Georgia's 2026 Proposed Constitutional Amendments

If you’re unsure how to vote on the three proposed constitutional amendments on Georgia’s 2026 general election ballot, here are our analyses and recommendations.

Bottom line up front - Vote NO on each

While the proposed constitutional amendments might look reasonable at first glance, there are significant issues with each that cause us to recommend voting No.

Amendment 1 – Increasing the CUVA acreage limit to 4,000 acres

In rural counties, reduced property tax revenue shifts the burden to other local taxpayers, without state reimbursement.
The amendment isn’t needed to cover small farms; they already qualify under the existing acreage limit.
The amendment will not be effective in achieving its goal because corporations that want to develop the land can offer prices that overwhelm the CUVA tax savings. For example, $250,000 per acre is 100 times a $2,500-per-acre agricultural valuation.

Amendment 2 – Making all Probate Judge elections nonpartisan

This amendment is the latest move in an effort to eliminate partisan voting in Georgia.
Beginning January 1, 2028, HB 369 will make many local races nonpartisan in Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton, and Gwinnett counties. It covers county commissioners, tax commissioners, Superior Court clerks, solicitors-general, elected State Court clerks and county surveyors, and district attorneys whose circuits consist solely of an affected county, subject to the exceptions explained below.
Nonpartisan judicial elections are generally held with the May primaries, when significantly fewer people vote. In 2024, primary turnout was about 25% of general-election turnout.
Georgians need to push back on making elections nonpartisan. Values and beliefs matter and party affiliation is an indicator of a candidate’s values and beliefs.
Georgians also need to lobby for nonpartisan elections to be held with the general election when more voices will be heard.

Amendment 3 – Creating a perpetual 911 fund

We don’t know enough to justify a Yes vote.
What additional but unspecified legislation is needed?
Will all the funds from 911 fees be withheld by the state?
Will counties be required to pay staffing and operating expenses by increasing property taxes?

Ballot Question No. 1 — Conservation Use Acreage

Overview

Georgia’s Conservation Use Valuation Assessment program allows qualifying agricultural and timberland to be assessed for property tax purposes based on its current use rather than its full market value. This constitutional amendment would increase the maximum amount of land that can qualify for this tax treatment from 2,000 acres to 4,000 acres. If voters approve the amendment in the 2026 General Election, an owner could enroll up to 4,000 acres beginning January 1, 2027.

The intent of this change is to preserve family farms by allowing larger farming operations to receive conservation-use tax treatment, reducing pressure to develop the land and encouraging farmland to remain in agricultural use.

Current CUVA Program Parameters

Georgia’s Department of Revenue confirms these aspects of the current CUVA program:

Assessment: Eligible land is assessed at 40% of its current-use value, rather than 40% of its fair market value, which reflects its potential for development.
Acreage: The limit is 2,000 acres statewide per qualifying owner, with rules accounting for interests held through family farm entities.
Ownership: Eligible owners include qualifying individuals, estates, trusts, certain family farm entities (such as partnerships, LLCs, private corporations), and specified nonprofit organizations. Private ownership alone does not establish eligibility; the owner must meet the statutory qualifications. Owners must be natural or naturalized U.S. citizens. Partners must be related by marriage or blood within the fourth degree of civil reckoning (e.g. first cousins).
Use: The agricultural/timber category requires a bona fide qualifying use, including crops, livestock, horticulture, aquaculture, timber production or nature conservation. At least 80% of its gross income must come from bona fide conservation uses in Georgia during the preceding year.
Commitment: The owner enters a 10-year covenant to maintain a qualifying use. Up to half the tract may be dormant under specified conditions. If the owners break the agreement early, they have to pay back the tax savings plus penalties.

The overall program also covers certain environmentally sensitive land, which may qualify through Department of Natural Resources (DNR) certification and preservation in its natural condition.

What is a Family Farm

A family farm entity generally must meet these conditions:

“Bona fide conservation uses” are broader than operating a conventional farm. Under O.C.G.A. § 48-5-7.4, they include:

Use	Examples or conditions
Crops	Raising, harvesting, or storing crops
Livestock and poultry	Feeding, breeding, or managing animals
Specialized agriculture	Horticulture, flowers, dairy, aquaculture, and beekeeping
Forestry	Growing trees and producing timber
Wildlife habitat	Maintaining at least 10 acres of habitat in its natural state or under management
Conservation forestry	Land conservation and ecological forest management, including wood production primarily for conservation or restoration rather than financial gain

The statute recognizes good-faith production, including subsistence farming, so commercial profit is not universally required. It also permits carbon sequestration as a secondary use under qualifying programs.

