2006 Legislative Session Summary
Church/State Death Penalty Free Expression Gay & Lesbian Rights Miscellaneous
Open Government Privacy Race & National Origin Voting Rights Women & Choice
Ten Commandments - HB 941 - PASSED Talking Points
This bill, as originally filed, mirrored the bill introduced by Speaker Richardson in 2003. In its original form, HB 941would have called for the hanging of the Mayflower Compact, the Ten Commandments, and the Declaration of Independence. The Secretary of State would have been required to “prepare and distribute” copies of all three documents to the governing authority of each municipality and political subdivision in the State of Georgia; the State Attorney General would have been responsible for defending any lawsuit brought against such a display; and the State would have had to cover the costs of the lawsuits. This original version passed the House with a vote of 140-26 with 13 Representatives not voting. .
After passage in the House, the professor who had drafted the bill contacted the Speaker of the House to explain that, in accordance with current caselaw, he believed the bill was not constitutional. This sparked a restructuring of the bill. The current version of the bill encourages counties to display of the Ten Commandments and eight other documents. The bill, however, no longer requires the Secretary of State to distribute the documents, the Attorney General to defend the lawsuits; or the State to pay for the lawsuits. The bill passed the Senate with vote of 43-4 with 8 Senators not voting. After a conference committee on the bill, the House agreed to the Senate changes. The bill was signed by the Governor and is now law.
Bible Class Bills – SB 79 & SB 437 - PASSED
Two bills were introduced to create state Bible Courses. SB 437 would have allowed, but would not have mandated, that the State Board of Education create a course in which the Bible and its influence of literature, art, etc., would be taught in public schools. Local school boards could have chosen whether to offer the Bible course as an elective. This bill did not move.
Shortly after the introduction of SB 437, a Senate Committee held hearings on SB 79. As introduced, this bill had nothing to do with Bible Classes, but in committee, the sponsor of the bill stripped out the original language of the bill - in its entirety- and inserted language to create two Bible Classes. This bill mandates that the State Board of education create two Bible course, an Old Testament Class and a New Testament Class. If the local school boards choose, these courses could be offered as electives.
Although the Supreme Court has stated that public schools may constitutionally teach about the Bible, it is extremely difficult to do so when the classes focus only on the Bible. Even if the bill has the “magic words” from federal court caselaw, it is no guarantee that once the course is in the classroomit will be taught in a constitutional manner. In fact, there has been significant litigation on the subject and the courts have almost always reached the conclusion that the classes have overstepped the bounds of the Constitution. The bill could have been improved if the legislators would have (1) included other religions texts into the curriculum rather than focusing only on the Bible; (2) not required that the Bible be the main text in the course; and (3) have put in proper guidelines for the hiring and training of teachers.
SB 79 passed the Senate with a vote of 50-1 with one Senator not voting and four Senators excused. The bill passed the House with a vote of 151-7 with 13 Representatives not voting and 9 Representatives excused. . The bill was signed by the Governor and is now law.
Faith-based Amendment - HR 1345 - FAILED Talking Points
The Governor’s resolution, HR 1345, would have repealed the Georgia state constitutional provision governing the separation of church and state. Our current state constitutional provision, like that of 37 other states, is more stringent than the federal constitution. The effect of this resolution would have been to gut our state protections so as to open the door to school vouchers and allow a Bush-like faith-based program. The ACLU teamed up with 27 education, faith-based, and civil rights organizations to fight this amendment. Last year, the Governor’s amendment, then introduced as SR 49 http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2005_06/sum/sr49.htm) was defeated on the floor of the Senate twice. This year, the Governor tried to get a vote in the House, but was defeated once again.
HR 1345 passed the Human Relations and Aging Committee after the Speaker’s Hawk (a Hawk is Representative who is not a member of the Committee, but who is allowed to enter any committee and cast a vote anyway) cast the deciding vote to pass the resolution out of committee. On March 13, 2004, the resolution failed to obtain the 2/3 vote required for a constitutional amendment on the floor of the House. The bill only received 95 votes in its favor, with 74 Representatives voting “No,” four Representatives not voting, and 7 Representatives excused.
