This week Georgia’s General Assembly will start to address several high-profile public issues. Here’s what to expect:
- Buckhead cityhood. With murders having risen three years in a row in Georgia’s capital city, the movement by proponents to have the Buckhead section of Atlanta secede and establish its own municipality (with a promised police force) has not gone away. Expect state Sen. Randy Robertson, R-Cataula, to lead the legislative push. Lt. Gov. Burt Jones is on record supporting the right for an up-or-down vote on Buckhead cityhood by the residents affected. Atlanta Mayor Andre Dickens is obviously opposed, as are some influential Buckhead businesspeople. But the big question from observers contacted by InsiderAdvantage: Will new House Speaker Jon Burns have an open mind on the contentious issue? His support would be critical if any cityhood legislation emerges from the House chamber.
- Sports betting: Expect introduction of Senate Bill 57 by state Sen. Billy Hickman, R-Statesboro. It creates a Georgia Sports Betting Commission to be regulated by the Georgia Lottery Corp. It would allow the state to garner new revenue from betting licensing and taxes for educational purposes, including boosting the Lottery’s HOPE Scholarship and the Pre-K school program. The bipartisan bill is signed by state Sen. Brandon Beach, R-Alpharetta (a key ally of the lieutenant governor) which will help move it through the committee process. Online sports betting would be legalized, as well as licensing for three horse tracks where gamblers can also wager over self-service kiosks or at betting windows. So far, it’s unclear when resort gaming legislation will be filed. But don’t be surprised if it also is this week.
- Instant runoff: House Bill 200 has picked up some bipartisan support to allow cities to use ranked-choice voting in nonpartisan municipal elections. But opposition is growing in Republican ranks, with some lawmakers telling InsiderAdvantage that H.B. 200 is a confusing, chaotic “reform” being pushed by mega-liberal political donors and other activists. They argue it fundamentally changes the election process, effectively disenfranchises voters and allows marginal candidates not supported by a majority of voters to be elected. “It is a confusing and opaque process that robs voters of the ability to re-educate and re-examine the top two vote-getting candidates in a run-off election when one candidate does not initially win a majority, and it diminishes the ability of voters to make informed, knowledgeable choices of who would best represent them,” according to one GOP activist who emailed us.
