Early voting begins Tuesday, October 13, 2026. Visit the MyVoterPage to find your voting location.
Georgia voters will consider three amendments to the state constitution when they head to the polls this November.
In order to be placed on the ballot for consideration by voters, the measures were approved in the Georgia legislature by ⅔ of the members of the Georgia House and Georgia Senate. Each constitutional amendment was approved via a Resolution, which outlined the actual text of the amendment and the ballot question. Some also include enabling legislation, which presents the guidelines for how the constitutional amendment would be applied.
In order to become official components of the state constitution, however, they must only pass by a vote of 50% + 1.
It’s worth noting that while enabling legislation is ‘the law’ at the time of the vote by Georgians, lawmakers can amend the legislation at any time. This has happened in the past: voters ratified a constitutional amendment and during the next legislative session, lawmakers amended the language of the enabling legislation.
QUESTION 1: “Shall the Constitution of Georgia, for the purpose of protecting family farmland, be amended so as to increase the maximum acreage to qualify for assessment and taxation as a bona fide conservation use property from 2,000 acres to 4,000 acres?”
- A YES vote means you support the increase in acreage that a property owner can enroll in timberland conservation from 2,000 to 4,000.
- A NO vote means you want the limit to remain at 2,000 acres per property owner.
To be considered as a bona fide conservation use property, the property owner must enter a 10-year covenant with the county and place 10 – 2,000 acres in the covenant. Property must be owned by individuals, estates, trusts, family farm entities, or a nonprofit and must be used for raising crops, managing timber, or preserving a wildlife habitat. The land is then taxed at 40% of the value rather than full market value.
Supporters of the measure say the amendment is imperative for land preservation and alleviates the tax burden, even if nominally. State Representative Sam Watson said it’s needed because “family farms are getting much larger today.”
Opponents of the measure say the bill is a tax break for large landowners and a reduction in tax revenue, which will be offset by smaller landowners.
Enabling legislation:
- House Resolution 32 is the actual CA text. It passed 168-5 in the House and 50-1 in the Senate.
- House NO votes included: Park Cannon, Viola Davis, Derrick Jackson, Ruwa Romman, Gabriel Sanchez
- Senate NO votes included: Colton Moore
QUESTION 2: “Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to require that all probate court judges be elected in nonpartisan elections?”
- A YES vote means you support eliminating political party labels for probate judges.
- A NO vote means you oppose the change and want probate judges to claim a political party at the ballot box when they qualify for elected office.
*This question may be confusing for some as many counties in Georgia have already enacted local legislation to make their probate (and magistrate) judge positions nonpartisan, however, this is not universal in Georgia. An amendment to the Georgia Constitution would make the position of probate judge ‘nonpartisan’ in every county in Georgia.
For reference, probate judges in Georgia oversee the administration of wills and estates, manage guardianships, issue public licenses, and handle legal and administrative duties at the county level. They’re elected to serve 4-year terms and must be at least 25 years old, a high school graduate, and a resident of the respective county for 2 years. Probate judges are only required to be attorneys if the county has more than 96,000 people.
Supporters of the measure say the amendment would streamline matters of judicial ethics by ensuring judicial positions are not Republican or Democrat while also pushing voters to select candidates based on individual values. Frontline Policy Action and the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute support this measure as do elected officials from both sides of the aisle, including: former Governor Roy Barnes, former Lt. Governor Casey Cagle, former Governor Nathan Deal, and former Lt. Governor Mark Taylor. Former Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Michael Boggs also expressed his support.
Opponents of the measure argue that political parties allow people to choose candidates based on political party values instead of individual beliefs and argue that special interest groups could be given the advantage during elections. Americans for Tax Reform oppose the amendment.
Enabling legislation:
- House Resolution 251 is the actual CA text. It passed the House by a vote of 147-20 in the House and 46-0 in the Senate.
- House NO votes included: Alexander, Baker, Barnes, Barton, Burnough, Byrd, Cannon (Park), Carter, Dunahoo, Griffin, Howard, Jasperse, Kahaian, McClain, Myles, Sainz, Sanchez, Scott, Tarvin, and Taylor (Rhonda)
QUESTION 3: “Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to authorize the General Assembly to dedicate certain existing revenues, including revenues reallocated by law, to a nonlapsing fund to be used exclusively for the expansion, maintenance, and operation of emergency 9-1-1 systems in this state?”
- A YES vote means you support the legislature earmarking revenue in a dedicated fund that can only be used for 9-1-1 systems.
- A NO vote means you do not support the legislature earmarking revenue in a dedicated fund for 9-1-1 systems.
Supporters of the measure say the dedicated fund is necessary to improve and maintain 9-1-1 systems.
The Georgia Emergency Communications Authority and the Georgia Municipal Association have publicly expressed support for this amendment. Three other states have dedicated funds for 9-1-1 systems, including Maine, Missouri, and Washington.
Opponents of the measure say the language of the amendment does not guarantee lawmakers will earmark the funds. The language that would be added to the Georgia Constitution merely gives lawmakers the authority to appropriate the funds to a restricted fund, if they so wish.
The language states that the “The General Assembly is authorized by general law for the creation of the Georgia Next Generation 9-1-1 Fund.” If the language required lawmakers to earmark the funds, the language would read that the “General Assembly shall provide by general law for the creation of the Georgia Next Generation 9-1-1 Fund.” It then goes on to state that the General Assembly “may provide by general law for the dedication and deposit of revenues raised from specified sources for the purposes of the fund into the fund.” The use of the word “may” means they’re not required to do anything and even if the enabling legislation requires it at the time of passage, it can be amended at any time.
Georgia lawmakers have asked Georgians to create nine ‘restricted use funds’ since 1990. Seven of those have been approved.
Enabling legislation: House Bill 423 is the 11-page bill that outlines how the CA would be implemented.
House Resolution 1243 is the actual CA text. It passed in the House by a vote of 162-0 and in the Senate in a vote of 49-0.