SR 42 was the Senate Democrat’s version of the faith-based bill. Although it would not have opened the door to vouchers and it did address some of our church-state concerns, we opposed the bill because it was unnecessary and because it did not address all of our concerns..
For more information, including talking points and the text of the bill, go to our website about the amendment (link to sr 49 website www.acluga.org/sr560)
“Historical Documents” In School - HB 158 - FAILED Talking points
This bill would have prohibited a school that receives state funds from “restrict[ing] the use of historical documents in classrooms for educational purposes on the basis that such documents contain or make reference to God or the Creator.” This bill was problematic because it was misleading to teachers and schools and could have been in conflict with the federal and state constitution. Although it does not violate the Constitution to use such documents in many contexts, these documents could also be used in unconstitutional ways (such as when these documents are redacted to only their religious references and taught out of context). In 2005, the House Education Committee favorably approved the bill, but the bill never made it onto the House floor. In 2006, the bill was recommitted to the House Education Committee and no further action was taken on the bill.
Evolution Bill - HB 179 - FAILED
This bill, prompted by the Cobb County Disclaimer sticker case, would have required the teaching of “evidence supporting or consistent with evolution theory and factual scientific evidence inconsistent with or not supporting the theory shall be included in the course of study.” On February 17, 2005, a subcommittee of the House Education Committee tabled the bill. No further action was taken on the bill.
Capitol Punishment Study Committee - SR 184 & HR 301 & SR 1030 - FAILED
These bills would have created study a committee to examine whether the death penalty is administered fairly and accurately. SR 184 received a vote in the 2005 session, but failed on the Senate floor with a vote of 15-23, with 11 Senators not voting and 7 Senators excused. SR 1030 was given a vote on the Senate floor in 2006, but it similarly failed with a vote of 17-33, with 3 Senators not voting and 3 Senators excused.
Death Penalty Moratorium - SB 600 - FAILED
This bill would have called for a moratorium on the death penalty. No action was taken on this bill.
Choose Life License Plates - SB 69 & HB 1053 - PASSED Talking Points
SB 69 would have created license plates that state “Choose Life” and would have directed the revenues from the plates to Crisis Pregnancy Health Centers. There was no provision creating a pro-choice license plate. With passage of the bill, the state would have been permitting one viewpoint on abortion (Pro-Life) but not the other (Pro-Choice). This would have constituted viewpoint discrimination and would have violated the Free Speech Clause of the US Constitution. This bill was approved by the Senate Public Safety Committee on February 16, 2005. The full Senate passed the bill and rejected an amendment to add “Pro-family, Pro-choice plates” on March 4, 2005. At the end of the 2005 session, the bill remained in the House Motor Vehicles Committee.
In March 2006, the House passed HB 1053, which is an omnibus license plate bill that similarly included “Choose Life” but not “Pro-Choice” license plates. This bill has the same free speech problems as those in SB 69. The bill easily passed the House 145-16, with 13 no votes and 6 Representatives excused. In the Senate, the Public Safety Committee voted down adding a pro-choice plate to HB 1053. Then, on the Senate floor, Senator Butler again sought to add an amendment adding a “Pro-family, Pro-choice” plate. In response, choice opponents introduced language to amend her amendment, so that the funds generated by the plate would be prohibited from going to any group that counseled for or performed abortions. The “Choose Life” plate, by contrast was allowed to go to Crisis Pregnancy Health Centers, which was chosen by the group who sought that plate. Because the “Pro-Choice” plate would have been prohibited from benefitting pro-choice groups, Senator Butler withdrew the amendment and no Pro-Choice plate was added to the omnibus bill.
Implementation of SB 1053 relies upon the passage of a constitutional amendment in the fall, which would create the mechanism for the State to give revenue to non-profit groups who are given license plates. HB 1053 will not go into effect, even if the Governor signs the bill, unless the Constitutional amendment fails.
“Merry Christmas Bill” – HB 941 - FAILED
This bill is framed as the “Merry Christmas bill.” The sponsors have argued that the bill would protect students who are being prevented from saying “Merry Christmas.” Although the ACLU is unaware of any actual cases where a student has been punished for this reason, we are in favor of protecting the free speech rights of students. As written, this bill really does not clarify or add student speech protections. The ACLU tried to work with the sponsors of the bill to obtain amendments to the bill to strengthen the free speech rights of all students, including those desiring to wish other students holiday wishes, but our amendments were not added. This bill passed the House with a vote of 136-25 with 17 Representatives not voting and 2 Representatives excused. The Senate Committee on State and Local Governmental Operation passed the bill out unanimously, but the bill never made it to the Senate floor for a vote.
