Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on filed a new motion in the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court late last month asking the court to rule the latest version of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals unconstitutional and to end it all together. Eight other Republican controlled state joined the effort.

Georgia is not listed on the lawsuit.

The states that joined Texas’ bid to terminate DACA were Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina, West Virginia, Kansas and Mississippi. They have argued that DACA is an illegal overreach of executive power, and that only Congress has the authority to grant unauthorized immigrants federal benefits

DACA has repeatedly been ruled illegal but allowed it to remain in place for existing DACA recipients.  

According to a 2019 11th circuit appellate court decision, DACA does not change the illegal status of recipients except to delay deportation proceedings. Both sides of the debate expect the DACA program to be euthanized altogether by the Supreme Court after another loss for supporters in an October 5, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals finding. The court upheld an earlier ruling in Texas that DACA is not a lawful program. 

• Related: Twenty GOP states are challenging Biden’s illegal border parole hustle in a Texas federal court – GA is not one of them
• Related: GOP-Led States Ask SCOTUS to Restore Prohibition on Encouraging Illegal Immigration – GA Stands Back, Again

Gov Kemp’s office phone number at the state Capitol is 404-656-1776.

 

 

With Georgia hosting more illegal aliens than Arizona and more illegals than green card holders, Gov Kemp and AG Carr remain silent. Again.

Documentedny.com

Feb 7, 2023

“Twenty-five Republican-led states told the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday that an appeals court should not have ruled that a federal law — which makes it a crime to encourage illegal immigration — violated free speech rights. They’re asking the Supreme Court to reverse the judgment of the San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit Court and restore the law — something the court was already considering doing.

Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen’s office led the amicus brief, which was joined by AGs of states including Florida, Alabama, Arizona, and Georgia.

Last year, the Ninth Circuit had said the law barring encouragement of illegal immigration was too broad. “An overly broad statute may chill the speech of individuals, including those not before the court,” noted arguments in the case.

But in the amicus brief, the Republican-led states argue that “statutory terms like ‘encourage’ and ‘induce’ carry well-understood criminal-law meanings that the panel simply ignored.” They called the Ninth Circuit’s analysis of immigration speech “anemic” and asked the Supreme Court to reject it.

A decision in the case is expected by June, while further arguments in the case are set for next month, March 27.

Read the full brief here.

Read the entire report from there left here.

 

A note for beginners: Jaime Rangel is an illegal alien who lives in the Dalton, GA. area. He has worked for the notorious, corporate-funded GALEO Inc., has lobbied in the Georgia Capitol against passage of legislation designed to make life difficult in Georgia for illegal employers and illegal aliens. As a staffer for the billionaire lobbyist company, ‘FWD.us,’ he now lobbies here in Georgia and in Washington D.C. against immigration enforcement and for a repeat of the failed 1986 “one-time” immigration amnesty. He can work legally in the U.S. now because Obama’s illegal DACA decree granted him and about 700,000 other illegal aliens a “work permit.” If he worked before DACA, he worked illegally .

Rangel is the darling of the liberal media that is constantly helping in the well-funded push for another amnesty.

Related: More on GALEO Inc. here and here and here.

Here is a newspaper column with Rangel’s name as author published in the liberal Dalton Daily Citizen in 2019. Here is my response to that column. He has several more. Most newspaper editors in Georgia do not run responses to anti-enforcement goop anymore.

Related: A reminder from the liberal AJC on the label “anchor babies” – children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens – is used: “…Rangel’s younger brother, Eric, was born in America, making him a U.S. citizen. And Eric has sponsored their parents, helping them get lawful permanent residency (green cards) here.” – AJC story here. Here is how that works.

 

Link to interview.

 

______

 

Martha Zoller: (00:09)
Jaime Rangel is joining me right now. And, um, Jaime, is it Jaime or is it (H)aime?

Jaime Rangel: (00:15)
Well, Martha, I’ve grown up in northwest Georgia practically my whole life, and I’ve been called both Jaime and Jaime, and I take no offense. So, uh-

Martha: (00:22)
Oh okay, great.

Jaime Rangel: (00:24)
… uh, look. So I’m-

Martha: (00:24)
Thanks.

Jaime Rangel: (00:24)
… I’m down with whatever, whatever y’all wanna call me, Jaime or Jaime, I’m perfectly fine with that.

Martha: (00:29)
That’s great. And you’re with FWD.us, and I wanted to, for you to give people just kind of an update on the cases related to DACA, because we’re coming up of 10 years of DACA. Uh, there’s, there’s cases in the courts right now, I know you’ve been very involved in that, so, can you give us an update?

Jaime Rangel: (00:47)
Yeah, so, um, and in fact before we went onto the show, like, um, there was b- a debriefer that was on, and it kind of explained it already. There is a, a decision… I mean, I’m, I’m sorry, let me back up. There is a court, um, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard an appeal from the admi- from the administration and MALDEF, [inaudible 00:01:06] and MALDEF, um, to appeal the decision from the lower court in Texas that is trying to end the program of DACA on the basis of the Constitutionality.

Jaime Rangel: (01:15)
Um, given a Senate hearing, this fifth circuit is a very antagonistic court, it’s not really a good court that represents the view of 75% of the country that wants a solution for DACA recipients who want the immigrants to stay. And we believe the outcome could come out ugly, and the DACA program could be in a situation recipient of the program, of the very popular program, will not be able to renew the work permit. Will not be able to go to our schools and teach our students, will not be able to go to our hospitals and heal those, and heal those that are sick. And they will not be able to contribute to the economy.

Jaime Rangel: (01:54)
But it’s a very scary situation for recipients not just in Georgia but around the country.

Martha: (01:55)
So overwhelming I think most people, and if you explain what a DACA kid is, that’s a kid that has been brought in the United States with their parents, their parents have brought them here illegally, but basically they have only known the United States as their home. And what, you know, even among people like me who are very much, uh, have a problem with the way our immigration system is right now, and I, I think we have way too many illegal, way too much illegal immigration into this country, and that we have lots of things we need to fix, okay?

Martha: (02:29)
But I see, you know, that this is a group of people that, that have been expected to have some kind of, uh, grace, from the United States of America. And so, and they have for the last 10 years. Two questions. This could have been codified in law, there have been opportunities. I mean, at the beginning of the Trump administration there was an offer from President Trump that if you could give us some money for the border wall, we’ll give you some protection for DACA. And that was, that was not dealt with.

Martha: (03:00)
We seem to have this ongoing problem with Congress not being able to codify the things in law that they should, and then they just wait for the courts to decide things. So, you know, how do we get out of this mess?

Jaime Rangel: (03:13)
Yeah, and Martha, I just wanna echo, like, um, you’re not alone on the frustration. The frustration’s on both sides of the aisle. And you mentioned this program is very, very popular. And it’s just crazy that both sides of the aisle, and this, this, this bears the plot on both sides of the aisle of not being grown up, and this is the will of the American people.

Jaime Rangel: (03:30)
And it’s going to come a time, unfortunately, um, in this court, that whatever the decision happens that affects it, it’s going to wind up in the Supreme Court, uh, win or lose, and there’ll be a few that would then go to the Supreme Court, guaranteed. Um, but the reality is that Congress needs to wake up. And it’s unfortunate that we wait till things get ugly, and then Congress reacts, and it shouldn’t be like that, Martha, it really shouldn’t.

Jaime Rangel: (03:52)
Um, and I’ll give you an example, here in Georgia, we are, just an example of how we could be moving the immigration conversation the right way is that and herein Georgia, we, we worked with Representative Kasey Carpenter, a representative from the, the, who lives in the Fifth House District up in Dalton, who lives in a very conservative Congressional district, works with democrats to a, a, a variety, um, pro- to propose a legislation that allows DACA recipients to pay in-state tuition if, you know, they could prove, you know, that they grew up in Georgia, and which most of them have, and who are, you know, being here working hard to get in-state tuition.

Jaime Rangel: (04:27)
And that’s a good example of legislators working together doing the will of the people of Georgia, doing the will of the American people, and trying to push legislation forward. And at the end of the day, Martha, like it, Congress needs to act, they need to realize that, you know, the malarkey’s going to hit the fan, and if they don’t act, peoples’ lives are going to be devastated. And not just DACA recipients, we have to understand we work in different industries. We have a labor shortage right now in this country, we have an inflation problem in this country, there is no denying that.

Jaime Rangel: (04:57)
But passing immigration reform or allowing DACA recipients to be in this country, to have a piece of mind, helps curb that inflation, helps to continue contributing to the country. What, I’ll give you an example, we have $1.3 billion in spending power alone in Georgia, and we contribute 100 million into state and local taxes, in, in Georgia. I mean, come on, this will affect our state, um, it will only hurt our labor shortages, it would only hurt, uh, continue to hurt inflation if Congress does not wake and act.

Martha: (05:26)
So what can the average person do? ‘Cause we’re waiting for the courts right now. Um, but-

Jaime Rangel: (05:31)
Yeah.

Martha: (05:31)
… what can the average person do?

Jaime Rangel: (05:35)
Um, Martha, I think what the average person can do and should do is call their member of Congress and say, “You’ve got to stop bickering.” This is a group of people that over 75% of the country agrees should stay in this country, and we need a permanent legislative solution. People just need to pick up the phone and call their, their Congressman, and call their US senators to act. Because both sides need to come together, they need to grow up, and find a solution. I’m frustrated, Martha.

Jaime Rangal: (06:00)
About 90, uh, uh, and the, like you mentioned earlier, a lot of people are frustrated because it includes (laughs) every popular, um, program, and yet, Congress cannot act.

Martha: (06:10)
So, how does, uh, FWD, are they taking a position at all on the crossings at the border right now, and all of the, that sort of thing? Or, are they focused primarily on DACA?

Jaime Rangel: (06:23)
Right now we do, uh, we are focused, and a great, like, I would say a great, our goal is to fix our broken immigration system. We have issues at the border because our immigration system is broken, and we don’t have a way for people to come here through a legal process. And then the only process they have for example is to seek asylum. And when they get to the border to try to seek asylum, that process in itself is broken as can be.

