The Georgia Senate has recently approved a bill granting legislators the authority to veto major regulations implemented by the executive branch. This decision, passed with a vote of 33-21, has sparked concerns about its potential impact on safety measures and environmental protections, echoing similar outcomes in other states. This legislative initiative is being championed by Lieutenant Governor Burt Jones, a Republican contemplating a gubernatorial campaign in 2026.
Jones has equated the bill’s intent to that of Elon Musk’s proposed Department of Government Efficiency, which aims to reduce federal expenditure and regulation. Although some proponents have distanced themselves from the DOGE acronym due to growing opposition to Musk’s approach, the bill’s sponsor, Republican Senator Greg Dolezal of Cumming, clarified that, despite sharing similar ideological roots, this bill differs significantly in its functionality.
Democrats, seeking to counteract trends in Washington, voiced their apprehension about the bill potentially leading to layoffs and cuts in services. They argue that such actions mirror those Musk is attempting, though the current legislation primarily seeks to restrict state agency-imposed regulations. Typically, lawmakers create laws while agencies are tasked with devising implementation rules. Senate Minority Whip Kim Jackson, a Democrat from Stone Mountain, questioned whether the proposed cuts to crucial programs, relied upon by countless Georgians, would proceed under the guise of regulatory rollback.
Following the Senate’s approval, the bill now advances to the House for additional discussion. Despite Georgia’s longstanding Republican control over its legislature and governor’s office, backers of Senate Bill 28 express the necessity for legislative oversight of executive rulemaking. According to Dolezal, this measure ensures legislators have a pivotal role in preventing unintended consequences or burdensome regulations on citizens.
However, critics argue that the bill embodies an anti-government sentiment. Democratic Senator Josh McLaurin from Sandy Springs cautioned against indiscriminate regulatory rollbacks, emphasizing that regulatory processes might sometimes constitute essential due diligence.
A previous iteration of the bill aimed at assessing new laws’ impact on small businesses passed the Senate in 2024 but failed to become law. The current proposal extends further by stipulating that any regulation forecasting an economic impact exceeding $1 million over five years would be paused until legislative approval is obtained. This threshold amounts to less than two cents annually for Georgia’s 10.7 million residents.
States such as Kansas and Wisconsin, which have enacted similar laws, faced negative repercussions, including the halting of fire safety code updates and restrictions on groundwater contamination standards. In Wisconsin, state laws have deterred agencies from introducing new rules, focusing solely on compliance costs and disregarding potential benefits. Bill Davis, a legal analyst in Wisconsin, explained that the existing legislative framework effectively stifles new regulatory initiatives.
Despite taking power from the executive branch, a spokesperson for Georgia’s Republican Governor Brian Kemp refrained from commenting on the bill. In other states like Florida and Kansas, Republican-majority legislatures enacted comparable measures to counter Democratic governors. Meanwhile, states such as Wisconsin and Indiana have passed similar bills even with Republican dominance in their legislative and executive branches.
The measure, known nationally as the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act, is gaining traction across the U.S., supported by conservative organizations like Americans for Prosperity. While Georgia legislators can currently object to enacted laws, the proposed bill empowers any one legislator to challenge regulations with impacts under $1 million. Additionally, it mandates agencies to review existing rules every four years, potentially freezing any with compliance costs awaiting legislative consent.
