Bipartisan group of Georgia senators move to make statewide Council for the Homeless
A bipartisan group of Georgia state senators filed legislation to create a statewide, interagency group to study and address issues of the unsheltered and homeless in the state.
Senate Bill 170, sponsored by Democrat and Republican party leaders, and another senator from each party, in the upper chamber, would create the Georgia Interagency Council for the Homeless to 'ensure a coordinated state-wide approach to addressing homelessness' in Georgia.
As written, the bill would establish the council with 21 members appointed by the governor.
[DOWNLOAD: Free WSB-TV News app for alerts as news breaks]
Members would come from more than a dozen state agencies, with the remaining members to include three people who have personally experienced homelessness and three members representing service providers to the homeless.
Appointed officials to the council would serve three-year terms, according to the bill, and any vacancies would be filled by an appointment at the governor's discretion.
The council chair will be the member working for the Georgia Commissioner of Community Affairs or their appointee.
TRENDING STORIES:
Gene Hackman death: Gas company assisting with investigation; Hackman, wife found in different rooms
Average tornado risk creeps up in Georgia as severe weather season begins
Man runs into Lake Lanier to try and avoid traffic stop, officials say
As far as duties of the council, it would be charged with surveying the state's current resources for homeless services, initiating an evaluation of the state's current and future needs for those services and would assist in coordination and providing statewide services to homeless Georgians.
The bill would also have the council, once established, increase how information flows between service providers and appropriate authorities as well as develop guidelines to monitor how services are provided and delivered to those in need.
The council would also work with the State Workforce Development Board and homeless shelters and public and private entities to give homeless individuals information on services they can make use of and to help them get job training and find work.
The council would also create a central resource and information center for homeless Georgians and coordinate efforts to prevent what it called the criminalization of homelessness.
The council would be assisted by local or statewide nonprofits that perform duties the council is unable to. A full meeting of the 21 members would gather once per quarter to review progress and set goals.
By Oct. 1, and each year afterward, the council would submit reports to the Governor's Office detailing their activities, findings and a set of recommendations, if any need to be made.
Members of the council will not be paid for their positions, but would be provided with necessary expenses and daily allowances for transportation and mileage, as well as options for reimbursement of costs needed for their duties.
Funding would come from each state department a council member is from, or other respective areas as needed.
[SIGN UP: WSB-TV Daily Headlines Newsletter]
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
38 minutes ago
- Newsweek
If Clarence Thomas Resigns Under Trump, Here's Who Might Replace Him
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. There is speculation within the legal community over whether Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas will retire during Donald Trump's presidency, given he is currently 76 years old. Justice Samuel Alito is 75 years old, sparking similar speculation about his future as well. According to Supreme Court scholar Adam Feldman, there are six judges in the U.S. who are likely to be considered by President Trump if either justice resigns. Feldman told Newsweek that the possibility of either judge retiring is "unlikely but possible." "Neither are terribly old by Supreme Court standards, both are in their mid-70s, but Thomas will be 80 around the end of Trump's term. Neither have major health issues, at least those that have been made public. If they have confidence that the next president will be a Republican then they have incentive to stay," said Feldman. Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito, left, and Clarence Thomas look on during the 60th Presidential Inauguration in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Monday, January, 20, 2025. Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito, left, and Clarence Thomas look on during the 60th Presidential Inauguration in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Monday, January, 20, 2025. Chip Somodevilla/Pool Photo via AP Why It Matters President Trump has already picked three out of the nine justices on the Supreme Court. If he had the opportunity to pick two more justices, his presidency and worldview could have a lasting impact on the future of US law long beyond the next three and a half years. However, Justice Barrett has not always ruled in the Trump administration's favor recently, showing that appointing a judge does not guarantee their support from the bench. What To Know Supreme Court seats are lifetime and supposedly apolitical appointments, but justices occasionally retire during the term of a president who aligns with them politically in order to ensure their legacy is retained by the court. For example, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg declined to retire during the Obama administration before passing away under Trump, meaning her seat is now occupied by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who is significantly more conservative in her interpretation of the law than Ginsburg. "Ginsburg's light on the risk of waiting too long to step down. Since both Thomas and Alito have a lot of sway on the direction of the Court's outcomes, I don't foresee either stepping