obtained support for their passage by over 70% of legislators.
Roles of Sex The Chi-Square Test for Independence indicated a statistically significant association between sex and voting preference for Senate Bill 44 (see Table 1) with a large effect size, Ꭓ2 (2, n = 235) = 35, p = .001, Cramer’s V = .38. Among the 82 Georgia legislators who identify as women, 54 voted against the Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act (SB 44). In contrast, 106 (69.3%) of legislators who identify as men favored SB 44 (see Table 3).
The Chi-Square Test for Independence indicated a statistically significant finding for the Employment Security (SB 160) bill, Ꭓ2 (2, n = 235) = 7, p = .032, Cramer’s V = .17. The effect size for this association was large. Among Republican legislators, 63% supported the bill, and 31.1% were against it. The voting pattern for Democratic legislators indicated similar withingroup stress: 46% of Democrats voted for the bill’s passage, and 47% voted against it. Another statistically significant variable with a large effect size associated with voting for Employment Security (SB 160) was sex: SB 160 Ꭓ2 (2, n = 235) = 31, p = .001, Cramer’s V = .36. Sixty-one percent of women disfavored SB 160 while 69% of men supported the bill (see Table 4).
There was a statistically significant association with a medium effect size between sex and voting preference for the Hospitals; the treatment of gender dysphoria in minors performed in hospitals and other licensed healthcare facilities; prohibit certain surgical procedures bill (SB 140; Ꭓ2 (2, n = 235) = 40, p = .001, Cramer’s V = .41). There was also a statistically significant association between gender voting preference for the Safe Schools Act (HB 147) with a medium effect size, Ꭓ2 (2, n = 235) = 11, p = .005, Cramer’s V = .21 (see Figure 5). Fifty-nine percent of men voted for the Safe Schools Act compared to 27% of women.
Composite Ratings list of votes by Legislators Enclosed below is a Composite rating of all legislators and how they voted for the bills that were discussed throughtout the GLR 23 or if they voted at all. This will assist Black voters in understanding how their representatives voted for the bills that would impact them the most. This composite list of votes should give Blacks in Georgia a guide to assist in choosing their legislators and holding them accountable.The bills have been listed by Senate Bills and House Bills. The higher the score the more impact or detrimental the bill may be to Black people in Georgia. When reviewing the votes, Republican votes are higher than most of the Democratic votes meaning the bills are less favorable for Black people. Republicans scores ranged from 9 to 5 while Democratic scores ranged from 6 to 1.
Bill Legend Senate Bill 44-Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act Senate Bill 62-Counties and Municipal Corporations; certain local ordinances or policies relating to public camping or sleeping; prohibit Senate Bill 129-Primaries and Elections; time off for employees to advance vote Senate Bill 140-regulation of hospitals and related institutions, so as to prohibit certain surgical 3 procedures for the treatment of gender dysphoria in minors Senate Bill 160-Employment Security House Bill 19-General appropriations; State Fiscal Year July 1, 2023 - June 30, 2024 House Bill 129-Public assistance; expand temporary assistance for needy families eligibility criteria to pregnant women House Bill 147-Safe Schools Act House Bill 440-Education; authorizes public and private schools to stock a supply of undesignated ready-to-use glucagon.
Republican Senate Voting Record
Democratic Senate Voting Record
Republican House Voting Record
Democrate House Voting Record
Contact W.E.B. Du Bois Southern Center for Studies in Public Policy 223 James P. Brawley Drive Knowles Hall 3rd Floor Atlanta, Ga 30314 470-748-9829 www.cauduboispolicycenter.org