House committee advances bill to raise district attorney pay, limits some local supplements

A House Judiciary Committee substitute for House Bill 10‑28 cleared committee Tuesday after hours of testimony and debate, sending the measure back to the Rules committee with a 6–5 vote.

The substitute would set a new state pay structure for Georgia’s elected district attorneys at roughly 88% of the pay of a Northern District federal judge (the draft text computes a cap near $196,006) and includes an opt‑out window for incumbent DAs. The measure retains a $6,000 supplement for accountability courts and expressly preserves parity for chief public defenders under O.C.G.A. §17‑12‑25, sponsors said.

Supporters framed the bill as a practical step to stem turnover and improve recruitment in prosecutor offices across the state. Joe Mulholland, president of the District Attorneys Association, told the committee the change would give prosecutors a stable, predictable path to higher pay without yearly appeals to county budgets. “We get what you pay for,” Mulholland said, arguing that more competitive state pay would broaden the applicant pool and reduce churn.

Proponents noted the measure mirrors the approach used last year in a judges’ pay law and includes an opt‑out provision that allows current DAs to retain existing local supplements through specified deadlines. Backers also said appropriations control whether and how quickly the new pay cap is funded; the statutory cap on pay would not itself appropriate money.

Opponents concentrated on the bill’s effect on local supplements and on equity across large and small circuits. Clayton County District Attorney Tasha Mosley, whose office prosecutes hundreds of felonies annually, said the bill risks forcing large, high‑caseload offices to choose between losing experienced staff or keeping pay arrangements that future entrants could not rely on. “Let the locals pay us what they think we’re worth,” Mosley said, warning that some assistant prosecutors and other senior staff could be paid more than an incoming DA under the proposed structure.

Several members pressed the sponsors on whether the substitute would cap local supplements to chief public defenders as well as elected DAs. Sponsors pointed to O.C.G.A. §17‑12‑25 and the substitute’s language as preserving statutory parity for chief public defenders while removing automatic local liabilities for other courthouse employees who had been “tethered” to DA pay. Representative Evans proposed amendments to extend locality caps or delay the bill’s effective date until the state funds a substantial portion of the increase; one proposed amendment failed on a division vote.

After debate and a roll‑style tally, the committee approved the substitute 6–5 and sent it back to Rules. Committee members emphasized that the bill changes pay structure but does not itself appropriate funds; any salary increases would still require action by the General Assembly’s appropriations process.

The bill’s next procedural stop is the Rules committee; proponents urged appropriators to consider phased funding to avoid sudden disruptions in circuits that rely on generous local supplements.

Votes at a glance: the committee passed the HB 10‑28 substitute 6–5 and returned it to Rules. No floor or chamber vote on final enactment has been recorded.