Committee hears testimony on bill to restore judicial discretion in school-bus passing fines; members table measure

Representative Don Parsons introduced House Bill 344, a substitute that would change penalties for drivers who pass stopped school buses while children are boarding or disembarking and direct resulting civil penalties to school-safety funds. The committee voted to table the bill after extended testimony and debate.

The substitute would set a civil penalty “not less than $500 nor more than $1,000,” and make the moving-traffic violation punishable at not less than $500 and up to $1,000 “as it is now,” but would explicitly restore judicial discretion over the amount, Representative Mitchell Scoggins told the committee. Scoggins said the change responds to cases in which judges presently have no practical ability to reduce or place a fine on payment plan because the law, as amended in 2024, set a mandatory $1,000 civil penalty.

Why it matters: Supporters said restoring discretion lets judges consider defendants’ circumstances — for example, whether a person is elderly or has limited income — and avoid forcing people into probation violations or jail for inability to pay. Opponents and family members of a child killed in a school-bus incident said higher mandatory penalties are an essential deterrent to protect children.

Testimony and debate: Veil King, who identified himself as the brother of Ashley Pierce and uncle of Adeline ("Addie") Pierce, described the crash that killed the girl and urged lawmakers not to reduce penalties. "A law without real penalty is not a law after all," King said during public testimony. Shannon McElroy, Addie’s aunt, said the family supported Addie’s Law and opposed what she called attempts to ‘‘dismantle’’ protections.

Representative Scoggins and other backers said the substitute does not intend to weaken safety protections; rather it would create a statutorily defined sentencing range with a floor and ceiling and let judges tailor penalties within that range. As Scoggins put it, the change "will allow that judge a little more discretion" including options such as probation or payment plans when appropriate.

Opponents, including Representative (Clint) Crow and other members who described their roles in earlier enactment efforts, argued that the thousand-dollar minimum acts as a stronger deterrent. Representative Crow said the purpose of the prior change — pushed after Addie’s death and supported widely in the Senate on earlier iterations — was to deter repeat violations and that a lower minimum could reduce the law’s deterrent effect.

Legal context and clarifications: Committee members discussed existing sentencing statutes. One member cited OCGA 17-10-3 and related sentencing provisions and suggested judges may already have some discretion under sentencing law for noncivil offenses; speakers distinguished the civil penalty (administrative collection tied to vehicle registration) from the criminal moving-traffic offense (which carries points and other criminal consequences).

Committee action: Chairman Gullett moved to table HB 344; the motion was seconded and the committee voted to table the measure. The transcript records committee members voicing support for testimony and several members noting they lacked quorum to take broader actions earlier in the hearing. The record does not contain a roll-call tally by name for the tabling vote.

What happens next: The bill was tabled at this hearing; proponents and opponents indicated they intend to continue advocacy if the bill resurfaces.

Ending: Public commenters emphasized the family impact of the crash and urged lawmakers to preserve strong penalties; supporters of the substitute emphasized judicial discretion and proportionality in sentencing.