Jaime Rangel: (06:45)
So our goal is to work together, uh, with people on, on the Hill, no matter what party affiliation, and to try to fix our broken immigration system. Right now, for example, I will say that DACA is on top of our, on top of our agenda. We’re trying to work with Congress to find a solution, we’ll try to work with the administration to find a solution. Because this is like I said earlier, this is going to be in a situation where recipients might not be able to renew once the Appeals Court makes a decision, and that’s a scary situation to be in right now.

Jaime Rangal: (07:15)
We’re talking about over 600,000 individuals around the country all of a sudden not being able to continue their work permit, um, and not being able to go to work. And um-

Martha: (07:24)
So-

Jaime Rangel: (07:24)
… and I would, I want the listeners to understand that renewing a work permit, we have to do it every two years. We have to show to the government we’re not criminals. And it’s a very tedious and expensive process, but yet we’re doing it because we’re given an opportunity to show the country who we really are, and that we’re just here to contribute to be a part of society, and to help our country grow.

Martha: (07:45)
So, um, what do you see as the next step here? Because, you know, I think that most people would want to see, uh, DACA codified into law so that people knew what the rules were. But also, you know, I think we need big changes in our immigration system, I think we need, you know, I was a big supporter of the Raise Act, okay, where I think that, that that got us in the right direction, because it actually got us to where we were going to clear out some of these green cards, and we were going to be able to, uh, be able to look at things a little bit more on a merit basis.

Martha: (08:19)
But it didn’t even get to a debate. We’ve got to actually have real debates on this, because if we don’t, we’re never going to solve this problem.

Jaime Rangel: (08:28)
Mar- Martha, I 100% agree, and, uh, this is why I wanted to come onto your show, because we need to have that dialogue. And I think the American people wanna hear that dialogue, they want to hear us talk about our broken immigration system through a different perspective, because unfortunately there’s a lot of misinformation, um, first of all who DREAMERS are, of, like, of, of what we’re actually planning be here, to do, and um, people assume that it, that that get being legal or getting in line.

Jaime Rangel: (08:55)
Well for us, there is no line, unfortunately, there is no line for us to, you know, be part of this country, um, and find a, a pathway to citizenship. There is no, there’s no part of that. So-

Martha: (09:08)
So, so let me-

Jaime Rangel: (09:08)
… I do definitely agree with you for that.

Martha: (09:09)
… let me ask you a quick question. So the Trump proposal that he did at the beginning of his, of his time as president, which was basically allowing, uh, the, the DACA kids, as well as their parents, to get legal status, um, was that something you all were in favor of at the time?

Jaime Rangel: (09:28)
I’m sorry, can you repeat that again?

Martha: (09:29)
Uh, the Trump proposal at the beginning of his term in president, wh- as president, was actually, you know, the DACA kids at that time, I think the number was 670,000, I don’t remember exactly what the number was. But it also included their parents, a legal status for their parents. Um, was that something at the time you guys could have been in favor of? It never got to a legislative proposal, because Nancy Pelosi said “No” right out of the gate because they wanted to have funding for the wall included too.

Martha: (09:58)
But it sounded m- to me like a very reasonable proposal at the time.

Jaime Rangel: (10:03)
Um, unfortunately that, the legislation remained a proposal, so what we did during that time is that we worked with both sides of the aisle to move legislation forward and put that in writing, and move something uh, across the finish line. And um, that’s what we were doing at the time. We, we have to understand that we need to work together, and-

Martha: (10:20)
Yeah.

Jaime Rangel: (10:20)
… we understand we need to work together. And we’re going to continue doing that right now, and we’re going to continue pushing for legislative solutions that did reflect the will of the American people.

Martha: (10:29)
So if people want to know about, more about FWD, how can they do that?

Jaime Rangel: (10:33)
Sure thing. Um, well, it’s very simple, we have a very, a website that you can visit at FWD.us. Um, and we have a lot of good information there, and in fact, we just came out with a new report that extends, like, hm, uh, a report that it’s all about a decade of DACA for students, to careers and families. And it shows an overview of where DACA was just then going 10 years into the program. And it’s very interactive, for example, in Georgia we have a population of 20,000 individuals, the average age now is, and the average year they live in this country have been over 20 years.

Jaime Rangel: (11:08)
Uh, how 37,000 US citizens, and this is very key, is that 37,000 US citizens live with documentation. We have individuals who live in mixed-status families, where, let’s say, example, uh, my, for, for example, we have a brother who is a US citizen, but unfortunately he has a younger sister, um, is a DACA recipient. Because of a broken immigration system, you know, we had these mixed status families. So, and that’s for, that’s a key number there, I, I encourage people to go visit that website and learn more about, um, you know, about DACA recipients, uh, what is that for, and how we’re trying to work together to pass common sense solutions that represent the, the will of the American people.

Martha: (11:47)
Sounds great. Thank you so much, uh, Jaime, for being with us, Jaime Rangal from FWD.us, we appreciate you being with us today.

Jaime Rangel: (11:55)
Thank you, Martha, you have a blessed day. Thank you, thank you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cue the race-baiting and accusations of “anti-immigrant hate” from the corporate-funded leftists and breathless, inaccurate “news” from the usual suspects in the media. My apologies for the repetition. (Note: the AP news report linked above is the corrected version of the story that was done after our inquiry and complaint to AP writer Jeff Amy).

Call it a proposal for a law that essentially says we should enforce the law. In Rep Jesse Petrea’s HB 1105, for the first time in far too many years – thirteen, by my count – there is legislation pending under the Gold Dome that will serve to reduce the American casualties inflicted by the criminal aliens swarming over Georgia.

Petrea’s bill will create criminal penalties for jailers who have been allowed to defy state law on “sanctuary” policies. Pro-enforcement conservatives hope to see the bill significantly improved, sharpened, and expanded.

Note to Rep Petrea and Republican legislators: The newfound press attention to criminal aliens and the baseless Alinsky-inspired smears coming your way is all a normal, rehearsed, boiler plate drill by the illegal alien lobby. This writer has considerable experience with the non-profit orgs that can be counted on to oppose anyimmigration enforcement. The recommendation from here?: Press on to final passage.

 Legislators and sane Georgia voters should consider the source of the unhinged effort to derail the ‘Georgia Criminal Alien Track and Report Act.’

As one example, the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials Inc. was one of the many Marxist concerns that sent lobbyists to the Capitol in a failed attempt to stop the bill in the House committee process. In a recent media release, GALEO’s CEO, the notorious opponent of immigration enforcement, Jerry Gonzalez, used Laken Riley’s brutal murder to advance his solution for what Gov. Kemp referred to in 2018 as “criminal illegals.”

If you wade through the accusations of “anti-immigrant rhetoric,” “white nationalist agenda” and warnings of coming “hate crimes,” Gonzalez uses the tragedy in Athens to promote his group and as a vehicle to push for illegal alien amnesty. Apparently aware that the first two hundred thirty six names in the Hahira phone book likely have about as much knowledge on immigration as many Georgia legislators, Gonzalez tries to convince them that HB 1105 should be abandoned because “…a U.S Court of Appeals struck Georgia’s HB 87, also known as the “Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act,” over a decade ago” – which is an intentional lie. The truth is that the court enjoined one of the law’s twenty-three sections. Because GALEO joined with the SPLC, the ACLU,  and various other anti-enforcement corporations in a federal lawsuit in an attempt to overturn the law, Gonzalez knows the truth.

The hateful Gonzalez/GALEO media release titled “Rejecting divisive rhetoric…” is a must read for the uninitiated.

In addition to funding from Georgia Power and a list of other Georgia corporations, it should not go unnoted that GALEO Inc. has also been a recipient of a recent grant from the disgraced and discredited champions of smear – the SPLC.

Space does not allow more than a linked beginners guide to some of the other non-profit groups that are lobbying in the state Capitol against HB 1105, but here is a partial education: Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Atlanta (“Divest from the Deportation State!”). Georgia Familias Unidas led by Maria Del Rosario Palacios, the Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights, aka “GLAHR”, the (restricted) Latino Community Fund, the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute, and the Georgia Chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. – yes, that CAIR.

• Related reading: Abolish ICE! Marxist Georgia group (GLAHR) led by a Mexican citizen screams at passing traffic

GOP lawmakers who may have a difficult time maintaining an aggressive,  pro-enforcement approach to HB 1105 in the current storm of abuse by these Biden supporters should take a look at our February poll of Republican Primary voters on illegal immigration in Georgia.

Republican lawmakers must end the “ya’ll come!” practice of creating reward magnets for illegal aliens

It should always be noted that only six states host more illegal aliens than we do here in Georgia. And that there would be far fewer if the Republican-controlled legislature would end the practice of creating a magnet for more to come by passing bills that offer benefits as rewards for moving in.  Examples? The Registered Apprenticeship Program, the Dual Enrollment program, and endless Georgia Chamber of Commerce-ordered bills directed at ending the verification of lawful presence for issuing occupational licenses to name a few.

We will examine those anti-enforcement gems and the vote records here soon.

A closing question: Has anybody in the media asked Dalton Republican Rep Kasey Carpenter about his reasoning for voting with the Democrats against HB 1105 last week?

 D.A. King is the president of the Dustin Inman Society and proprietor of ImmigrationPoliticsGA.com .

The column above was originally posted on the subscription news and opinion outlet James Magazine Online,  March 7, 2024.

