Georgia Equity and Fairness Commission Act; enact
HB 367 would create the Georgia Equity and Fairness Commission within the Department of Administrative Services to study the historical and continuing effects of chattel slavery in Georgia and to recommend remedies. The bill frames its purpose through legislative findings describing slavery, Jim Crow, redlining, unequal education, and other discriminatory practices, and it directs the commission to examine how state constitutional and statutory provisions supported slavery and how later laws discriminated against enslaved people and their descendants.
The commission would be composed of 11 members appointed by the Governor and legislative leaders, with members drawn from recommendations by civil rights, human rights, racial justice, reparations, and African-American community organizations. It would be authorized to hold meetings and public hearings, request documents and testimony, accept grants and donations, and issue a public report. The report would include findings and recommendations on public education and on possible remedies, expressly including consideration of the form, amount, and eligibility for restitution. The commission would sunset on June 30, 2027.
If enacted, HB 367 would add a new article to Chapter 12 of Title 50 of the Georgia Code establishing a temporary state commission with investigatory and advisory powers. It would not itself create reparations or other substantive relief, but it would require state cooperation with information requests, authorize spending for commission operations and member reimbursements, and mandate a final report to state leaders and the public. The bill would also repeal conflicting laws and automatically terminate the commission in 2027.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the measure appears to be framed as a serious policy study proposal focused on racial justice, historical accountability, and possible remedies for descendants of chattel slavery. The bill’s findings and structure suggest support from sponsors interested in civil rights and reparative justice, but the lack of voting history or transcript evidence means no formal legislative sentiment can be confirmed from the provided record.
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s explicit focus on slavery reparations and its directive that the commission address the form, amount, and eligibility for restitution. That language may draw opposition from lawmakers or stakeholders who object to reparations, to state involvement in historical redress, or to the use of public resources for a commission with potentially broad and politically sensitive findings. Supporters, by contrast, would likely emphasize the need to study systemic harms, educate the public, and evaluate remedies for long-standing racial inequities.