Funeral Protest Bill – SB 606 - PASSED Talking Points
This bill targets Fred Phelps, who has begun protesting the funerals of soldiers. The bill would create a no speech and no public assembly zone of 500 feet from any funeral, even if the speech or assembly were silent and not targeted at the funeral. Although well intentioned, the bill is unconstitutional. First, the free speech clause protects speech even if it is distasteful. Thus, as much as we disagree with Phelps message, he has a right to speak. Second, this bill is far reaching and silences speakers who are not targeting funerals. For example, a person would be barred from protesting at the State Capitol if the church across the street had a funeral scheduled later in the afternoon. This bill passed the Senate unanimously on March 9, 2006 and passed the House with a vote of 144-15 with 17 Representatives not voting and four Representatives excused. The bill was signed by the Governor and is now law.
Student Club Permission Slips - SB 149 & HB 661 & HB 413 - PASSED Talking Points
These bills were designed to prevent students from joining gay/straight alliances at public schools. The federal Equal Access Act states that if a school allows non-curricular clubs at school, it must allow all other non-curricular clubs, regardless of the content of the speech of the club. Because opponents of gay/straight alliances recognize that they cannot ban the clubs, they have found other ways to prevent kids from joining - require parental permission. Thus, the original versions of these bills would have required permission slips for students before they could join any club or attend any extracurricular activity.
Last year, SR 149 was scheduled for committee consideration twice. The bill was not acted upon, however, because the State Board of Education had vowed to consider the issue and potentially pass a regulation on the subject. The Board, however, rejected the permission slip requirement with a vote of 11-1. The Board cited the administrative burden created by the requirement and the potential effect of keeping kids who do not have active parents from attending the extra-curricular activities that could enrich their lives. This year, therefore, the Legislature took up the bills again.
HB 661 passed out of the House Education Committee with amendments, changing it from an “opt-in” requirement to an “opt-out” requirement. Essentially, that means a parent would not have to sign a permission slip in order for a student to join a club, but a parent could opt a student out of any club by informing the school of this desire in writing. This bill is a vast improvement upon the original bill. HB 661 passed the House but did not move in the Senate.
Although SB 149 passed out of committee, it could not make it onto the Senate floor. Accordingly, the bill sponsor added the bill, in its original form, to another bill, SB 413, on the Senate floor. When the amended SB 413 reached the House Education Committee, however, it was amended in the same manner as HB 661. Ultimately, the bill passed as “opt-out” requirement as part of SB 413. The bill was signed by the Governor and is now law.
Sex Offender Bill - HB 1059 - PASSED
This bill significantly increased penalties, living restrictions, and registration requirements for those convicted of sexual offenses. The ACLU monitored this bill and provided some legal analysis to lawmakers and other groups lobbying against the bill. The severity of the bill is troubling for several reasons. For example, the registration requirements are so difficult to meet that it will likely push offenders underground rather than help law enforcement keep track of the sex offender. In addition, some of the provisions in the bill are blatantly unconstitutional, such as a provision calling for the death penalty for crimes where the crime did not result in the death of the victim. The bill passed both chambers and was signed by the Governor.
Open Records Act & Private School Police Departments – SB 153 - PASSED
This bill was introduced in response to a recent court decision that held that the Mercer University Police Department was not subject to the Open Records Act. The Court acknowledged that the importance of having the department subject to the Open Records Act was just as great that for other police departments, and encouraged the legislature to fix the language of the statute. This original version of the bill would have done just that. The bill passed the Senate on the consent calendar on March 11, 2005. Therefore, no official vote on this bill was taken. The bill was favorably reported out of House Judiciary Committee in 2005 as well, but no action was taken on the House floor.
In the last days of the 2006 session, an amended version of the bill was added onto a separate bill - HB 1302 - on the Senate floor. The amended version would not change the open records act, but would require law enforcement to records maintained by campus police to be made available to the public. The bill then passed the House and was signed by the Governor.