A separate category covers DNR-certified environmentally sensitive property, including qualifying wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, endangered-species habitat, river corridors, and certain stormwater wetlands. Its qualifying use may be preservation in its natural condition or water-quality protection.

Qualifying wildlife habitat can be eligible without conventional farming or timber harvesting—and without necessarily qualifying as DNR-certified environmentally sensitive land. Ownership and the other covenant requirements still apply.

Issues

The overriding issue with the proposed constitutional amendment is that it reduces property tax revenue for rural Georgia counties without providing an offsetting revenue source. Neither the baseline CUVA program nor the proposed expansion provides an alternative revenue source. That revenue pays for schools, roads and public safety services provided by the counties.

According to the Georgia Department of Revenue, CUVA costs counties about $306 million annually. $188 million of that amount comes from school budgets. Because the state does not reimburse counties for this lost revenue, the resulting tax burden shifts from participating landowners to other taxpayers within the county rather than being shared statewide.

The other issue is that there is no need or benefit from expanding the program. Farms in excess of 2,000 acres aren’t disappearing in Georgia; they are actually increasing in number. It’s the small farms that are disappearing and they already qualify for the CUVA program.

Also, the program can’t effectively compete with large corporations that can afford to pay huge prices for the land—prices that easily compensate for the loss of tax savings and even the penalty for breaking the covenant. For example, if a corporation can afford to pay $250,000 per acre for farmland valued at $2,500 an acre, owners will sell their eligible land regardless of the CUVA tax savings.

The existing program isn’t protecting large farms and timber tracts anyway. A 2002 study conducted by the University of Georgia found that most farms enrolled in CUVA were smaller than 50 acres. Only about 2% of Georgia farms are between 2,000 and 4,000 acres in size.

In summary, the program isn’t needed, it isn’t effective, and it harms taxpayers in rural counties without affecting taxpayers in metropolitan areas. Instead of expanding CUVA, it should be repealed.

For these reasons, we recommend voting NO on Ballot Question 1.

References

Georgia SoS Rules – Conservation Use Property (https://rules.sos.ga.gov/gac/560-11-6)

Georgia DoR - Conservation Use Assessment (https://www.augustaga.gov/DocumentView.aspx?DID=3290 )

Justia – 2025 Georgia Code (https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/title-48/chapter-5/article-1/section-48-5-7-4/ )

University of Georgia — 2022 Georgia Agricultural Census: General Agriculture, AGECON-24-01-01, p. 1. Documents growth from 755 to 920 farms of 2,000 acres or more between 2017 and 2022; this category does not isolate farms between 2,000 and 4,000 acres. View source

Jie Pan, University of Georgia — Evaluation of Ten-Year Implementation of the Conservation Use Valuation Assessment Program in Georgia (2005 thesis, reporting a 2002 survey). The abstract reports that most covenant holders owned less than 50 acres and that CUVA was not a significant factor affecting land-use decisions. View source

Savills — Navigating the New Normal, presentation hosted by the Georgia State Properties Commission, PDF p. 14. Reports QTS’s Fayetteville farmland purchase at approximately $250,000 per acre; it does not establish the $2,500-per-acre agricultural valuation used in the example. View source

Ballot Question No. 2 — Nonpartisan Probate Judge Elections

Overview

Probate court judges are elected by voters in each county and handle matters such as wills and estates, marriage licenses, guardianships, weapons carry licenses, and certain other county-level judicial matters. Some also process passport applications. This proposed amendment would require all Georgia probate court judges to be elected in nonpartisan elections, meaning candidates would appear on the ballot without a political party designation. This would seemingly emphasize a probate judge’s qualifications and judicial responsibilities rather than political party affiliation, while creating a consistent election system for probate judges across Georgia.

