Judiciary committee advances bill to raise district attorney pay, limits local supplements; 6–5 vote

The state House Judiciary Committee voted to advance House Bill 1028 on Thursday, approving a substitute that would tie most district attorneys’ state salary to 88% of a federal district judge’s pay while limiting future local supplements. The committee approved the bill, sending it back to Rules by a 6–5 margin after extended debate and public testimony.

Vice Chair Brock Reeves, the bill’s author in committee, told members the substitute (LC 4066S) is modeled on last year’s judicial pay change and would raise the state component for many DAs from a current base of about $132,004.73 toward an estimated cap near $196,005.92 (88% of the referenced federal level), subject to appropriations. Reeves said the substitute preserves pay parity for chief public defenders under state law (Title 17, §17‑12‑25) while clarifying that counties should not be automatically liable if local offices had previously been “tethered” to DA pay.

Several lawmakers pressed Reeves and counsel on whether the bill’s restriction on locality supplements for elected DAs would also limit county supplements for circuit public defenders. Committee members repeatedly cited the code reference and asked staff to point to the exact lines; Reeves and the sponsor said retained sections explicitly preserve statutory parity but that local ordinances tethering other courthouse employees to DA pay will not automatically create a new county liability.

Testimony divided along office‑size lines. Joe Mulholland, president of the District Attorneys Association, urged passage as a pragmatic step to recruit and retain prosecutors, saying the association viewed the judge‑pay precedent as the most straightforward way to raise compensation. ‘‘We get what you pay for,’’ Mulholland said, describing widespread vacancies and assistant prosecutors earning more than some elected DAs.

By contrast, several large‑circuit DAs—including Clayton County’s Tasha Mosley and DeKalb County’s Sherry Boston—warned the single‑structure approach would leave successors in populous offices worse off. Mosley said the substitute’s cap on future local supplements could make some vital offices less attractive and urged a tiered system or stepped increases for assistant prosecutors (ADAs) in parallel.

Several circuit public defenders and association representatives said they supported the amendment package that preserves parity and welcomed the staff clarifications. Witnesses from both prosecution and defense noted wide variation in caseloads, office size and county funding across the state and urged the legislature to consider those differences in later floor or appropriations work.

Representative Stacy Evans proposed two committee amendments — one to extend supplement caps to circuit public defenders and another to delay the bill’s effective date until state pay rose by a specified amount — but both amendments failed in committee votes. The committee’s final voice/show‑of‑hands vote approved the bill as presented and sent it up to Rules, 6–5.

Next steps: the bill will return to Rules; any appropriation required to realize the raise would be set by the General Assembly’s budget process. The substitute includes opt‑out mechanics for current occupants with deadlines cited in the hearing (1/1/2027 and 1/1/2028) to allow elected DAs to retain existing local supplement arrangements for a transition period.