Senate panel to consider bill that hands Georgia lawmakers more say over State Election Board
A last-minute House election bill that advanced on Crossover Day last week would give new authority to the House speaker and Senate president to remove State Election Board members during the legislative offseason.
If the Legislature approves the current version of House Bill 397, it would give the two chamber leaders powers to remove members from a board that was at the forefront of controversial election rulemaking in 2024.
However, the architect behind the proposal for removing Georgia election board members, Atlanta Democratic Rep. Saira Draper, said she's not optimistic that the updated clause will remain in the final election bill expected to be crafted before the session ends April 4.
On Feb. 18, Draper filed House Bill 501, which clarified state law by giving the House and Senate chamber leaders the same post-session authority to remove State Election Board members as they have to fill vacancies on the board.
On Thursday, the House voted 159-13 in favor of a substitute passed out of the House Rules Committee that no longer included a provision that would give municipal election officials the choice to opt-out of advance voting for municipal elections on Saturdays.
Draper said she believes the Republicans passed a HB 397 substitute that removed controversial Saturday voting language because the GOP leaders did not want to delay passing an election bill on the Crossover Day deadline for legislation to advance out of one chamber.
Instead, they presented a measure that only included her proposal clarifying state law by giving House and Senate leaders the same ability to remove election board members as they currently have to appoint members while not in session. The provision would allow the House and Senate leaders to remove Georgia election officials that were selected by their respective chambers to fill a vacancy.
'I don't want to say I know this is going to happen, but my concern is (HB 397) is going to be used as a vehicle now to move whatever kind of election legislation they want to see,' Draper said.
Draper said a number of her Democratic colleagues are in favor of finding other ways to reduce local election costs without cutting off access to Saturday voting.
'Democrats are very sympathetic to the idea that our election offices are struggling and have had over the years, a large number of costs thrust upon them,' she said.
Covington Republican Rep. Tim Fleming's HB 397 is assigned to the Senate Ethics Committee, which has debated and passed key election bills over the past couple of years, including measures that would ban election officials from adopting an instant runoff system, a 2024 bill replacing the QR code that tabulates votes on paper ballots, and the controversial sweeping 2021 election law overhaul, Senate Bill 202.
On Thursday evening as the clock ran out to advance bills on Crossover Day, Governmental Affairs Chairman Victor Anderson informed the House Rules Committee members about the last-minute changes to legislation that was intended to address critical procedural issues prior to the 2026 election.
Anderson, a Cornelia Republican, said stripping down the bill was necessary to reach a consensus working with the Senate Ethics Committee to pass new election procedures this year so as not to 'put us in bind next year.'
Natalie Crawford, executive director and founder of Georgia First, a nonprofit think tank and policy advocacy group, said her organization supports the election board removal procedure and the earlier provision giving municipal election officials the choice to opt-out of a Saturday voting day.
The former Republican Habersham County Commissioner said her organization will continue monitoring proposals that the ethics committee could consider, including potentially new rules on the hand delivery on absentee ballots on and poll watcher access.
'We are great with the language as it is now. Obviously, we will be looking to see if there's any language that would potentially impede voting access,' Crawford said. 'Georgia First is pretty bullish that we do very well in Georgia with our elections.
'Now is probably a good time to kind of hold off on more legislative tinkering,' Crawford said. 'Let's get a good feel for what we have in place and allow confidence to be restored with voters without making any additional unnecessary changes
Voting rights groups and lawmakers will also be watching to see if the final version of House Bill 397 expands the Senate president and House speaker's authority to remove State Election Board appointees while the Legislature is not in session.
Last year, House Speaker Jon Burns and Lt. Gov. Burt Jones, who are both Republicans, appointed two conservative election board members ahead of the November election. In January, the Senate approved Jones' choice to have former state Sen. Rick Jeffares serve on the board. Following the session, Burns' appointed former Georgia Republican Party deputy director Janelle King to the election board that investigates county election administration.