 

We told you so https://jamesmagazinega.com/2020/12/08/metro-atlanta-more-dangerous-after-election-of-progressive-sheriffs/

The below press release went out from GALEO CEO Jerry Gonzalez today. We think it is “divisive rhetoric” from the former Democrat fundraiser and MALDEF staffer who has been a notorious an anti-enforcement lobbyist for two decades. Feb 28th, 2024 GALEO Impact Fund Jerry Gonzalez CEO 678.691.1086 jerry@galeoimpactfund.org     FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE “Rejecting Divisive Rhetoric: Honoring Laken Riley’s Memory Through Meaningful Reform” CEO of GALEO Impact Fund By Jerry Gonzalez   (Norcross, GA) – Last week, we were all hit with the tragic news of the brutal murder of Laken Riley. By all accounts, Laken Riley was a deeply kind, intelligent, and hard-working young woman with a bright future ahead of her. That her life was cut short by a senseless act of violence is indefensible and all the more devastating.   In the last few days, Laken’s murder has been warped to fit the political agendas of right-wing opportunists. This should be a time for mourning the death of Laken Riley and coming together to address the very real issue of violence against women. Once the identity of the individual perpetrator was revealed, MAGA extremists and politicians chose to shift the blame away from the culprit himself and onto the entire immigrant community. This shift in narrative is dangerous and it does not even try to address the risks women face in lone runs– a particularly salient issue as 92% of women surveyed in 2023 said they had safety concerns during outdoor runs.   We have all seen how unfactual anti-immigrant rhetoric leads to violence and hate crimes. El Paso, Buffalo, and Pittsburgh are all examples of instances where white nationalists were emboldened by heightened rhetoric against vulnerable communities. And, while the immigrant community has a target on their backs, women’s voices are being silenced and gaslit as they advocate against rampant violence they continue to experience. When our elected leaders should be finding ways to support and empower women, far too many have chosen to spin a local tragedy to justify targeting immigrants for political purposes.   No matter where one falls on the political spectrum, everyone agrees that our immigration system is broken. However, our country’s long-standing commitment to providing asylum and an opportunity for a better life is not the problem. Rather, MAGA extremists’ adamant refusal to participate in bipartisan cooperation continues to stand in the way of meaningful progress on this vital issue of national security.   The recent failure of bipartisan legislation that would have tied aid to Ukraine and Israel to border security and immigration reform shows how politicians on the extreme right continue to prioritize political convenience over their policymaking responsibilities. This bill, which included historic compromises and concessions that traditional conservatives had long sought, signified the most meaningful attempt at immigration reform in recent memory; unfortunately, at the urging of former President Trump, congressional Republicans tanked the bill in a desperate attempt to boost their chances in the upcoming elections. Time and time again, leaders on the far-right have shown that they would rather employ extreme anti-immigrant rhetoric than actually work to fix the problems at our southern border.   Now, that anti-immigrant rhetoric is being used by self-serving politicians in our own state to further a white nationalist agenda that seeks to harm Latino and immigrant communities while ignoring the actual needs of working Georgians. Additionally, federal courts have repeatedly ruled that immigration is the responsibility of the federal government; this notion was again reaffirmed when a U.S Court of Appeals struck Georgia’s HB 87, also known as the “Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act,” over a decade ago. This law, which mirrored Arizona’s “show me your papers” law, prohibited the transportation and harboring of “illegal immigrants” and authorized police to “check the immigration status of suspects who cannot provide identification.”   Despite Republicans’ continuous attempts at targeting the immigrant community, the court’s 2013 decision reinforced that states’ attempts to regulate subjects that are regulated by federal law will be struck down. Yet, right-wing politicians continue to waste time and taxpayer dollars pushing anti-immigrant rhetoric and legislation that are useless in actually addressing issues of safety and security. They target immigrants in Georgia, instead of helping working Georgians with their basic necessities.   As one of the leading immigrant rights organizations in the State of Georgia, GALEO has repeatedly called for comprehensive immigration reform that rises to the challenges we face as a nation. Since our founding in 2003 we have stood firm against misdirected hate against immigrants and instead pushed for meaningful changes to the immigration system we all agree needs to be fixed. We need reforms that meet our country’s needs for national security and public safety while preserving human rights and keeping families together. Maintaining and exacerbating the existing status quo forces our immigrant community into the shadows. The result of this reality not only means that it is harder for victimized immigrants to effectively seek justice, but also more difficult for law enforcement to track down individual bad actors. Standard issuing of work permits, driver’s licenses, and other verifiable documents to immigrants residing in our communities ensures both community safety and robust national security.   We must have reforms that deal with the hardworking immigrants who are already here, but because there is no line to get into, they are stuck in limbo without a way to get right with the law. Georgia’s Latino and immigrant communities are driving forces for our state’s economy and industries like poultry, agriculture, and the service industries would collapse without their labor. We must have reforms that are forward looking as well and a visa system that reflects our growing economic needs as a nation. The misguided legislation being proposed at the Capitol right now does not improve safety for women and it further wedges law enforcement away from immigrants who fear ICE retaliation for reporting a crime.   The current slate of proposals being considered at the state legislature– many of which employ vague language that would create unfunded mandates and unenforceable processes for local municipalities– would violate constitutional freedoms, ignore the needs of local communities, and perpetuate harmful stereotypes about Latinos and immigrants.   As politicians today work to stoke anti-immigrant sentiment by taking advantage of a family and community’s tragedy, they are also inciting white nationalist rhetoric that may lead to violence against our communities in Georgia. They are pouring fire on a persistent white nationalist flame that has been set ablaze over many years of this type of rhetoric. In this time of grief and politicization, let us honor Laken Riley’s memory by rejecting divisive rhetoric and instead coming together to address the real issues at hand: the safety of women and the need for meaningful reform that strengthens our communities without dividing us.   ###########

 

 

Transcript by Rev.com. My cost: $150.00 and about 3.5 hours.

This committee is a result of SR 85 that passed despite our educated warnings on its goals. SR 85 is the product of the lobbying by the Georgia Chamber of Commerce.

Video here.

Begin meeting ( Chairman’s mic was off for a few seconds)…

Chairman Sen Walker:

… uh, visiting with each other. Um, but we’ve got a, a good agenda today, and we want to not take too much of your time, more than we have to. Um, I wanna call on the, uh, Ms. Wanda Jaffe. She’s the deputy director of the Professional Licensing Boards, and she has been gracious enough to allow us to meet here in her facility. So I’m gonna invite her to come forward and, uh, give us a few words of welcome and maybe some logistics.

Ms. Wanda, you… If you don’t mind, because we’re livestreaming. All the presenters will need to present from here. And we- we’ve got, uh, Senate press here that’s gonna help us with that, make sure we’re on board. Am I on?

Wanda Jaffe:

Yes, sir.

: Chairman Sen Walker:

Okay. Is that mic on?

Wanda Jaffe:

Yes, sir.

 Chairman Sen Walker:

Okay. Okay. All right. The floor is yours.

Wanda Jaffe:

Good morning.

 Chairman Sen Walker:

Morning.

Wanda Jaffe:

Um, I’m Wanda Jaffe, as he stated. I’m the deputy director here at the Professional Licensing Boards. Um, as many of you know, we have, um, 43 boards, 197 license types, and we are in the process of trying to get Georgians’ licenses as quickly as possible. We’re the only division that’s located down in Macon, so welcome to Macon everybody (laughs).

And, um, I just want to tell y’all, thank you for coming down here. And I’m, uh, gracious to open up our building to you guys. We are transparent. We are doing the best we can to get Georgians’ licenses as quickly as possible. We are fully involved with trying to remove blockers and get Georgians to work, so whatever we can do to be of help, just let us know.

 Chairman Sen Walker:

Thank you, Wanda. And how many employees are here?

Wanda Jaffe:

So I have a total of 110 employees here in Macon. Um, that does include some of our investigators and inspectors that are here in Macon.

 Chairman Sen Walker:

And you all are back open and, and not, not… You… The pandemic’s been over quite a while. You’re open for business, people are working here in their offices, is that correct?

Wanda Jaffe:

Well, yes and no. So we never closed during the pandemic. Um, during the COVID pandemic, I was here every day, five days a week. Um, I… But I did… We did send our staff home, um, to do some remote working. So we are now doing kind of a partial remote, partial in-person. So every board that works here operates has somebody here every day. So if a customer comes in and walks in off the street, if they have an occupational therapy license, there’s someone here to help them. So what we did was kind of rotated our staff out. Some of them can work from home as long as somebody is here every day that can assist a client. I’m here Monday through Friday every day to make sure that if something comes up that they’ve got somebody that they can talk to.

: Chairman Sen Walker:

Okay. Thank you.

Wanda Jaffe:

You’re welcome.

Chairman Sen Walker:

Any questions for Wanda? Thank you, ma’am.

Wanda Jaffe:

Okay.

1/3 start: Chairman Sen Walker:

(laughs).

Wanda Jaffe:

(laughs).

Audience:

[inaudible].

 Chairman Sen Walker:

Uh, I also want to recognize Maggie Hasty, with the Secretary of State’s Office. She’s been instrumental in helping us put this together. Thank you, Maggie, uh, very much for that. Again, Senate Press, thank you for the- their work. Um, as far as the committee members, we have, uh, S- Senator Brian Strickland here. Senator Mike Dugan here, Senator Anavitarte is, um, with us virtually, uh, watching the meeting as it’s livestreamed. Uh, and if he has questions, he’s gonna text them to Ky and I. Um, and then Senator Halpern had a prior commitment, uh, on the West Coast, so, uh, but we do have a quorum. And with that, I will, uh, call the meeting to order.

Um, also I do want to recognize my legislative assistant, Kylynn Gallagher. Thank you, Ky for all your help with, with this. Um, just… I’m gonna make a couple remarks to start off with. The… This topic, uh, as I have dug into it, has been kicked around for literally decades. I suspect that my father, uh, worked on this issue. Uh, it’s a tough nut to crack. Um, there are, as, as Wanda said, under, under this office, 43 licensing boards (laughs). And, uh, and, and they’re, they’re not any of them one the s- same as the other, really. And they all have different nuances to them. And everybody kind of has a, a, ve- uh, you know, the turf issues and the- their agenda and their vested interests. So it’s a difficult politically to… Uh, uh, uh, it’s a challenge. But we are in, uh, 2023, and as you’ll hear from Daniela in a minute, we have a serious workforce, uh, needs in Georgia, thankfully, under Governor Kemp and prior good leadership. We’ve got a growing economy, uh, and we’ve, we’ve got to get into the modern world with this licensing, professional licensing issue if we’re gonna continue to grow our economy.