How It Works Now

Georgia’s 1983 Constitution established nonpartisan elections for appellate, Superior Court, and State Court judges, while allowing probate judge elections to remain partisan. Supreme Court justices, Court of Appeals judges, Superior Court judges, State Court judges, and elected magistrates run in nonpartisan elections. Juvenile and municipal judges are generally appointed. As of October 2026:

Court or office	Selection method
Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Superior Court	Nonpartisan elections
State Court	Nonpartisan elections
Chief magistrate	Nonpartisan elections
Other magistrates	Generally appointed by the chief magistrate with Superior Court judges’ consent; where elected, elections are nonpartisan
Juvenile Court	Generally appointed by Superior Court judges, unless local law provides for elections
Municipal Court	Usually appointed by the mayor or city council; some are elected under local provisions
State-wide Business Court	Appointed by the governor, with legislative committee approval
Georgia Tax Court	Appointed by the governor, with legislative committee approval

These rules are documented in Georgia’s court guides, magistrate statute, and appointment provisions. The magistrate rule changed recently: HB 426 made magistrate elections nonpartisan effective July 1, 2025, overriding local provisions for partisan elections.

Probate elections currently vary by county. 53 of Georgia’s 159 counties elect probate judges with party labels. Ballot Question No. 2 on the November 3, 2026 ballot would require all probate judge elections to be nonpartisan statewide.

Issues

This proposed amendment, Georgia House Resolution 251 (HR 251), is part of a larger effort to remove party labels from Georgia elections. HR 251 received final General Assembly approval on March 31, 2026, four days after final legislative approval of HB 369 on March 27. Georgia HB 369 is a law that will make many races nonpartisan beginning January 1, 2028, in five metro counties: Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton, and Gwinnett. Here’s a breakdown:

Offices affected	Election changes
County commissioners or other governing-authority members, subject to an exception below	Nonpartisan election on the general-primary date in even-numbered years
Tax commissioners, Superior Court clerks, and solicitors-general	Same
State Court clerks and county surveyors, where elected	Same
District attorneys whose judicial circuit consists solely of an affected county	Nonpartisan election in November

HB 369 excludes sheriffs and county governing-authority offices established or authorized by a local constitutional amendment. HB 369 governs the offices in the table above; Ballot Question No. 2 concerns probate judges statewide.

Under HB 369, these races, with the exception of the district attorney, would be held alongside the May primary, when fewer people vote. Beginning in 2012, Georgia held nonpartisan judicial elections alongside the general primary rather than the November general election. The general primary is now held in May. For example, about 1.3 million voters participated in Georgia’s May 21, 2024 primary, compared with about 5.3 million ballots cast in the November 5, 2024 general election—roughly four times as many. Primaries draw far fewer voters, so probate judges would be chosen by a much smaller share of Georgians.

Values matter in how judges read the law. In an ideal world, a judge’s party wouldn’t matter. A judge’s job is to be impartial in their interpretation of the law as it applies to the facts of a case. However, we don’t live in that world, as evidenced by the partisanship of federal district court judges. Sometimes the law leaves room for interpretation. Sometimes it doesn’t address all circumstances that might arise. And sometimes judges blatantly ignore the law and rule with partisanship just to delay an administration’s initiatives. A party affiliation tells voters something real about a candidate’s values. Think back to the Supreme Court races this past May. Party labels would have helped voters understand the values of the candidates on the ballot.

While it may be too late to turn this ship around, voting No on Ballot Question No. 2 will slow it down. What voters should do is lobby their representatives and senator to move all nonpartisan elections to the general election in November. That way a larger portion of Georgia’s electorate will have their say in choosing judges.

References

Georgia Secretary of State — Constitution of the State of Georgia, revised July 2025, Article VI, Section VII, Paragraph I

Judicial Council of Georgia — Your Guide to the Georgia Courts

O.C.G.A. § 15-10-20 — Number; selection; term; filling vacancies; chief magistrate; bonds

O.C.G.A. § 21-2-138 — Nonpartisan elections for judicial offices

Georgia General Assembly — HB 369, as passed House and Senate

Georgia General Assembly — HR 251, as passed House and Senate

Georgia Secretary of State — 2026 Proposed Constitutional Amendments

Office of the Governor — With Unanimous, Bipartisan Support, Davis Confirmed as Statewide Business Court Judge, August 15, 2019

Office of the Governor — Gov. Kemp Nominates Frank O’Connell for Georgia Tax Court Chief Judge, July 1, 2025

Ross Williams, Georgia Recorder — Ballot question in November would make Georgia’s probate judges nonpartisan, September 23, 2026