The reshaped election board continued a trend of holding marathon board meetings often dominated by pro-Donald Trump activists lodging accusations of voting fraud and other voting irregularities stemming from false claims about widespread fraud costing Trump the 2020 presidential election in Georgia. The board also faced lawsuits contending the three conservative members' rulemaking leading up to the Nov. 5 election was illegally usurping legislative authority.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
23 minutes ago
- UPI
3 reasons Republicans' redistricting power grab might backfire
Texas state Democratic representatives, shown at a rally in Washington, previously left the state in 2021 to try to prevent the state's Republicans from reaching a quorum and passing new voting restrictions legislation. File Photo by Michael Reynolds/EPA The gerrymandering drama in Texas -- and beyond -- has continued to unfold after Democratic state legislators fled the state. The Democrats want to prevent the Republican-controlled government from enacting a mid-decade gerrymander aimed at giving Republicans several more seats in Congress. The Texas GOP move was pushed by President Donald Trump, who's aiming to ensure he has a GOP-controlled Congress to work with after the 2026 midterm elections. Other Republican states such as Missouri and Ohio may also follow the Texas playbook; and Democratic states such as California and Illinois seem open to responding in kind. But there are a few factors that make this process more complicated than just grabbing a few House seats. They may even make Republicans regret their hardball gerrymandering tactics, if the party ends up with districts that political scientists like me call "dummymandered." Democrats can finally fight back Unlike at the federal level, where Democrats are almost completely shut out of power, Republicans are already facing potentially consequential retaliation for their gerrymandering attempts from Democratic leaders in other states. Democrats in California, led by Gov. Gavin Newsom, are pushing for a special election later this year, in which the voters could vote on new congressional maps in that state, aiming to balance out Democrats' losses in Texas. If successful, these changes would take effect prior to next year's midterm elections. Other large Democratic-controlled states, such as Illinois and New York -- led by Gov. J.B. Pritzker and Gov. Kathy Hochul, respectively -- have also indicated openness to enacting their own new gerrymanders to pick up seats on the Democratic side. New York and California both currently use nonpartisan redistricting commissions to draw their boundaries. But Hochul recently said she is "sick and tired of being pushed around" while other states refuse to adopt redistricting reforms and gerrymander to their full advantage. Hochul said she'd even be open to amending the state constitution to eliminate the nonpartisan redistricting commission. It's unclear whether these blue states will be successful in their efforts to fight fire with fire; but in the meantime, governors like Hochul and Pritzker have welcomed the protesting Democratic legislators from Texas, in many cases arranging for their housing during their self-imposed exile. Dummymandering Another possible problem for either party looking to gain some seats in this process stems from greediness. In responding to Democrats' continued absence from Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott threatened even more drastic gerrymanders. "If they don't start showing up, I may start expanding," Abbott said. "We may make it six or seven or eight new seats we're going to be adding on the Republican side." But Abbott might think twice about this strategy. Parties that gerrymander their states' districts are drawing lines to maximize their own advantage, either in state legislatures or, in this case, congressional delegations. When parties gerrymander districts, they don't usually try to make them all as lopsided as possible for their own side. Instead, they try to make as many districts as possible that they are likely to win. They do this by spreading groups of supportive voters across several districts so they can help the party win more of these districts. But sometimes the effort backfires: In trying to maximize their seats, a party spreads its voters too thin and fails to make some districts safe enough. These vulnerable districts can then flip to the other party in future elections, and the opposing party ends up winning more seats than expected. This phenomenon, commonly referred to as "dummymandering," has happened before. It even happened in Texas, where Republicans lost a large handful of poorly drawn state legislative districts in the Dallas suburbs in 2018, a strong year for Democrats nationwide. With Democrats poised for a strong 2026 midterm election against an unpopular president, this is a lesson Republicans might need to pay attention to. There's not much left to gerrymander One of the main reasons dummymandering happens is that there has been so much gerrymandering that there are few remaining districts competitive enough for a controlling party to pick off for themselves. This important development has unfolded for two big reasons. First, in terms of gerrymandering, the low-hanging fruit is already picked over. States controlled by either Democrats or Republicans have already undertaken pretty egregious gerrymanders during previous regular redistricting processes, particularly following the 2010 and 2020 censuses. Republicans have generally been more adept at the process, particularly in maximizing their seat shares in relatively competitive states such as Wisconsin and North Carolina that they happen to control. But Democrats have also been successful in states such as Maryland, where only one Republican serves out of nine seats, despite the party winning 35% of the presidential vote in 2024. In Massachusetts, where Democrats hold all eight seats, Republicans won 37% of the presidential vote in 2024. There's also the fact that over the past half-century, "gerrymanderable" territory has become more difficult to find regardless of how you draw the boundaries. That's because the voting electorate is more geographically sorted between the parties. This means that Democratic and Republican voters are segregated from each other geographically, with Democrats tending toward big cities and suburbs, and Republicans occupying rural areas. As a result, it's become less geographically possible than ever to draw reasonable-looking districts that split up the other party's voters in order to diminish the opponents' ability to elect one of their own. Regardless of how far either party is willing to go, today's clash over Texas redistricting represents largely uncharted territory. Mid-decade redistricting does sometimes happen, either at the hands of legislatures or the courts, but not usually in such a brazen fashion. And this time, the Texas attempt could spark chaos and a race to the bottom, where every state picks up the challenge and tries to rewrite their electoral maps - not in the usual once-a-decade manner, but whenever they're unsatisfied with the odds in the next election. Charlie Hunt is an associate professor of political science at Boise State University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The views and opinions in this commentary are solely those of the author.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Medicare Update: Lawmakers Sound Alarm About Major Change to Program