Um, I do wanna recognize my very good friend, uh, uh, Representative Patty Bentley, uh, for joining us. And, uh, we’re always glad to see you, Patty. And Patty has recently gotten engaged, and, um, I’m real, uh, proud for her. But, um, uh, I, I hope she doesn’t decide to run for the Senate. I’d be in in trouble.

Audience:

(laughs).

 Chairman Sen Walker:

Uh, so our first speaker, uh, just to give us some information on what we’re… Where we’re at in Georgia with workforce is, uh, Daniela Perry. So, Daniela, the floor is yours. And if you’d like to sit and adjust that mic down, or if you want to move that chair and stand and just talking in the mic, um, you, you may can work your PowerPoint.

Daniela Perry:

Thank you.

Wanda Jaffe:

Adjusted.

Daniela Perry:

Can y’all hear me okay?

Audience:

Yeah.

Daniela Perry:

Well, um, Chairman Walker, again, thank you for the invitation to be here today and to share a little bit of information, um, that we’re looking at from a Georgia Chamber perspective. Um, my name is Daniela Perry. I serve as the vice president of the Georgia Chamber Foundation. Um, and our… The foundation is really the research, um, and data arm of the Georgia Chamber. So a lot of our work, um, you know, focuses on these big trends and what we’re looking at, um, moving forward.

So, as Chairman Walker mentioned, um, we’ve experienced tremendous economic growth. Um, the last four years, again, has been record economic growth year over year. And, of course, Governor Kemp announced another year of record economic growth for FY23. Um, so while many states are trying to still recover from the pandemic and find their footing, we, um, have continued to seen prosperity, um, year over year. I think a key point to mention is the fact that 77% of this economic activity has occurred outside of metro Atlanta, which is the state chamber, is really important to us, um, because we wanna make sure that in every corner of the peach state, whatever your zip code is, that you are experiencing opportunity and able to find good employment and grow your economy.

So while we’ve experienced this tremendous economic growth, um, it hasn’t come without its challenges, although these are really, really good problems to have. So we’ve been tracking unique job postings, um, since 2020, um, with, with COVID. You’ll see on the graph here, it looks at 2021. Um, and y’all can see, there’s been some variation over the years. You’ll see that dip in Q3 of 2021, which was the Delta variant of COVID. Um, and you’ll see it rebounded very quickly to mo- over 450,000 job postings. And now we are kind of in a little bit of a plateau around 350,000.

The top occupations we’ve seen this quarter, um, our registered nurf- nurses, software developers, and retail salesperson. The other one that often ends up in this category is tractor trailer truck drivers, which obviously with our freight logistics infrastructure, it’s a huge demand. Of course, too, I wanna note that all of these are very different skill levels, require different education, but again, we’re just seeing tremendous need across the state.

Uh, another key point to mention is the number of unemployed Georgians is about half of what these job postings are. So as we’re thinking about how do we combat with our workforce shortages, simply getting people off of unemployment and into jobs is not going to, to fix our problem. We really need to think strategically about how we can, you know, bring folks in. And then also think about folks that are not engaged in the workforce, um, make sure that we’re able to get them back into the workforce, whatever barrier they might face, which is where I’d like to point you to our labor force participation rate, which is around 61.3%.

So we have nearly 40% of Georgians that are not engaged in the workforce presently. Um, they’re of working age. So again, as we’re thinking about how do we get these folks in, we wanna make sure we’re looking at any barriers that would prevent them to getting to employment or maybe, um, individuals that are also underemployed or looking at that.

So I mentioned labor force, um, participation rate because we like it, um, a little bit better than unemployment because it looks at kind of that full working age population. This, um, goes back to 2000, um, and you’ll kind of see that there’ve been some spikes and jumps, um, and you can see where the great recession’s been, as well as COVID. Um, but overall, we’ve seen a, a decline in individuals that are participating in the workforce. Um, I’ve got numbers for the last, um, couple of years. We actually had our peak, um, in November of 1998, around 69, a little over 69%.

So again, as we’re thinking about the fact that we’ve seen this decline overall, we wanna make sure that we’re thinking about what are those barriers, um, understanding that the nature of work has changed. Um, the, the skills that are needed in the workforce are changing too, especially as we’re seeing technology, um, become a bigger part of everyone’s job.

So I’ve pulled some, um, occupations from our labor market software. Um, these are all required licenses in the state, um, included the job posting over the last year. Um, I also included retiring soon. Um, so as we’re thinking about not only our current workforce shortages, but what’s the need over the near term. Um, wanna be cognizant of that shortage that’s coming, and then also the number of employers competing. So when we say war for talent, you’ll know that we’re not over-exaggerating. Um, this is a, a tremendous need. Of course, I’d love to point you to registered nurses. We’ve got almost 3,000 employers that are trying to hire registered nurses in the state, and there’ve been, um, more than 82,000 postings.

Again, you’ll also see that there are other, um, health occupations for, um, you know, nursing home, certified nursing assistants, home health aides, and, um, tractor trailer truck drivers, the top ones, but of course, childcare workers, pharmacist, accountants. And again, this ranges over different skill levels, different education levels, but tremendous growth, um, in all of them.

So we like to look at the long term an- and know where we’re going. Um, by… In the next 10 years, we are gonna need… Where our… The number of jobs will increase, um, by a little more than 2 million, and our population’s going to increase, um, by 1.2 million individuals. So again, as we’re thinking about the fact that we are experiencing this tremendous growth, um, a- and this is kind of just that projection that we, we certainly could get larger announcements that’ll bring more need. Um, also thinking about the fact that in the back rearview mirror, we’ve got all those retirements of people that are, um, moving towards that, people are working longer. Um, so there’s a little bit of variability, but over the long term, we’re really gonna need to think strategically and systematically about how we do things differently, um, how we are able to innovate, um, whether it’s reducing regulations, um, but making sure that we’re able to meet our workforce needs long term.

So, uh, we’ve, um, you know, at the Georgia Chamber have looked at a number of opportunities, um, to improve occupational licensing, to get more folks, um, into these, um, occupations because generally, occupations that are licensed have higher salaries, so better, um, opportunities for folks. There’s around 40% of Georgians that have a criminal history. Um, and we’ve seen that, um, salaries actually are 10 to 20 percent lower for individuals that have been incarcerated. And too, the unemployment rate is significantly higher for those that are formerly incarcerated. Um, as well, I know there was some legislation from Chairman Strickland last session that addressed this. Um, and the Georgia Chamber was, um, supportive of it because it really looks at how do we get folks that have skills and talents for facing some logistical barriers within our, um, occupational licensing system.

Georgia also has a huge military population. Um, we actually have the ninth biggest veteran population and then the fifth biggest active duty, um, population in the state. But portability, um, of licensing for military spouses has become more and more important for the Department of Defense. In order for them to designate Georgia as a military friendly state, you need to have that 30-day near term licensing. Um, of course, as we’re looking statewide and seeing the big need, all of our military installations are huge economic drivers across the state. Um, an- and so we know what they mean to the communities, but as well what they mean to the state as a whole.

We wanna certainly protect our military installations because we know the tremendous growth that they add, especially with Robins Air Force Base being, um, just down the road here. The healthcare industry, um, as I’ve kind of shared some data, you’ll see again, there’s tremendous need in growth. Um, but the Georgia Healthcare Workforce Commission had a few statistics again that, that look about what this looks like long-term. Um, and estimate around 20% of nurses, behavioral health and specialty care, um, workers are over 55 years old and so might be looking to retire, um, over the next 10 years.

Also found that around 3.7% of the healthcare workforce is leaving annually and is not being replaced by new graduates. And then, of course, as we’re thinking about all those opportunities, um, with legal i- immigrants that have come here, um, opportunities to make sure that we are using their skill sets well. Um, of course, there’s also op- opportunity at the federal level with visa reform, but not within the scope of that, so we’ll leave that to Washington. And that’s, um, all I have for y’all this morning. So certainly, happy to answer questions, but again, I appreciate the opportunity to be here, and appreciate y’all service on, um, this committee to address this issue.

: Chairman Sen Walker:

Thank you, Daniela. It’s good information. Uh, so you, you hear the challenge we face with these, uh, the growth we’re having, and the statistics she gave us, um, and licensure. It certainly is a barrier to entry into the workforce for a lot of people. Um, and I, I know I didn’t ask you this to prepare this, but it’s… And it may be somebody in the room knows, but what percentage of the, uh, job postings that we have require a occupational license?

Daniela Perry:

I can look that up for you.

: Chairman Sen Walker:

I think I’ve seen that in a recent meeting-

Daniela Perry:

Yeah.

1/3 start: Chairman Sen Walker:

… but I… It’s, it’s a pretty, uh, high percentage. It’s pretty un- uh, uh, surprising how high that is. So certainly, that’s a challenge. Um, I’ve got… And I’m sure my colleagues will have some questions too, but on the workforce participation percentage, is this kind of a national trend?

Daniela Perry:

Yes.

1/3 start: Chairman Sen Walker:

I mean, are we an anomaly or is this?

Daniela Perry:

No, Georgia… We- we’ve certainly kind of seen this nationally. Um, other states are going through, through similar things. Um, certainly, you know, Georgia, you know, I think is… I think is in the middle in terms of where we stack with our labor force participation rate. Um, but we certainly have other states that we’re competing with that are doing better in this arena. Um, obviously, it’s something that’s an opportunity. And when we look to different communities around the state, um, we see lower numbers in the state average. Um, I think Bibb County was around 55%. Um, so again, as we’re thinking about the statewide need, we’ve got different pockets depending on community need, um, where you are even seeing lower, um, numbers than that, 61.3%.

1/3 start: Chairman Sen Walker:

Is part of that just lifestyle choices and, and maybe wanting to have, uh, uh, one parent, you know, dedicated to parenting the children and staying home, raising the family?

Daniela Perry:

Absolutely.

1/3 start: Chairman Sen Walker:

Uh, versus, I mean, you know, both parents working in the children in daycare.

