Comparisons of Georgia's
Senate Bill 301 and House Bill 467
with Current State Law 50-3-1
​

​Here’s a tight, exact side-by-side of Georgia’s SB 301 (LC 28 0675, introduced) and HB 467 (LC 28 0679S, House committee substitute) showing the wording that differs or adds something new.

Key differences at a glance

Topic

SB 301 text (introduced)

HB 467 text (committee substitute)

What’s different
​ / so what

90-day public notice before removal/
​relocation

Requires an agency to publish “90 days’ public notice in the legal organ of the county” before removing/relocating; must solicit third-party offers; must wait the full 90 days (tolled during injunction litigation). After 90 days, agency must either store or transfer to a third party willing to publicly display; preference to local display; agency pays moving/placement costs. 

Same 90-day rule, same solicitation of third parties, same tolling during litigation, same preference for local display, and same responsibility that “The agency shall be responsible for all costs”.

​Substance matches. HB 467 adds one small lead-in that ties this notice to the relocation exceptions (see next row).

...........................​
​Relocation
​for public works (roads, buildings, etc.)

.........................................................​
​Allows relocation when necessary for construction/expansion/alteration of buildings, roads, highways, etc., but new site must have “similar prominence, honor, visibility, and access” in the same county/municipality; may not relocate to a museum/cemetery/mausoleum unless originally there.  

........................................​
​Same standards, but the paragraph begins: “Other than the provisions of paragraph (11) of this subsection” (i.e., relocation power is still subject to the 90-day process). LegiScan

.............................................
​​HB 467 explicitly subordinates the relocation exception to the 90-day notice/offer process; SB 301’s text doesn’t have that lead-in sentence (though it still has the 90-day rule elsewhere).

..........................​
​Stone Mountain clause

...........................................................​
​Explicit, sweeping protection: the Stone Mountain Confederate memorial “shall never be altered, removed, concealed, or obscured in any fashion” and must be preserved “for all time.”

...........................................​
​No parallel Stone Mountain clause appears in the HB 467 substitute text. 

..........................................​
​Biggest substantive difference: SB 301 uniquely hard-locks Stone Mountain. HB 467 doesn’t include that sentence.

...........................Injunctive
relief
​mandate

..........................................................Standing + AG/DA may act; courts can issue injunctions (implied via enforcement language); there is no separate numbered sentence that “conduct shall be enjoined.” 

..........................................Adds an explicit line: “Conduct prohibited by this Code section shall be enjoined by the appropriate superior court upon proper application.” (para. (9)). 

.........................................HB 467 makes injunctions mandatory upon proper application; SB 301 relies on general enforcement/standing language.

........................
Who can sue
​(standing)

...........................................................​
​“Any interested person, group, or legal entity, without regard to ownership… or a personalized injury” may sue; venue is the superior court of the county where the monument was located. 

...........................................​
​Same standing text (any interested person/group/entity; no personalized injury), and same venue language. 

.........................................No meaningful difference here.

​........................
Damages
& fees

..............................................................Treble (3×) repair/replacement, possible exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and costs for prevailing claimant; similar parallel for private-property monuments.​

..........................................Same package: treble, possible exemplary, fees/costs; mirrors language for private-property monuments.

..........................................Functionally the same. HB 467 slightly expands the verbs list in the private-property paragraph, but the remedy is the same.

.........................Criminal liability

............................................................Interference on public property is a misdemeanor.

..........................................Same: misdemeanor.

..........................................Same.

..........................Attorney General / DA enforcement

...............................................AG or district attorney of the circuit may represent owners/others/State parens patriae and bring actions; State consents to suit for this purpose.

...............................................AG or district attorney of the county (wording difference) may represent owners/others/State parens patriae and bring actions; State consents.

...............................................Very small wording change (circuit vs county); effect is the same—top prosecutors may enforce.

........................Registry of monuments

................................................Creates a state registry at DCA only after a specific line-item appropriation fully funds it; requires agencies to report their monuments; explicitly includes monuments in storage; agencies must immediately notify DCA of relocations.

................................................Creates the DCA registry outright (no appropriation trigger) and sets a hard deadline: “No later than December 31, 2025” agencies must report; explicitly includes monuments in storage; immediate notification on moves.

...............................................HB 467 is faster and firmer: it doesn’t wait for funding and sets a date certain. SB 301 makes the registry contingent on a specific appropriation.

.......................
Private-property monuments

...........................................................Protects privately owned monuments on private property; makes unauthorized acts unlawful; treble/exemplary/fees available; clarifies this paragraph does not apply to a private owner storing their monuments.

..........................................Same protection; verbs list is a bit longer/clearer; same remedies; same carve-out for a private owner storing their monuments.

..........................................Essentially the same protection; HB 467’s phrasing is a touch more explicit.

................................................................................................................................................................................................

Citations to the exact lines

• SB 301 (LC 28 0675, introduced PDF): definitions, misdemeanor, relocation standards & museum/cemetery bar, treble/exemplary/fees, standing/venue, AG/DA enforcement, 90-day notice & third-party preference, Stone Mountain clause, registry w/ appropriation trigger. LegiScan
• HB 467 (LC 28 0679S, committee substitute PDF): mirrors most provisions; adds explicit injunction mandate; ties relocation exceptions to the 90-day paragraph; no Stone Mountain sentence; registry due by Dec. 31, 2025 (no appropriation condition).