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. More than a dozen House Democrats pressed Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Mehmet Oz in a letter last week over CMS's announced plans to expand prior authorization requirements to traditional Medicare through a pilot program. The new model incorporates artificial intelligence to help make decisions and is being tested in six states beginning in January. "Let's call it what it is: profit-driven healthcare," a financial expert told Newsweek, "And profit motive and patient care mix about as well as oil and water. Lawmakers are sounding the alarm, because this directly affects many of their constituents." Why It Matters The pushback highlights a growing partisan debate over how to reduce Medicare spending without restricting beneficiaries' access to care. It also underscores tensions between the Biden-era expansion of oversight and the Trump administration's stated aim to cut waste while modernizing CMS operations. House Democrats argued the new prior authorization pilot would create administrative burdens for providers and patients, while some Senate Republicans believe the Medicare reforms are necessary for rooting out fraud and overpayments. Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-WA) speaks at a news conference after a meeting with the House Democratic Caucus at the U.S. Capitol Building on September 19, 2023 in Washington, DC. Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-WA) speaks at a news conference after a meeting with the House Democratic Caucus at the U.S. Capitol Building on September 19, 2023 in Washington, To Know More than a dozen House Democrats, led by Democratic Representatives Suzan DelBene of Washington and Ami Bera of California, sent a letter to CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz on Thursday, requesting information and urging cancellation of a planned prior authorization pilot for traditional Medicare. The lawmakers wrote that "traditional Medicare has rarely required prior authorization," and said that, while prior authorization is "often described as a cost-containment strategy, in practice it increases provider burden, takes time away from patients, limits patients' access to life-saving care, and creates unnecessary administrative burden." The letter asked CMS for details on the pilot's scope, implementation plan and safeguards for beneficiaries. "Prior authorization is often seen as a roadblock to timely, even life-saving care—replacing the doctor's judgment with an algorithm," Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek. "Let's call it what it is: profit-driven healthcare. And profit motive and patient care mix about as well as oil and water. Lawmakers are sounding the alarm, because this directly affects many of their constituents." CMS has planned to roll out the prior authorization program in six states starting in January. The Trump administration previously announced a voluntary pledge from major insurers to simplify prior authorization in Medicare Advantage. Lawmakers said that prior voluntary pledges showed public recognition of the harms of prior authorization, and they urged CMS to reconsider extending similar rules to traditional Medicare. Separately, Senate Republicans discussed broader Medicare changes as part of proposals to reduce waste, fraud and abuse and to modernize CMS operations. Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina said lawmakers were examining CMS contracting practices, duplicate payments and upcoding as potential savings sources, according to The Hill. The Hill also reported that legislation from Louisiana Republican Senator Bill Cassidy and Democratic Senator of Oregon Jeff Merkley to reduce Medicare Advantage overpayments had bipartisan interest and might be folded into larger budget measures considered by Senate Republicans. Idaho Republican Senator Mike Crapo said his committee was "evaluating" Cassidy's proposal. Newsweek reached out to CMS for comment via email. What People Are Saying Lawmakers wrote in their letter to CMS administrator, Dr. Mehmet Oz: "Prior authorization has long been abused, and it is bad for patients and providers. The American Medical Association notes, 'Among America's physicians, more than nine in 10 surveyed say that prior authorization has a negative impact on patient clinical outcomes." We urge you to put patients and providers first by cancelling the WISeR model and exploring other ways to limit fraud, waste, and abuse in the Medicare program." Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek: "Will the letter change things? I doubt it. They'll probably get an answer, but expect the same vague, carefully worded response. The current administration is clear on its intent: privatize more of Medicare and crack down on what they label "waste, fraud, and abuse." Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek: "Few Americans would be in disagreement that services like Medicare and Medicaid should have strong oversight to ensure funding is being properly used, but the concern with the WISeR model being employed is the use of prior authorization for some Medicare services. Medicare Advantage has a history of requiring prior authorization, and while not all uses have been a source of criticism, it is viewed by some beneficiaries as one of several reasons why Advantage has garnered more negative reactions in recent years." What Happens Next CMS faced requests from House Democrats to provide documentation and to cancel the planned prior authorization pilot. Lawmakers in the Senate continue to debate broader Medicare reforms, and committee deliberations could determine whether proposals addressing Medicare Advantage payments or CMS operational changes move into larger legislative packages. "For the time being, the model isn't nationwide and will be piloted in select states," Beene said. "It's difficult to say if this will eventually be implemented nationwide and will largely depend on how this pilot program goes."
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
WATCH LIVE: Will Cain breaks down the latest on Trump's plan to clean up DC
Sen. Mullin also joins the show to discuss Trump's invocation of the Home Rule Act.