Daniela Perry:

Yes. So certainly, this is gonna encompass individuals that are choosing to stay home, um, because it is better for their family to have one parent working or one parent, um, at home. Um, it also could include individuals that may have disabilities that have trouble accessing the workforce. Um, so there’s a wide range of, of why you have this 40% that is opted to not participate in the workforce. And certainly, ag- again, you know, um, the high point of this i- in recent history was around 68 or a little over 69%. Um, and so, you know, a seven point drop is still very significant. And if we had those folks in the workforce, we would certainly be meeting a lot more of our current workforce shortages.

Um, but, you know, I, I think it’s fair to say that you would always have a portion of the workforce that would not opt in for, for various reasons.

 Chairman Sen Walker:

So we have 350,000 unique job postings currently, a little over 350,000. And your projection is that the, uh, number of jobs is gon- over the next decade is gonna increase by, uh, over two, um, two and a half million, looks like to me, from 5,285,000 to 7,000,845.

Daniela Perry:

Yes, sir.

 Sen Walker:

And yet, our population is only gonna increase 1.2 million so that, uh, that makes the delta… So we’re gonna go… That’s, that’s one point. So we’re gonna be like 1.6 or 7 million in open positions if these, uh, projections hold true.

Daniela Perry:

Absolutely. And so, I think that’s-

1/3 start: Chairman Sen Walker:

Even if 100% of the population growth went to work-

Daniela Perry:

Right.

: Chairman Sen Walker:

… which they’re not. So it’s actually gonna be a big, big deficit in workers. So it, uh, seems clear to me that we’re gonna have to recruit workers from other states to grow, you know, to fi- fill the need in our economy. And as we do that, I think the licensure issue becomes even more of a, a problem for that. Um, the other thing that I think is happening and, and COVID accelerated this is, we’ve got Georgians that are, you know, live here, but they’re working for, they’re working for companies virtually outta state because their licensing requirements are maybe they don’t even have to have a license to do that job, or maybe it’s easier to get a license.

Uh, and I think we are seeing that in, uh, all the fields, but I think in like psychology, and psychologists, and some of the medical fields, uh, they’re, you know, able to make more money maybe doing it that way and have less barriers to entry. So we’re at a competitive disadvantage. Um, we’re not gonna be able to recruit these people from other states if we have a burdensome licensure system, which we do have, which we’ll hear about that later.

Um, and we’re competing, you know, with the ability to really work anywhere in the world, uh, in certain jobs virtually. So I think we are… Uh, uh, it’s imperative and, and incumbent upon us to try to fix this problem. Um, Senate Bill 157 sponsored by Senator Strickland, uh, is of high, high priority for the Senate. It passed unanimously in the Senate, and we are… I guess it’ll come back being committee in the Senate or does it-

Senator Strickland:

It’s in the house.

1/3 start: Chairman Sen Walker:

In the house.

Daniela Perry:

Okay.

 Chairman Sen Walker:

Um, but that’s gonna be a high priority, uh, for us that deals with the, uh, some criminal history and, uh, Senator Dugan and I are on the Georgia Works Commission, and we got a lot of good information about that at our meeting Tuesday. Um, and people that are, apparently people that are arrested and not convicted, it still creates a problem for them with employment. And um, so I applaud Senator Strickland for his work on that. And, um, uh, um, uh, you know, the lieutenant governor is, uh, this is a high priority for him. I’ll just, for the public that’s watching that we get this passed.

Um, and then for me and a, a lot of us in, in the legislature, um, I represent Robins Air Force Base and the spousal licensure, which we’re gonna talk hear about more today too, is something that I’m real, uh, passionate about. And we have, uh, you know, had legislation that got out of Senator Dugan’s committee that was really… He helped me improve it and perfect it. It was really good legislation and again, got hung up in the house with some, uh, just, you know, things going on there. So we’re gonna continue to work on that. Um, all right, I’ve talked enough, uh, Senator Strickland.

Senator Strickland:

Thank you. Um, Daniela, as Senator Walker was saying, thank y’all for your support as Senate Bill 157. Um, I think that bill is gonna go a long ways in really making more of a uniform process as to how criminal records are handled by all these different boards. You mentioned 40% of our state having a criminal record. And what we learned in working on that issue, wanna applaud Representative Bentley who’s here as well. We, um, spent a, a last year in a separate study group that was kind of unofficial looking at that issue. And we saw and heard from people that were not trying to work because they thought they couldn’t.

Daniela Perry:

Yeah.

Senator Strickland:

They didn’t know how their record would affect them, even getting in industries, and then word from an attorney that was handling appeals for people that were denied licensing, who does this for a living and has trouble navigating that. We realized how difficult it is for individuals to ever navigate that process. So it now sits in the house, and we have, um, broad support in the house, I believe as well. Just got caught up in the back and forth last year. So that’ll be… I believe it’ll back in the judiciary committee, I think, in the house this year coming up next year.

Um, question for you, in the labor force participation rates, some of the same things that Chairman Walker was asking, um, you mentioned how this compares nationally. Do you know if, if the aging population does this, does this include people of working age, or is this everyone, is this… Is the aging population that we have impacted by this, or they’re not counted in that rate, do you know?

Daniela Perry:

Sure. So it’s usually defined by, um, USBLS by 25 to 64.

Senator Strickland:

Okay.

Daniela Perry:

So there is the potential to that is individuals are maybe older and, you know, choosing to still participate in the workforce that some of those are captured as well. Um, and, and we are certainly encouraging, you know, businesses across the state to think creatively how to use, um, you know, individuals that have lots of expertise to offer and still wanna contribute a lot to make sure they’re utilizing things well.

Senator Strickland:

But also goes to show it’s not just because people are getting older then, so they’re not counted in that. Um, the other question I have, you may not know the answer to this, and I’m not sure if anybody does, but has there been any study that goes the next step and ask people why they’re not working? There’s many reasons people may choose not to work, um, but it’d be great to know…… knows, just even from a just, survey standpoint, what the reason is. I, I look at the childcare shortage-

Speaker 2:

Okay.

1/3 start: Chairman Sen Walker:

Um, I mean, I, I know people, maybe it’s just people I know, that are young parents that, uh, aren’t able to work because they can’t find childcare. I know someone right now, that’s considering taking a leave of absence from a professional job, because she can’t find anybody to take care of her child. She lost her childcare purse. She’s on a waitlist at places.

And so, that’s just one little factor that could be in there, that we saw related to, uh, the overall issue of workforce. I’d be curious if we have seen any studies that would show why people are choosing more and more s-, around the country, more so, not to work.

Speaker 2:

Absolutely. Um, we can pull some information, but I have not seen a great survey. I think it is one of those things that people do consistently ask, you know, where are these individuals. I think we’d love to show them some of our TCSD programs, and things that are options.

But absolutely, childcare’s a huge issue and we do have a shortage of childcare workers. Um, speaking from personal experience with it, a dire… in childcare, uh, we were on a waitlist for a long time, too, uh, to get her into the, the right place where she’s safe. Um, so absolutely, it’s a huge challenge.

Um, and certainly one of the reasons, too, when we saw a tremendous levels of women leaving the workforce during the pandemic. Um, and so, still trying to make sure we’ve got folks into the workforce that, um, want to contribute, but all those other factors need to be right for them a- able to make that choice.

Speaker 3:

Senator Dugan.

Senator Dugan:

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Uh, Senator Strickland, I’m sorry, I looked to you and said I wasn’t gonna ask anything.

Senator Strickland:

Uh-

Senator Dugan:

Uh-

Senator Strickland:

That’s why I talked so long.

Senator Dugan:

Yeah.

Speaker 2:

(laughing).

Senator Dugan:

Thank you, and always good to see you.

Speaker 2:

Thank you.

Senator Dugan:

And, I’m gonna, I’m gonna tag on that one too, the 177,000 one. Uh, we need more context with that. How many of the 177,000 are actually looking for jobs that require certification, which would be pertinent to this particular committee? Um, and it’s not only childcare availability, uh, some of these are childcare cost.

Speaker 2:

Okay.

Senator Dugan:

Uh, so you got one that’s availability. You have three, you start looking at, is it more economically feasible for one of these to stay at home with children while the other one works, because it, of the, the cost portion of it. Sec-, the second one i- is a question. If you could look back at 1998-

Speaker 2:

Yeah.

Senator Dugan:

What were we doing differently then, than we’re doing now?

Speaker 2:

Probably, a couple different things. Um, but certainly, um, you know, eh, it… there’s been a lot of conversation again, why we’ve seen this decline, because it is something that we’ve seen nationally.

Um, and, you know, there’s a number of different reasons, but there’s not one silver bullet. You know, um, people are choosing to, want more flexibility, um, a- and so they’re, you know, thinking about these options differently. Um, there are a lot of costs that have arisen over the years and maybe, always haven’t tracked, um, with salary growth.

Um, a- and so, we’ve seen a lot of different trends, kind of, impact this number. Um, but I would say, there’s not one clear factor. Um, I would say Georgia has experienced this in a little different way, because, um, you know, we were able to bring a lot of folks into the state, to meet our workforce needs for a lot of years. Um, having the fact that we’ve got lots of people from other southern states that were moving in and filling our workforce shortages. Um, but we’ve kind of, seen that slow in recent years. And then with the tremendous growth, um, it’s created more of a challenge.

Um, there was actually some recent research that showed that Georgia has 159% more unfilled positions, than unemployed individuals, in the state. And the national average is 67%.

So again, as we’re thinking about what’s unique about Georgia, it’s that our needs are a lot more acute than other places. Um, of course, other people are very envious of what we’ve seen from an economic growth prospective. They want the economy that we have. Um, but that certainly requires, you know, innovative and strategic thinking about how to use the people that we have here, and then how to strategically recruit folks into the state, that meet those workforce, um, needs that we’re seeing from an industry perspective, just grow and expand.

Senator Dugan:

When you go back and look at 1998, uh-

Speaker 2:

Yes, sir.

Senator Dugan:

And I understand the types of jobs have changed significantly-

Speaker 2:

Yes.

Senator Dugan:

… since then. Um, a matter fact, they didn’t have smartphones, back then. Uh, but when you go back and look at that-

Speaker 2:

Yes, sir.

Senator Dugan:

Did you get the percented population that was involved in agriculture, in ’98 that was considered employed, versus now?