down unless there is another reason, [for example] health or fear that a Democrat will win the next election, that motivates them," Feldman told Newsweek. According to Feldman, the six judges who are likely to be tapped for consideration are judges Patrick J. Bumatay, Aileen M. Cannon, James C. Ho, Andrew S. Oldham, Neomi J. Rao and Amul R. Thapar. Trump has said in the past that he wants to appoint "more justices like the ones I already picked," so Feldman, creator of the Empirical SCOTUS blog, analyzed decisions and written statements made by the prospective judges and compared them to Trump's picks: Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. He also compared their decisions to those made by Thomas and Alito, examining the language and citations used in their work to determine how it would appeal to the president. According to Feldman's research, Judge Andrew Oldman, who currently is in a Trump-appointed role for the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, is the most similar to Trump's picks, whereas Judge James Ho is the most similar to Alito and Thomas. Despite ruling in the President's favor several times, including blocking lawmakers from reading the Jack Smith report into Trump's handling of classified documents, and currently being the presiding judge in the case surrounding the second assassination attempt on the president in 2024, Cannon appears to be the furthest away from the Trump appointees and Alito and Thomas. She is one of the most frequent users of "hot-button" words in her writing, including "tyranny," "culture," "elite," and "freedom." These are terms Feldman has singled out as appealing to Trump. However, she does not possess the same qualities as other potential candidates, such as clerking for a Supreme Court judge. Feldman told Newsweek: "My best guess is that Trump would appoint her to a federal appellate court first and nominate another judge (Ho for instance) if there is a SCOTUS vacancy soon although the Cannon likelihood goes up if there is a vacancy towards the end of Trump's term." According to Feldman's metrics, the most likely pick to replace Thomas is Ho, and the most likely pick to replace Alito is Oldham. U.S. Associate Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, Jr., U.S. Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh and U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts attend inauguration ceremonies in the... U.S. Associate Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, Jr., U.S. Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh and U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts attend inauguration ceremonies in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol on January 20, 2025 in Washington, DC. More Chip Somodevilla/Getty images picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images What People Are Saying Attorney Bradley P. Moss told Newsweek in a previous article: "I see absolutely no reason to believe Clarence Thomas will step away from the bench until either he physically is unable to continue with his work, or he is assured that a handpicked successor will be confirmed without incident." Adam Feldman told Newsweek: "With the recent news that Trump is unhappy with Barrett in particular I think he is likely to pick someone who has a more pronounced judicial track record (Barrett's was minimal) that conveys a more conservative bent. That is why my sense is that Judge Ho is the most likely nominee if there is a vacancy. He is about as much a surefire bet to fit the Alito/Thomas paradigm and he clerked for Thomas which adds to his pedigree." Adam Feldman wrote in his Legalytics Substack: "My sense still is that Judge Ho is the obvious pick if Justice Thomas is the next justice to step down and Judge Oldham likely gets the nod if Justice Alito is the first to leave SCOTUS as recent history has shown that presidents may look first to a justice's former clerk to as a replacement if possible." What Happens Next Neither Alito nor Thomas have said they are thinking about retiring. Early in his career, Thomas threatened to quit over his salary. However, that has now been raised. Were either justice to pass away or retire, the president will pick a replacement justice who will be voted on by the Senate.
an hour ago
Nevada GOP governor vetoes voter ID bill that he pushed for in a deal with Democrats
LAS VEGAS -- Nevada Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo unexpectedly vetoed a bill on Thursday that would have required voters in the swing state to show a photo ID at the polls — a conservative priority across the country and something that has long been on the governor's legislative wish list. The move brings a dramatic end to one of the legislative session's most surprising outcomes: A bipartisan deal that combined the requirement for voter identification with a Democratic-backed measure to add more drop boxes for mail ballots that Lombardo had initially vetoed. The bill came together in the final days of the session and passed mere minutes before the Democratic-controlled Legislature adjourned just after midnight on June 3. Lombardo had been expected to sign it. In his veto message, Lombardo said he 'wholeheartedly' supports voter ID laws but that he felt the bill fell short on addressing his concerns about ballots cast by mail, because such ballots could still be accepted 'solely on the basis of a signature match" under the bill. Because it 'would apply voter ID requirements unequally between in-person and mail ballot voters and fails to sufficiently guarantee ballot security, I cannot support it,' he said. The voter ID requirements in the bill mirrored a ballot initiative known as Question 7 that Nevada voters overwhelmingly approved last November. But voters would have to pass it again in 2026 to amend the state constitution. The requirement would then be in place by 2028. Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager, the Democrat who brokered the deal with Lombardo, said when he introduced the legislation that voters seemed poised to give the final approval, and that enacting a voter ID law would have given the state a head start on ensuring a smooth rollout before the next presidential election. In a scathing statement, Yeager called the governor's decision a 'breach of trust," saying that he believes Lombardo gave in to pressure around him to veto the bill, designated Assembly Bill 499. 'Lombardo was for AB499 before he was against it, encouraging all legislative Republicans to support it, which they did,' Yeager said. Voting rights groups condemned the legislation, saying it would have made it harder for some people to vote, including low-income or unhoused voters, people with disabilities and older voters. Let Nevadans Vote, which describes itself as a nonpartisan coalition, said Thursday in a statement that the governor's veto only temporarily stops what it called 'the misguided and ill-conceived implementation of voter ID in Nevada.' 'Come 2026, Question 7 will still be on the ballot," the group said while describing voter ID requirements as 'strict regimes' that 'decide who gets to exercise their constitutional right to vote and who cannot.' Polls have shown that most Americans support voter ID laws, and that has been consistent over the years and across party lines. A 2024 Gallup poll found 84% of Americans were in favor of requirements for a photo ID at voting places, consistent with Gallup findings from 2022 and 2016. That includes about two-thirds of Democrats, according to the 2024 survey. Voters are either required or requested to show ID when voting in person in 36 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Not all states require photo ID, though. Some accept documents such as a bank statement, and some allow voters without ID to vote after signing an affidavit. A few states allow poll workers to vouch for voters without an ID. Lombardo on Thursday also vetoed a bill that would have allowed the swing state's nonpartisan voters to cast ballots in Republican or Democratic primary races. The bill sought to include the more than 855,000 voters registered as nonpartisans — the state's largest voting bloc — in the process of nominating major-party candidates for congressional races and statewide offices. A ballot initiative to open up primaries for all registered voters was rejected by voters last November. The sweeping measure, which also attempted to implement ranked choice voting, faced intense opposition from party leaders on both sides who said it was too broad and confusing.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
‘Shut Up!': House Hearing Erupts Into Chaos After Dem Calls Out ICE Barbie
A congressional hearing quickly devolved into a shouting match between two Republicans and a Democrat who sought a subpoena for Kristi Noem over the forcible removal of Senator Alex Padilla from a Thursday press conference. During a Thursday hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-FL) implored his fellow lawmakers to subpoena Noem over the incident, which saw her security team manhandle and handcuff the Democratic senator after he loudly questioned the Homeland Security Secretary about ICE raids that have led to nationwide protests. Rep. James Comer (R-KY), the committee chairman, quickly waved off Frost's concerns over the incident. 'Mr. Chair, also, we were just talking about this. I want to know if you can commit to working with us so we can subpoena,' Frost began to say, before Comer cut him off. 'You're out of order,' Comer replied. The two congressmen briefly spoke over each other until Comer recognized MAGA firebrand Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), who entered the tense scene guns blazing. 'Oh, Democrats can't follow the rules, can't follow the law,' she said twice. 'We need to subpoena Kristi Noem,' Frost repeated. 'It's her staff, DHS federal officers, that threw a U.S. senator to the ground.' Greene continued to talk over the young Democrat: 'There's a privilege of the majority, and that means we're in charge. Not your side because you lost the election because you supported the invasion of our country.' Frost, Greene, and Comer all refused to back down until the chairman grew exasperated with the back-and-forth. 'Shut up. Just shut up,' Comer told Frost, who had repeatedly asked him to commit to subpoenaing Noem. 'No, you're not gonna tell me to shut up,' Frost hit back. 'He's been out of order six times,' Comer said of Frost. 'He is trying to get on MSNBC. You probably knocked somebody off MSNBC to get on there.' The chairman then handed the floor over to Greene, who lobbed a bizarre accusation at Frost without providing evidence. 'I think because he's been arrested as a former Antifa member, right?' she said of Padilla, referring to the far-left movement. 'He's a former Antifa member… Not surprised.' Frost appeared to be in disbelief as he asked for Greene's remarks to be taken off the record. The dramatic interaction ended when Greene turned her attention to New York Governor Kathy Hochul to ask questions. Several Democrats have rallied around Padilla following his wild takedown. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called for an immediate probe into the 'un-American' incident: 'To look at this video and see what happened reeks—reeks—of totalitarianism," he said. 'This is not what democracies do.' House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries echoed Schumer in a post, stating that those behind 'the brazen and aggressive manhandling of Senator Padilla' must be 'held accountable.' Noem called Padilla's interruption 'inappropriate,' while Homeland Security official Tricia McLaughlin slammed the senator for choosing 'disrespectful political theater.' Noem and Padilla spoke for 15 minutes after the incident, McLaughlin said.
