Georgia Senate Bill SB218

Georgia 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/19/25
• Refer: 2/20/25
• Report Pass: 2/26/25
• Engrossed: 3/6/25
• Report Pass: 4/2/25
• Enrolled: 4/10/26

Caption

Prosecuting Attorneys Qualifications Commission; shall be assigned for administrative purposes only to the Administrative Office of the Courts; provide

Summary

SB 218 revises Georgia law governing the Prosecuting Attorneys Qualifications Commission, the body responsible for investigating and disciplining district attorneys and solicitors-general. The bill makes the commission a budget unit assigned for administrative purposes only to the Administrative Office of the Courts and funded through the judicial branch. It also clarifies compensation and travel reimbursement for commission members, allows the commission’s director to be titled executive director, and sets out when complaints may be filed and how older misconduct allegations are treated. The bill expands and formalizes the commission’s procedures for confidentiality, disclosure, appeals, subpoenas, and investigations. It allows respondents to appeal hearing panel decisions to superior court and then to the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court as appropriate. It also creates a new chapter authorizing the commission to employ investigators and special commission investigators, including limited arrest powers in narrowly defined circumstances, and establishes subpoena authority and enforcement rules for commission proceedings.

Impact

SB 218 would amend Title 15 of the Georgia Code and add a new chapter governing the Prosecuting Attorneys Qualifications Commission. It shifts the commission’s administrative placement to the judicial branch through the Administrative Office of the Courts, clarifies funding sources, and creates detailed statutory procedures for investigations, confidentiality, disclosure, appeals, and subpoenas. The bill directly affects district attorneys, solicitors-general, commission staff, complainants, and respondents subject to disciplinary or incapacity proceedings.

Sentiment

The voting history suggests the bill ultimately received strong legislative support, especially in the House, where it passed by a wide margin. The Senate also approved the measure, though the initial passage by substitute showed more divided support. Overall, the bill appears to have been viewed as a structural and procedural update to the commission rather than a major policy overhaul, with broad agreement on the need to define the commission’s authority and operations more clearly.

Contention

The main points of contention appear to center on the commission’s independence, scope of authority, and procedural safeguards. Moving the commission under the Administrative Office of the Courts and funding it through the judicial branch may have raised separation-of-powers or oversight concerns. The bill’s provisions on confidentiality, disclosure of complaints, retroactive treatment of misconduct allegations, and the creation of special commission investigators with limited arrest powers are also likely to have been debated because they affect both accountability of prosecutors and protections for accused officials.