Speaker 2:

Yes.

Senator Dugan:

And that the only… The last question I have, is on the, Georgia’s war for talent. And, you know, I, obviously they… the situation with yellow, is not good. How is that gonna impact the availability of CDL drivers, on your slide there, what are you forecasting?

Speaker 2:

The need for CDL drivers is tremendous. Um, I would say we consistently hear from folks, um, that this is one of the biggest limitations. Which is why we’re really seeing industry think about, how do we, y- is this an in-, is this something that we try to automate faster? Um, because we are just seeing tremendous shortages.

Um, and I would say, too, that’s why, you know, we’ve seen more and more challenges with getting products to people faster. Of course, a lot of was accelerated with COVID, as we’re seeing so much more e-commerce growth. Um, it was something that happened very, very quickly.

But, um, too, is we think about a competitiveness prospective. If we don’t have the truck drivers here, to move goods in and out of the state, it’s gonna impact the activity at the ports, um, a- and everything that we’ve really been able to grow, strategically.

So, I would say we signi-… We really look at that. And, uh, for the truck drivers, um, retiring soon, is almost the same number of the new postings. So, eh, we are, uh, specifically, for a lot of companies engaged in this effort, that it is a significant challenge for them to recruit folks. Um-

Speaker 3:

[inaudible]. That’s fine.

Senator Dugan:

Y- you kept talking, so it chipped away-

Speaker 2:

Sorry.

Senator Dugan:

… another question. No, no, no, no. That’s why you’re here.

Speaker 2:

Okay.

Senator Dugan:

Um, so, how much flexibility do we have within defining what is required for a CDL, within the State?

Speaker 2:

So, the one other thing I hear a lot of, wh- where we experience this big, um, issue on the tractor trailer truck drivers, is that in order to cross state lines, you have to be 21 years old, which obviously is where a lot of the need is. That’s at the federal level, unfortunately.

Um, a- and so they’re obviously is, flexibility within the licensing here, but consistently, that’s something that we, hear. Um, so, I know there’s lots of movement within Congress to, to try to continue to push this. Um, especially, as we’re thinking about getting folks on a talent pipeline. If we want to make sure that we’re catching kids in middle school and high school, and really showing the opportunity. If you would, then, have to wait three years and do something else, and then come back to CDL, it’s a big hurdle, um, for that recruitment prospective.

Senator Dugan:

That’s what I was asking.

Speaker 2:

Yeah.

Senator Dugan:

Um, do we have the flexibility to set up a different category of CDL, that is a short haul, CDL, where you could be lower than 21?

Speaker 2:

That’s a great question. We can… I’ll, I’ll do some research to see what we… if that would be something that would, um, an option. But I know that crossing state lines, is usually something that is very important, obviously, to get folks from industry perspective.

Speaker 5:

Um, so, I, I think that you can get a CDL, prior to 21, it’s just-

Senator Dugan:

You can’t-

Speaker 5:

You can’t-

Speaker 2:

Cross state lines.

Speaker 5:

Cross, (laughs), state lines. And the other issue is, your ins-, the company’s insurance, um, carrier’s gonna have guidelines for their drivers, too. Uh, and it, it, that becomes an issue, you know, it’s a lot, a lot of ’em want the drivers to have three years experience, and so on and so forth. So it’s a, yeah, (laughs)-

Speaker 2:

Yeah. (laughs).

Speaker 5:

Um, Mr. Sterling, I don’t think is here. Um, so, Sarah, do you mind to go out of order and go ahead and present your portion?

Thank you very much, Daniella, awesome. [inaudible]. (laughs). Sarah Critanin is, uh, with our office of legislative counsel, and she’s got some, uh, good information she’s gonna share with us today on some recent corp cases, and just the legal landscape of, uh, licensing and where it is in our code section, et cetera, so.

And she put all this together for me, on short notice.

Sarah Critanin:

(laughs).

Speaker 5:

I appreciate that.

Sarah Critanin:

Anything for you, Senator.

Speaker 5:

(laughs).

Sarah Critanin:

So, um, I’m Sarah Critanin, I’m attorn-, an attorney with the Office of Legislative Council, and we draft your Bills. (laughs). And I’ve been doing it for two years. Before that, I was with the Department of Insurance. So I hae some experience with, um, dealing with licensure and, um, criminal investigations and how to handle, um, m- background checks and that sort of thing.

So, um, I was really excited to help out with this committee. Um, I’m gonna talk to you… So I gotta come down here. Oh… So we’re gonna ta-… I’m gonna talk to you today, about sort of, opening up licensure, and what’s going on federally. Um, and, um, in the service members Civil Relief Act, which is a federal law.

And then, uh, Senator Walker, asked me specifically, to talk about a recent Texas District Court case. Um, I’d like to take a moment to talk about interstate license for compact, which comes up a lot, were all this goes in Georgia law.

And then finally, Senator Walker asked that we talk about a recent Georgia Supreme Court case. So that’s a lot to cover. I set the timer, it’s going. (laughs). And so, we’ll see what can do.

So, the Service Members Civil Relief Act, or the SCRA, um, is found in federal law, under 50 USC, Section 3901 to 4043. This act is designed to help service members, um, when they have to transition to active duty, and it, it provides some civil protections, which is yet there, uh, protections by foreclosure, repossession, leasing agreement evictions, interest rates and default judgments.

The concept of pro- protecting our service members, goes a way back. I did a little, you know, one day’s research. But it goes back, (laughs). There, there was, um, there were laws, um, in the Civil War and World War I and in World War II, to protect service men when they get called to duty. And in fact, it used be called the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act, SSCRA.

In, uh, 2003, it was overhauled and became the Service Members Civil Relief Act, and, um, for our purposes, um, there was an addition in 2023, this year, um, on the portability of professional licenses.

So, uh, this was signed in January of this year and went into effect in January of this year, to, um, allow service members and their spouses to use their professional license and certificates, when they rele- relocate, due to military orders.

Um, so I, this is sort of, a hybrid. I tried to cut and paste the actual law, ’cause you never want to blur it. Because it is, we have to look at the exact words, um, to understand what’s going on here, who it applies to and what it covers.

So, it applies to service members or their spouse, as who has a covered license. And that’s a defined term in the law. And it’s when they relocate, because of a military order for military service, outside the jurisdiction, where the license was issued. And the co-, and the consan-… the huge benefit of this, is a covered license shall be considered valid. Which is a, a, you know, a phenomenal statement in the law, for them just to, blanket, say that.

The interesting thing, um, legislatively, for me, was, you know, it’s not forever, it’s for the duration of the military order, and then, um, under certain conditions or circumstances.

So, what the service member or spouse must do, is a… And this is in the law. This is cut and paste, in the law. They have to provide a copy of the Order to the licensing authority. They have to remain in good-standing with the original licensing authority, um, in the good-standing of every other licensing authority that they’ve been issued. And they have to… And this is very important, as a receiving state, is they have to submit to the authority of the licensing authority in the new jurisdiction. So, that’s a, a great save. That gives the receiving states some, um, leverage.

Um, interestingly, the federal law, specifically yields to states that are participating in interstate licensure compact. So, some of you, um, may not be familiar with, uh, what a interstate licensure compact is, and I’ll talk about this later. But, uh, this is from the, uh, service, Service Members Civil Relief Act, um, and it provides an exception.

So, um, the federal law is yielding to the state’s agreement, which is, which is also e- exciting, you know, yay, law. But it’s, uh, (laughs), it’s exciting to see that federal law is saying, okay, a few states have worked it out in the licensure compact, then y’all, you get to, um, control.

Um, so, um… this is also, um, from the cil- the Service Civil, Service Members Civil, um, Relief Act, is, what is a covered license. This is the definition, is a professional license that is good, in good-standing with the licensing authority, and that the service member or spouse, has actively used during the tri- two years, and that is not a license to practice law. So they carved out law. Yay. So, (laughs). So, I, um, I underline this phrase, has actively used, ’cause that’s gonna come up in a case.

This is a recent case, Porte and, I, I think there’s supposed to be an accent, but I’m just gonna say, Porte versus Morath. It’s a recent case, out of Texas. So, it does not have any governing on us, but it’s a very interesting case, because we’re gonna see the little dance between Federal and State law.

It’s out of, uh, Texas. It’s a District court case. So, there’s a chance this may all be appealed. More like, more likely they will be appealed, but for now, this where it stands. It was on the application and scope of the licensure and por- portability provision in the SCRA.

There’s a conflict with the Texas requirement. So the Plaintiff was Hanna Porte, a service member spouse. She had, um, a school counseling license from Ohio and Missouri and she got married, and her husband was transferred for, to Texas, for military purposes. So, all that falls under, um, SCRA.

And she applied for a job in Texas, and Texas refused, saying, um, she… they were, they had an extra requirement, as most states do. So they had an extra requirement, that she had to have two years of experience.

Um, she appealed… Uh, well, sh- they refused. She mo-… She filed a lawsuit. They moved for preliminary injunction and the, the District Court granted it. Um, there was some argument about, about whether she had to, be employed for two years, or it’s just if she used her license in that two-years period. And the District Court sided with the Plaintiff.

So, what does this mean for us, is that we have to be mindful of what the Federal government’s doing. Um, when I found out, after the fact, is that the Department of Justice was very ha-, was very clear all along, about where they stood on this.

So the, in July of this year, the Department of Justice issued a letter to all State licensing authorities, regarding the professional licensing portability provisions. And you can find it at their website, and I don’t think I printed out a copy. But it’s very clear, the law is very clear, and it’s very clear to them, that they’re gonna enforce this law, and they’re going to support the military members and their spouses, in their pursuit of justice, if they want to get licensed.

They also filed, which is kind of interesting, too, is they filed a Statement of Interest, in the Porte versus Morath case, um, saying that she was likely to succeed on her merits, and why that they, why, um, they are going to vigorously enforce this section, and why she had standing to bring the case. So the message is very clear to the states, that this is something important to the Department of Justice and to, um, federal government.

