HB85, the “Superior Court Judicial Compensation Reform Act,” restructures how Georgia superior court judges are paid beginning July 1, 2025. The bill sets a new statewide framework under which judges’ annual salaries are tied to the salary of a U.S. District Court judge for the Northern District of Georgia, with the General Assembly setting superior court judge salaries in the appropriations process and capping them at 90 percent of that federal benchmark. It also gives judges already in office on July 1, 2025, a one-time, irrevocable option to switch to the new compensation system, while allowing judges who do not opt in to keep their existing compensation package without reduction during their current term.
The bill largely eliminates county salary supplements for superior court judges and replaces them with optional county-funded “locality pay” of up to 10 percent of the state salary, subject to a dollar cap and other limits. Chief judges may continue to receive existing local supplements, but no new or increased chief-judge supplement may be enacted after July 1, 2025. The bill also preserves existing fringe benefits and retirement-related rights, and it allows counties to base retirement benefits on locality pay where otherwise permitted. New judgeships created after the effective date are automatically entitled to the same locality pay, if any, as other judges in the circuit.
A major additional feature of HB85 is its treatment of other public salaries that are tied by local law or ordinance to superior court judges’ compensation. The bill suspends, as of July 1, 2025, local laws and ordinances that automatically adjust the pay of other officers, officials, or employees based on a superior court judge’s salary or supplement. That suspension remains in place for most affected positions, but it is lifted for judges on July 1, 2026, unless the underlying local law is repealed or amended earlier. The bill also bars retroactive pay for any suspended increases and preserves the General Assembly’s and local governments’ ability to change compensation through new lawful action.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history was strongly favorable, especially in the House and final Senate passage. The bill passed the House 163-7 and the Senate 51-2, indicating broad bipartisan support for the general reform package. However, the Senate rejected Amendment #1 by a 33-18 vote, suggesting there was at least some disagreement over how the compensation changes should be structured or modified.
The main points of contention appear to center on the shift away from county salary supplements, the new locality-pay system, and the bill’s suspension of local compensation formulas tied to judges’ pay. Those provisions affect county budgets, local pay structures, and the compensation expectations of judges and other local officials whose salaries are linked to judicial pay. The bill’s grandfathering provisions and protections for existing judges and benefits seem designed to address fairness and constitutional concerns, while the suspension of automatic local pay escalators appears aimed at preventing unexpected local fiscal impacts.
HB85 amends Georgia law governing superior court judges’ compensation, including Code Sections 15-6-29, 15-6-29.1, and 45-7-4, and adds new Code Section 15-6-29.2 and 1-3-12. It shifts superior court judge pay toward a statewide salary model, limits county supplements, authorizes optional locality pay, preserves certain existing benefits and retirement rights, and temporarily suspends local compensation provisions for other officials that are pegged to judges’ salaries. The bill also repeals conflicting laws and takes effect July 1, 2025.
The bill appears to have been viewed favorably overall, with overwhelming passage in both chambers. The House vote and final Senate vote suggest broad support for reforming judicial compensation and reducing the fiscal ripple effects of local salary formulas. The failed Senate amendment indicates some disagreement, but not enough to prevent final passage.
The most notable disagreements likely involved the bill’s reduction of county salary supplements, the cap and structure of locality pay, and the suspension of local laws that automatically raise pay for other officials when judges’ compensation increases. Counties and local governments may have concerns about losing flexibility or about how the new system affects budgets, while judges and other affected employees may be concerned about compensation stability, grandfathering, and whether the bill preserves existing benefits and retirement expectations. The bill attempts to balance those concerns by protecting current judges’ pay if they do not opt in, preserving fringe and retirement benefits, and allowing local governments to continue some forms of compensation through lawful action.