Georgia House Bill HB1507

Georgia 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/4/26
• Report Pass: 3/12/26
• Engrossed: 3/12/26
• Refer: 3/16/26
• Report Pass: 3/19/26
• Enrolled: 4/6/26

Caption

Wayne County; State Court; judge and solicitor; revise salary

Summary

HB1507 is a local act affecting the State Court of Wayne County. It amends the county’s existing enabling law to set the annual salary of both the judge and the solicitor at $135,711.27. The bill also provides that each salary will be adjusted annually by the same percentage as any cost-of-living adjustment approved by the Wayne County Board of Commissioners for general county employees. The bill further specifies that these salaries are to be paid in monthly installments from Wayne County funds, at the direction of the county board of commissioners. By revising the compensation provisions in the court’s governing act, the bill updates the financial terms for two county judicial offices without changing the court’s jurisdiction or structure.

Impact

HB1507 amends a special local law governing the State Court of Wayne County, replacing prior salary provisions for the judge and solicitor with new fixed annual amounts and a COLA-based adjustment mechanism tied to county employee raises. It affects Wayne County’s budget and payroll administration, and it directly impacts the compensation of the state court judge and solicitor. The bill also repeals conflicting laws to ensure the revised salary provisions control.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been noncontroversial and broadly supported. It passed the House 156-0 on the Local Calendar and the Senate 47-0 on the Local Consent Calendar, indicating unanimous approval in both chambers. The absence of committee transcript discussion suggests there was little public debate or visible opposition.

Contention

No notable contention is reflected in the available record. The bill is a local compensation measure, and the unanimous votes suggest agreement on updating salaries for the Wayne County State Court judge and solicitor. Any potential concern would likely have centered on county funding obligations or the appropriateness of tying judicial salaries to county employee cost-of-living adjustments, but no opposition is documented in the provided materials.