So, as mentioned earl-… Yeah. Eh-

Senator Dugan:

So can we… before we move on to another subject-

Sarah Critanin:

Yes, sir.

Senator Dugan:

That’s pretty significant, I think. Um, and very recent. Can we talk about that, Sarah, is that all right with you?

Sarah Critanin:

Yes.

Senator Dugan:

And maybe, ask some questions, and, um, maybe-

Sarah Critanin:

I’ll do my best.

Senator Dugan:

Uh, Wanda, I may call you back up, um, too. So, what does that mean for us, in the Georgia legislature? Do we need to align our, our statute to align with that federal statute? Does it mean we need to, not do anything and, and face potential lawsuits and see how the courts, so, let the court sort it out? I mean, what is the prudent path forward?

Sarah Critanin:

So, uh, in, in my opinion, I think the prudent path is for a state licensi- Licensing agencies, to really take a look at their requirements and open it up to, to be compliant with the federal law.

Uh, the, the interesting is, and we’ll talk about this, is so the SCRA is for active military, and some of our laws are more… the, the laws that we drafted are more about transitioning service members. And so, it’s a little bit different. So I don’t think we need to repeal anything or changing our law. I think agent, state agencies need to be aware of this law, and need to work, work, uh, y-, review their applicants, with this in mind. Just saying, oh yeah, this might be an issue.

I don’t think we need to change our laws yet.

Senator Dugan:

Uh, Sarah, we’ve argued in the legislature, over, you know, is 90 days long enough to recognize a military spouse license, from another state? Is 60 days? Should it be 30 days? I come down on 30 days. This is immediately.

Sarah Critanin:

Uh, I don’t think they put a timeline. But I think, right, sooner is b-

Senator Dugan:

Well, it can go back-

Sarah Critanin:

Do we go-

Senator Dugan:

… to one of your first slides. It said, I have something about, absolute.

Sarah Critanin:

It said, shall be valid. You’re right. That’s, uh-

Senator Dugan:

It doesn’t say, you… in 30 days or 90 days.

Sarah Critanin:

Whoops. Right. Shall be considered valid. Um, I mean, I think State agencies have a right. They, they need time to review and make sure all the documents are in place. But you’re right. I mean, it says it shall be considered valid.

Speaker 8:

There was a copy out on the next one, the-

Sarah Critanin:

Is it-

Speaker 8:

[inaudible] to everyone. But, it’s, uh-

Sarah Critanin:

Mm, next one?

Speaker 8:

Yeah.

Sarah Critanin:

Oh. Oh.

Speaker 8:

It… it’s all right.

Sarah Critanin:

This one?

Speaker 8:

Um…

Sarah Critanin:

One more?

Speaker 8:

No, I think that’s it.

Senator Dugan:

[inaudible].

Sarah Critanin:

All right. I mean, (laughs), I put these animations in. I thought I was being clever, and it’s just a pain. (laughs).

Speaker 2:

(laughing).

Speaker 3:

I think 2B and through, kind of address the, uh, fed and state. It’s up there.

Senator Dugan:

2B is licenses in other states, and they failed. So I don’t think that-

Speaker 3:

That has to be similar. We have to see it as similar to their…

Senator Dugan:

That does seem very subjective, to me, that part. And so-

Speaker 2:

Yeah, but how-

Sarah Critanin:

I don’t know, I think-

Senator Dugan:

Three is gone?

Sarah Critanin:

Yeah, I think-

Senator Dugan:

It’s pretty forward.

Sarah Critanin:

I mean, I do feel to… and it takes a lot to re-… I know with the insurance department, it takes a lot to review. It takes, uh… you have to have, you know, a lot of documents and you need someone to review those documents and confirm. It, it does take time to, to process-

Senator Dugan:

So-

Sarah Critanin:

… an application.

Senator Dugan:

Wanda, do you mind addressing us on this?

Wanda Jaffey:

Sure.

Senator Dugan:

I wondered if, um, have you… So again, this is Wanda Jaffey, the Deputy Director of Professional License and Boards.

Speaker 2:

Mm-hmm.

Senator Dugan:

Have you run into this? Or you… Uh, how are you all handling this?

Speaker 2:

So we’ve been handling military expedites since 2018. So, we have tracked those. Um, most applications are touched within three business days, of receiving that military application.

Now, I can go back and pull the numbers. I didn’t really prepare for it today. I wasn’t expecting to present. But I have numbers that can show you how quickly the application is touched and how quickly a person gets licensed, if they are marked, military, on their applications.

Um, I have a spreadsheet that I, that I track those daily since 2018. I will tell you the problem with some of these things, is that, the federal government… And I, I hate to say this, but sometimes they’re creating walls, without taking in the state’s considerations.

We, in Georgia, we are here to license people. But we are also here to protect the public. So there are two facets for the licensing boards. We issue licenses, but we also follow up on complaint an compliance, to make sure our Georgians are safe within the practices.

So, having the time to be able to receive these verifications from these other states, that is very important. Because if they’ve got a pending case in another state, do we want to put potential Georgians at risk, when there’s a pending case of some sort of malpractice in another state?

So some of those things, you have to take into consideration. These are what we all the exceptions to the rule. But they are things you have to consider when you are talking about timeframes.

Sara:

Um, another thing you want to think about is that, the response of those other states. I’m dealing with a client that is trying to get a massage therapy license. They cannot get Texas to send us the verification. I personally went on behalf of this customer and called Texas. I waited on hold for three and a half hours, and still never received any assistance or an answer. I sent emails to three different divisions for the state of Texas, still with no response. I called back the next day and waited for two hours.

This is what these people that are moving to Georgia, this is what they’re having to deal with. He came in here and he was like, “I came in here and met somebody within five minutes. I can’t get a response out of Texas.” Unfortunately, what if there is a malpractice in Texas? I feel for those people. I- I’m prior military. I moved around a lot. And I feel sincerely for- for them. And I- I feel like they need to be working. But what if I took the chance and issued them a license, and then come to find out that even though Texas was slow to respond, they’ve got 10 cases of sexual assault? You know?

So there are things that you have to take into consideration. Um, but as far as being a promilitary, Georgia is one of the few states that are so very promilitary. We add veterans preference points for exams. That gives them some credit. They have disability credit that we take for that, to help them get their exams. We are very promilitary. And I have seen, and I can pull up the spreadsheets, I just don’t have them handy, but most of our applications are issued within five to 10 days. Um, then again, with the ex- exceptions, it can make it look like it’s 50 days to get a license. But you got to look over the long period and what those exceptions are.

 Chairman Sen Walker:

So has this federal law changed your process and procedures? Or are you all still operating this … I mean, has this had any impact?

Sara:

Not in a significant manner, because we were already promilitary, (laughs) if that makes any sense. We were already a step ahead of the game, so we already were taking in this information, um, and preparing it and getting people licensed here. Um, so it made us look at a couple of things, because there was some law that was saying that it had to be substantially, you know, somewhat similar. And so some of the states, for example, I hate to say Texas again, (laughs) but one state for a profession only requires 300 hours worth of training, where we require 1500 hours. Um, so there’s … That’s not substantially equal, even though it’s the same license type.

So when we’re looking at these things, those are some of the things that we had to take into consideration, which is why we kind of pushed back and said, “Let it be substantially equal, not just, you know, similar.” So it has changed a little bit in how we process, but not a lot, because we were already proactive there.

1/3 start: Chairman Sen Walker:

One more question. What kind of volume, uh, I’m sure it’s a small percentage of your total volume, but is- is the- the military licensure a pretty robust volume of- of activity? Or-

Sara:

No. No, we- we issue … I’m trying to think about my spreadsheets, ’cause I tried to track all the numbers. A couple hundred a year is military for licenses that, where they’re actually marking that they are transitional military, that they are, you know, moving here. Um, it’s just a couple of hundred a year. I think one year we had like 700 and something. But don’t quote me on the numbers, ’cause I don’t have my spreadsheet right in front of me. Um, but it’s … That’s very little comp- when you compare it to all the licenses that we do here.

1/3 start: Chairman Sen Walker:

You have a question, Senator David?

Speaker 3:

Not that she can answer right now. I was just kind of curious what we’re getting for that additional 1200 hours worth of training, without knowing what the thing was. Um, it … There are some … That’s gonna come to something else we talk about, is the number of hours we’re requiring for some of this stuff.

Sara:

Right.

Speaker X:

[inaudible] good lawyer question.

Yeah.

(laughs) Uh …

Sara:

(laughs)

Speaker X:

[inaudible]

Sara:

I’m not a lawyer. (laughs)

Speaker 4:

[inaudible] last night. Um, my question was what year this law was- was passed. For Sara I guess, what year was this federal law passed?

Speaker X:

This new, the new one-

Speaker 4:

Right.

Speaker X:

… is this year-

Speaker 4:

So-

Speaker X:

… 2023. And it went into effect, it was signed and went into effect.

Speaker 4:

So then Texas sued. Um, or is anybody challenging the constitutionality of the law overall, the idea that the federal government is going to require this? The reason I ask that question is, if- if so, uh, are we prudent to really not focus too much on this federal law until we see where this thing goes in the federal courts?

Speaker X:

Yeah.

Sara:

I- I don’t know if th- that was raised in the, in the case. The … Her case actually started before this case, I mean, before the law changed. And then it was brought in and the federal government s- sent in a letter or a statement of interest, which I think is unusual.

Speaker X:

Right.

Sara:

So right, there is an argument for let’s see. W- this appeal process, you know, appeal up the, up their side. And there’s, and another case we’ve got coming that, there’s appeals. But I think the, you know, the- the- the federal government is sending us signals to help its service members, to make their lives easier. And all of this, remember, all of this is based on trying to help our active military who have been called, you know, called up and are- are moving. They’re moving, whatever it is. So it’s not … So it’s, it is, um, a small subset of- of-

Speaker X:

[inaudible]

Sara:

Yeah. So … All righty, we’re good?

: Chairman Sen Walker:

[inaudible]

Sara:

Okay. All right, let’s-

1/3 start: Chairman Sen Walker:

Thank you.

Sara:

All right, let’s see where we are. Sorry.