Open Records Exemption for “Economic Development” - HB 218 - FAILED
HB 218 would have exempted all records pertaining to “a program of economic development” from the open records act. That could include a new factory that creates much needed jobs, or, it could include a waste treatment plant, a dump for out of state garbage, or a private prison. The bill proposed to shield from public view the identity of the parties to the terms of any agreement being negotiated by a public agency, to the extent the agency couches the deal as “economic development. There was no evidence that our Open Records Law has prevented Georgia from landing economic development deals. This bill was passed in the House on Wednesday, February 9, 2005, with a vote of 118-52. It was also approved by the Senate Economic Development Committee on February 15, 2005. The bill was put on the Senate floor on Thursday February 24, 2005. The supporters of the bill intended to pass the bill with two amendments. The Senator carrying the bill in the Senate placed the bill on the table, however, because he lacked the votes to pass it. In early February 2006, the bill was recommitted to the Senate Economic Development Committee and no further action was taken on the bill.
Open Records Attorneys Fees - HB 1071 - FAILED
This bill would have added language mandating attorneys fees for a party who was denied access to open records and prevailed in a lawsuit to obtain the records. The bill passed the House Judiciary Committee, but was amended with a provision that would allow governments to mandate that open records requests be made in writing. The bill did not receive a vote on the House floor.
Biological Privacy - HR 1558 - PASSED
This bill creates House study committee on biological privacy. This bill, supported by the ACLU, passed uncontested in the House.
“Baby’s Right to Know Bill” - HB 4 - FAILED
Under this bill, the state would have asked an unmarried woman, who had just given birth, to name the father of the baby. The state would have then contacted the father to tell him that his child has been born. This bill implicates core privacy and parenting rights. Furthermore, this bill could have created severe dangers for women in abusive relationships. This bill was heard by a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee and was tabled. No action was taken in 2006.
Anti-Immigration Legislation – SB 529 - PASSED Talking Points
Numerous anti-immigration bills were introduced in the House and the Senate this year. The bill that the leadership decided to pass was SB 529. This bill will (1) require certain employers to verify the immigration status of certain workers or forego tax benefits they obtain for hiring those workers; (2) set up provisions banning human trafficking; (3) require that law enforcement verify the immigration status of any person arrested (4) and create identification requirements to receive benefits. The ACLU opposes this bill because of concerns that it will prevent some people who are eligible for services from getting those services, and it will open up new avenues for racial profiling. The bill passed the Senate with a vote of 40-13 with 3 Senators excused. In the House, the Judiciary Committee added a provision that would have put a 5% tax on any undocumented person who transferred money out of the country. The House passed SB 529 with the wire transfer provision with a vote of 123-51, with 3 representatives not voting and 3 Representatives excused. The wire transfer provision was ultimately removed in conference committee. The bill was signed by the Governor and is now law.
Racial Profiling Bills - HB 30; SB 148; SB 213 - FAILED Talking Points
HB 30 and SB 143 are racial profiling bills supported by the ACLU. They would ban racial profiling, mandate data collection, and require training of officers. SB 213 is also a racial profiling bill, yet the bill is ineffective and will not stop racial profiling. Thus, the ACLU opposes the bill. None of the bills moved in the last session.
Photo Identification for Voting - HB 244 & SB 84 - PASSED Talking Points
HB 244, the version of this bill that passed in 2005, required that a voter must have a government-issued photo ID in order to vote at the polls. Touted as a bill that would curb voter fraud, the bill would actually prevent legitimate voters from voting. The proponents of the bill were unable to cite one example of fraud caused by impersonation at the polls, yet, the House and Senate voted to implement an extra hurdle for voting. The bill will disproportionately affect the poor, elderly, disabled, and minority voters. The bill passed the Senate and the House, virtually on a party-line basis and was signed by the Governor.
