The regulatory state took center stage at the General Assembly as both chambers held hearings on how to reduce the growing regulatory burden on Georgians.
On Wednesday, the Senate Economic Development and Tourism Committee advanced Senate Bill 28, otherwise known as the “Red Tape Rollback Act.”
This bill is the centerpiece of the Senate’s effort toward regulatory reform, one of the session’s top priorities as outlined last month by Lt. Gov. Burt Jones.
In a press release from the Lieutenant Governor, Georgia’s Red Tape Rollback Act was presented as the state’s complement of the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Practically speaking, Georgia’s foray into regulatory reform is not designed to work like the highly publicized federal project headed by Elon Musk. However, the two programs do share a similar goal of creating a more efficient bureaucracy. Lt. Gov. Jones stated that Georgia’s effort will complement the federal government’s in seeking to “create efficiency, while paring down unnecessary spending and eliminating bureaucratic red tape.”
The Red Tape Rollback Act includes the following regulatory reform measures:
- It requires state agencies to perform top-to-bottom reviews of their rules and regulations every four years, with the first such reviews occurring in 2028. Agencies that managed to decrease their number of rules by 10% or more over the course of that four-cycle would be exempt from a review.
- It directs state agencies to reduce compliance and paperwork burdens on small businesses when feasible, and would ensure agencies account for the economic impact of new rules.
- For proposed rules that are estimated to cost over $1 million over five years after implementation, agencies must provide an economic impact analysis to the General Assembly. Rules that require this type of analysis would then require a two-thirds vote from the General Assembly or a majority vote with the governor’s approval.
- It empowers legislators to request a “small business impact analysis” to weigh economic costs and benefits from pending legislation.
Additionally, on Thursday, the House Budget and Fiscal Affairs Oversight Committee held a hearing to learn more about the growth of Georgia’s regulatory code and how other states have sought to reduce this burden on citizens through both executive and legislative reform. The Georgia Public Policy Foundation, along with Americans for Prosperity and the Pacific Legal Foundation, testified before the committee.
With regulatory reform highlighted as an important legislative objective, some lawmakers have turned their attention to the size of Georgia’s regulatory code and the burdens it places on small businesses and individuals. Since the state began tracking its regulations in 1965, Georgia’s code has steadily grown in size almost every year. While regulations are usually created in the interest of public safety and quality control, they frequently cause unforeseen problems, create costs that outweigh their benefits or remain in effect after they become irrelevant.
Two studies from last year put Georgia’s regulations in context with other states. A Mercatus Center report ranked Georgia as the 26th most-regulated state, and a Cicero Institute had Georgia tied for last in a ranking based on state efforts to implement regulatory reform.
A central problem with regulations is that they tend to grow perpetually absent deliberate efforts to review them. This buildup creates a burden for workers and established businesses, and raises the barrier to entry for potential startups. Some states have taken steps in recent years to combat the inertia of regulatory expansion.
Some of these reforms have included automatically triggering legislative reviews of regulations if they are expected to exceed certain costs or after a set amount of time. Some states also set out to reduce the burden of their codes by setting benchmarks, aiming to cut regulatory language by a certain percentage or requiring the elimination of two regulations for every one added.
While Georgia would not be the first state to attempt regulatory reform, the federal government’s effort may lead it and other states to follow. There is a wide variety of tangible goals that regulatory reform efforts have sought and achieved, but an even loftier opportunity exists for Georgia, other states and the federal government. Reform efforts like this could prove useful simply by unburdening businesses and individuals by eliminating certain regulations, however, lawmakers could influence a more fundamental change by reversing the long-standing tendency of regulations to expand over time. Doing so would create a more precise and intentional regulatory framework and a stronger economy.