Georgia General Assembly — House Status, February 11, 2026

Georgia General Assembly — Senate Status, March 31, 2026

Georgia General Assembly — Summary of General Statutes Enacted at the 2011 Session, HB 158

Georgia Secretary of State — Georgia Election Results

Associated Press — AP Decision Notes: What to expect in Georgia’s primary runoffs, June 14, 2024

Georgia Secretary of State — Ballot Image Audit Report, November 2024, Table 1

Ballot Question No. 3 — Next Generation 911 Funding

Overview

Ballot Question No. 3 would authorize the General Assembly to create a Georgia Next Generation 9-1-1 Fund and dedicate specified revenues to it through additional legislation. Money deposited in the fund could be used only for expanding, maintaining, and operating 911 systems, including the transition to Next Generation 911. Unspent money would remain in the fund from year to year.

The goal is to modernize emergency communications. Enhanced 911 already provides a caller’s telephone number and location information. Next Generation 911, or NG911, uses an Internet Protocol network that can support text, photographs, video, better location-based routing, and information sharing between emergency communications centers. It can also help centers handle call overloads and outages. These capabilities offer practical benefits, although the features available locally would depend on the equipment, services, and training provided.

The proposed amendment does not itself increase the current $1.50 monthly telephone 911 fee. It also does not place a permanent $1.50 cap in the Constitution. Georgia has already established a technical framework for NG911 through HB 423, enacted in 2025. This proposed amendment addresses a protected funding mechanism.

What Happens Now

Telephone customers generally pay a $1.50 monthly 911 charge; prepaid wireless customers pay a fee at the point of sale. The Georgia Department of Revenue already collects and distributes these revenues. After authorized deductions, non-prepaid fees are distributed according to the customer’s jurisdiction, while prepaid fees are distributed to eligible local jurisdictions based on population.

Counties use the money to operate their 911 systems, including eligible salaries, benefits, training, facilities, and equipment. The House study committee reported that these fees cover about 55% of 911 centers’ budgets statewide. Salaries and benefits account for about 71% of expenditures paid from the fees. Local governments supplement the fee revenue with other funding.

Bleckley County’s 2024 financial statements report:

Reported item	2024 actual amount
E911 Fund revenue from charges for services	$213,513
E911 Fund public-safety expenditures	$213,513
Separate General Fund expenditures for the communications center and E911	$355,597

The county therefore reports 911-related spending in both its fee fund and its General Fund. These figures establish a local funding baseline; they do not establish how much the county would lose or receive under a future statewide arrangement.

Issues

Any implication that counties are free to use 911 fees for unrelated purposes is misleading. Georgia law already requires local fee revenue to be kept in a restricted fund and limits eligible expenditures. Paying dispatchers and maintaining their facilities are legitimate costs of providing 911 service.

The state has its own history of using 911 revenues for other purposes. In 2011, Georgia Public Broadcasting reported that the state had diverted prepaid-phone fee revenue intended for rural 911 improvements to fill state budget holes. Protecting dedicated revenue is worthwhile, but local funds are already subject to restrictions.

The larger concern is that voters are being asked to authorize a new funding arrangement before its financial terms are settled. Additional legislation would have to determine:

How much existing local fee revenue would be redirected to the statewide fund, and how much each county would receive back.
Which network services, equipment, and new capabilities the state would provide, and which costs counties would continue to pay.
Whether local salaries, benefits, and training would remain eligible for support, and how counties would cover any shortfall.
Whether counties would receive transition assistance or protection against a reduction in funding.

The House study committee recommended replacing the locally imposed fee with a state-imposed fee and prioritizing services and equipment over salaries and benefits. If that approach is adopted, money now supporting county operations could be redirected. The proposed amendment does not guarantee that every county would receive equivalent replacement funding or savings.

That uncertainty matters in rural counties. A reduction that a metropolitan county could absorb might put substantial pressure on a smaller county with fewer resources. Bleckley County already commits General Fund money to its communications center and E911. If fee support falls without an adequate offset, the county could face higher demands on local taxes, cuts elsewhere, or reduced service.

Before voters are asked to approve this change, lawmakers should explain the distribution formula, the division of state and county responsibilities, and how local 911 operations would remain adequately funded. We do not yet have enough information about those commitments to vote Yes.

For these reasons, we recommend voting NO on Ballot Question No. 3.