 Chairman Sen Walker:

Interstate compacts, I think.

Speaker X:

[inaudible]

Sara:

Okay. So interstate licensure compacts, um, which is an exception to the, um, [inaudible] portability rule, law. So, let’s see if this works. [inaudible] Ah, here we go. (laughs) [inaudible] My head is gonna explode. Okay I’m not sure where to look or read but … (laughs) So, um … So if you go to this website, uh, we have a, um, occupational licensure compact. Actually, there are a lot of compacts in our OSGA. It has to do with agreements, like on water, borders, or, uh … There’s just a lot of compacts. But, uh, we’re focusing just on occupational licensure compacts. There are about 15 available.

Um, and actually if you scroll down, so it’ll say … This is a great website you can go to. Just keep going down, down, down, down. Here’s our list of the 15. Um, Georgia has signed onto, uh, about eight of those. Seven are in Title 43. And then one is in another title. And just a head’s up, there’s, um, a dietician compact coming and a school psychologist compact coming. Um … Let me see, so is there a way to … [inaudible]

So actually, I’ve got a l- uh, a list of which ones we’ve gone to. Can we c- can we click on this one? Um, and this was … Oh good, that came up. This was m- just, I’d like to point out that the, uh, Department of Defense is very much aware of these, uh, licensure compacts. And this is posted on- on their website. And there’s a whole bunch of links so that service members and their spouses are aware of which compacts are working and- and where their licensure can be eased along. Um … Okay. This …

So, most of the licensure compacts are in Title 43. Um, the- the point of, um interstate com- licensure compacts, is to, um, make it easier for people to get licensed, to use their license, but also to provide some safeguards. So there’s some better exchange of data and information between states. Um … Okay, so [inaudible] did I skip one? Oh, I think I might’ve. So this, um … Sorry, there’s all … You- you never want to let a lawyer talk. There’s all these things I wanted to talk about. I was gonna tell you about each bill that went through and what year it went through, but you’ll just have to read it in the news.

So in, (laughs) in addition to licensure compacts, we’ve got some great law that, um, and this is one section in Title 43 s- it’s 43-134, and then the next ones we’ll do also. Um, and this is for transitioning service members. Um, and- and it gives them, um … As you’ll see in, on line B, it sort of, it, and this I think is where she’s saying, like, since 2018, this has been con- this can been a- has been a priority. So they get sort of front of the line, temporary licenses, license inducement, exp- expedited licenses or accommodation.

So Georgia has been really, um, positive about helping its military. It’s, and this is specific to transitioning service members, as you know like with any bill, there’s a lot of give and take and chaos at the new session. So things get added, things get taken out. So we do the best we can to get a good law for you. Um, but this one has been on the books probably since two thousand- since 2017, with some adjustments.

And then, um, this past year, this section of the law was amended heartily. Um, 43-135, which is, uh, more about, um, um spouses and individuals. And this one, we really worked hard to try to get this, uh, to protect, uh, the licensing part of the world, but also to keep- keep businesses op- keep the licensing going. Um …

If you’ll see under Section B. See I, uh, you know, I don’t want to read this, ’cause I’m … But I love this. It’s great language. Um, again, it’s for an expedited license by endorsement. So this part of the law is for spouses of a service member or a transitioning service member stationed in Georgia.

And then we added, um, a little bit more. And I- I did think about this with Senator Walker’s concerns. Do we need to adjust this? And I think in my opinion, and I am gonna go talk to some of my senior attorneys about, you know, “Do we need to change B3?” And I don’t think we do. But that is something I am, um, I’m wondering if that’s in conflict or if it’s okay, because this is really just for a- a- a different group. The SCRA is for active military under order, transferring under orders. And this is a little bit different.

The second part of this law, well, third part of this law, is about, is, we really opened it up to any individuals crossing borders. Um, so this was kind of an exciting, uh, change to the law. Um, this of course is not affected by SCRA at all. But this was an exciting, very exciting to put in- into place.

Whoops. Oh, and in the end, of course we’ve got the little [inaudible]. We also say, if you look under, um, G, you know, the licensing compacts, these are agreements made, we made with our brethren states. We honor those agreements. And those- those agreements, um, control. So I know I’ve been talking a lot. And I just, I do want to show you, if this works [inaudible]

Well, it may not work, but I did … Do you think you can get it? If you can get it to work, it’d be great. Um, you know, you never want to leave an attorney with time on their hands. So in May, after the session, after I recovered from the session I was like, “Hey, what is going on in Title 43?” So I painstakingly went through every chapter and said, “Okay, what, this becomes an issue, is what constitutes a professional licensing board? What is an other board? Um, what is under the Secretary of State’s office?” And I probably, I’m gonna get your business card. Um, what do they consider, um, under their wings or under their whatever, shield? Um … No working?

Speaker X:

We’re getting there.

Sara:

Ah, it’s a beautiful spreadsheet with multiple colors-

Speaker X:

(laughs)

Sara:

… blue and green and yellow. And I worked really hard on it. And it’s got, uh, you know, 10 columns about what, what, how many boards we have, which, 43. Uh, we just lost one, (laughs) maybe. We’ll talk about that in a minute. And which ones are under the Secretary of State’s office. Well, not really [inaudible] well, there’s a case. Um, it’s not lost. It’s, there was just, um … No … Well, I’ll send you an email with a beautiful spreadsheet. [inaudible]

That’s okay, that’s okay. Maybe the n- … I’ll try the next …

Speaker X:

[inaudible]

Sara:

No? Okay. Well, you’ll just have to imagine. It’s a spreadsheet-

Speaker X:

(laughs)

Sara:

… with lots of, um, (laughs) colors and, um, I think I figured out, there’s like nine, I think, eight or nine that are specifically not under the Secretary of State. And then some that are specifically under the Secretary of State’s office. And then some that are squishy that I assume are probably under the Secretary of State’s office. So …

And lest you forget, not everything is in Title 43. We have plenty of licensing outside of Title 43. And this is just a list of random things I just kind of gathered. Um, so there’s lots of licensing that even when we cover it in Title 43, it may not, it doesn’t reach out, unless we say it’s gonna cover it. Um, and just to give you an example, of course this becomes a big deal, um … We, we have not signed onto, to my knowledge, I didn’t see it, we didn’t sign onto a teacher compact.

And teaching is kind of a hard one I think for people to agree, for states to agree to, because you’re … There’s of state requirements. And, um, so we do have two statutes on the book for transferring out of state and, um, military spouses. And that’s, that’s about all I could find as far as, um, the, um, getting, letting out of state people get licensed.

Okay, so the big winner Jackson v. Raffensperger [inaudible] … So, as, uh … This is an exciting, exciting case that, um, the complaint was filed in 2018, just after the, um, Georgia Lactation Consultant Practice Act was, um, um, enacted. And the challenge was based on two, uh, they challenged the constitutionality of the act on due process, Georgia due process clause violations and equal protection clause violations. So of course, I put those two up there.

The plaintiffs were Mary Jackson and, uh, Reaching Our Sisters Everywhere, a nonprofit organization. Uh, the acronym was ROSE. And the defendant, I think it started out under Kemp and then Raffensperger was substituted. Um, so this was, um … This case has gone up and down. Um, Jacks- what we call Jackson one, um, the- the- the lawsuit was filed and the trial court dismissed the claim saying that there was no, there was, they failed to state a claim, upon which re- relief could be granted. And that was appealed.

And the Georgia Supreme Court reversed and remanded, with directions to the trial court to reconsider. And they said that they had a long history of interpreting the Georgia Constitution as protecting the right to work in one’s chosen profession, from unreasonable government interference. And that’s the key phrase there. And then [inaudible] and they said that the trial court erred in concluding the plaintiffs are not similarly situated. So that was Jackson one. And this is just a quick overview. So that was in 2020.

And then it went back to the trial court. There was some discovery and negotiations and talk and what not. And on remand, um, the trial court, uh, granted one motion for summary judgment for one side, and, uh, motion for summary judgment for the other side. And both sides appealed. So then we got to Jackson two. And, uh, that, this is the case that just came out this, uh, May, 2023. And the Georgia Supreme Court concluded that the act was unconstitutional on due process grounds, but did not reach the equal protection claim.

So due process, here’s your five second law school, uh, intro to due process. So there is a due process clause in the, I already put it up there, but in the Georgia Constitution, it’s always been there. And the- the supreme court is very proud that they’ve long recognized it. And I bolded the phrase, “lawful occupation of their choosing, free from unreasonable government interference.”

And then, uh, this is also from that, the case, where they say, um, provide some guidelines on, um, when can the government interfere. uh, when there’s public health, safety, morality, and other [inaudible] of general we- welfare. Um, generally the burden, step one, the burden is on the plaintiff to show the occupation is lawful and the regulation burdens them. Then the step two is the government must offer a legitimate interest. And then step three is the plaintiff has to prove that it’s unre- it unreasonably interferes. So in five seconds or less, now you can all go to law school. (laughs)

Speaker X:

(laughs)

Sara:

And, um … I’m happy to answer questions. I know I went a little long. It’s … I’ve got lots of hand- you know, I printed things and I know the website links didn’t work, but I’m happy to send you information if you want. My contact information is there. It’s a fascinating, uh, subject, always interesting and always a pleasure to work with my colleagues. Thank you.

1/3 start: Chairman Sen Walker:

Any questions for Sara? Thank you so much Sara, that was a very informative and we’ll make any of this material available to anybody that wants it. Um, and I … Are these PowerPoints gonna be available-

Sara:

It’s online.

1/3 start: Chairman Sen Walker:

… uh, online? All right. Thank you. All right, last thing on our agenda, we’ve got Mr. Gabe Sterling, Chief Operating Officer of the Office of Secretary of State.

Speaker X:

[inaudible]

1/3 start: Chairman Sen Walker:

Is it … We ought to … We’ll have it memorized then by the end.

Speaker X:

[inaudible]

(laughs)

Just making sure this [inaudible]

1/3 start: Chairman Sen Walker:

[inaudible] (laughs)

Speaker X:

I think he’s coming.

[inaudible]