Ultimately, the ACLU and several other groups filed suit in federal court to stop implementation of the law. The District Court held that the law was unconstitutional and enjoined the state from requiring government-issued photo IDs at the polls. The ruling was then appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
The legislature passed a different photo ID requirement in the 2006 session. The Senate had already passed SB 84 in 2005, but no action was taken in the House. So, on the first day of the 2006 session, a House Committee stripped SB 84 of its content and inserted a new bill. Their strategy was that since the bill already passed the Senate, this new bill would not have to go through committee and full debate in the Senate again. This would make passage of the bill quicker. The bill (1) made photo Ids available at more places; and (2) created a less ambiguous indigency provision. The revisions, however, do not save the law - the bill, is again, unconstitutional.
Pharmacist Exemption - SB 123 & HB 1445 & HB 1178- PASSED Talking Points
SB 123 and HB 1445, as introduced, would have allowed pharmacists who “believe” that a drug causes an abortion to refuse to provide that drug. There were no protections in the bills for women seeking birth control or emergency contraceptives. Although the ACLU believes that religious beliefs of individual pharmacists should be respected, it also believes that any provision allowing a pharmacist to deny a prescription should have provisions protecting the patient’s health..
To make clear that the bill would not apply to birth control or emergency contraceptives, the Senate Health and Human Services Committee amended SB 123 so that it would apply only to drugs whose purpose was to terminate a pregnancy, That version of the bill then passed on the Senate floor with a vote of 35-15, with 2 Senators abstaining and 4 Senators excused. It was sent to the House where it later passed out of a house committee but never made it to the House floor.
The House version, HB 1445, was not amended in committee. Once it reached the House floor it failed to receive a constitutional majority. The bill only received 82 votes in favor, with 78 “no” votes, 12 Representatives not voting, and 8 Representatives excused.
But, advocates of the pharmacist exemption later tacked the Senate version of the bill onto a different bill - HB 1178. After going through a conference committee, the final version of the pharmacist exemption clearly applies only to drugs that cause abortion and not to birth control or emergency contraceptives. Therefore, the pharmacist exemption states that a pharmacist cannot be fired if he or she refuses to prescribe drugs that cause an abortion, but it does not permit a pharmacist to deny women birth control or emergency contraceptives.
Feticide Bill - HB 243 & SB 77 - PASSED
These bills were designed to create crimes against a fetus when such crimes are committed against a pregnant woman. With passage of the bill, there are new crimes of battery and assault against a fetus, which would occur after a person committed those crimes against a woman who is pregnant. A person is guilty of the crime even if the perpetrator did not know of the pregnancy. These bills are the latest addition to an ongoing assault on reproductive freedom, as they seek to create personhood for the fetus. Pregnant women could be protected without adopting the Act's approach of undermining the right to choose abortion. Indeed, the testimony of the bills’s proponents revealed that the bills are a thinly veiled attempt to create fetal rights.
Although SB 77 passed, the final version included a provisions that protected pregnant women from being prosecuted for their own behavior. The bill was signed by the Governor and is now law.
Mandating Sonograms - HB 888 & SB 429
These bills, as originally introduced, would have required that a doctor have sonogram equipment and perform a sonogram before he or she could perform an abortion on a woman or even refer a woman to another doctor for an abortion. In addition, the doctor would have to offer the woman the opportunity to view the sonogram - even if the woman were a victim of rape or incest, or there were a fetal anomaly. The legislation serves no medical purpose and proponents of the bill testified that the real reason for the bill was to dissuade women from going forward with the procedure. But, the time to reduce abortions is not at the point when a woman has already decided to get the procedure. Instead, the way to reduce abortion is to provide women with family planning education and access to birth control.
The Senate version, SB 429, passed the Senate Health and Human Services Committee with an exemption for victims of rape and incest. In addition, the Committee removed the language requiring a sonogram before a referral. The Senate then passed the bill with a vote of 35 -17, with 4 Senators excused. The House sub-committee on the judiciary amended the bill further, but no action was taken on the bill in full committee.
HB 888, passed the House Judiciary Committee was similarly amended in Committee. But, the rape and incest exception inserted would have required a woman to report the incident to the police. Oftentimes, however, women do not want to report the crime to the police. Therefore, that provision would not protect victims of rape or incest. No action was taken on the bill in the House.
Parental Consent for Contraceptives - HB 566 - FAILED
This bill would have denied service to anyone under 18 who sought family planning counseling or birth control from a government funded clinic unless he or she came to the clinic with a parent or guardian who had identification proving they were actually the parent or guardian. The bill did not move