The Three Constitutional Amendments on Georgia’s 2026 Ballot

While the U.S. Constitution is well known, not everyone realizes that each state has its own constitution, which is the supreme governing law of that state. Since an ordinary law cannot override the state constitution, Georgians are often asked to vote on constitutional amendments when they enter the voting booth in November. 

Georgia’s constitution is amended far more frequently than the U.S. Constitution. By the mid-1970s, it had accumulated over 800 amendments. In 1983, the state adopted a new constitution, which was intended to streamline and better organize what had become an unwieldy document. This constitution also ended the process of adding local amendments to the state constitution; voters have amended it more than 90 times since.

An ordinary law is passed by the legislature, whereas an amendment is a formal alteration or addition made to the constitution. In 18 states, citizens can also put an amendment on the ballot by gathering signatures. Georgia isn’t one of them: Amendments here originate from the legislature, and voters statewide decide whether they pass.

First, two-thirds of both the House and the Senate must approve the amendment. It then goes on the ballot at the next general election, held in November of even-numbered years, in which a simple majority of voters must approve it. Numerous amendments only grant permission, so the details of those amendments must still be written into a regular law after passage. This is called “enabling legislation.”

Three constitutional amendments are on the ballot in Georgia this November. 

Amendment 1 would raise the cap on how much land a single owner can enroll in Georgia’s conservation use program. This is a measure to “increase the maximum acreage of agricultural and timber property that can be classified as bona fide conservation use property…from 2,000 acres to 4,000 acres.”

Typically, land is taxed on its fair market value, or what it would sell for. However, property in the conservation use program is taxed based on its current use. The value depends on how the land is used and its production capabilities. Amendment 1 only changes the acreage cap.

Property owners of qualifying agricultural and timber lands larger than 2,000 acres would benefit from this amendment. According to supporters, this would help keep bigger family farms and timber tracts in production rather than being sold off for development.

On the other hand, if more acreage qualifies for the lower tax, the school districts and local governments that tax that land would collect less from it. That could require budget adjustments.

Amendment 2 is a measure that “requires that probate judges be elected on a nonpartisan basis.” Georgia’s other elected judges in the state already run without party labels; this would do the same for those in the probate courts.

In Georgia, each county has a probate court. Not every state does this. In some states, such as Virginia, probate is handled by the general trial courts instead. In states like Connecticut, probate is divided into probate districts as opposed to one per county. Probate courts in Georgia handle legal matters such as wills and estates, guardianships, conservatorships, and involuntary commitments. They also issue marriage licenses and weapons carry licenses. 

The state’s constitution already calls for nonpartisan elections for every other judicial race. Amendment 2 would simply require the same for probate judges, setting a single statewide rule. Supporters say that this would make Georgia’s court system consistent and that party labels do not reside in courtrooms. Opponents say that this would remove important information about the candidate on the ballot: their party label.

Finally, Amendment 3 asks voters if legislators can set aside a specific fund to upgrade Georgia’s 9-1-1 system. Ballotpedia summarizes it as a measure to “allow the state legislature to create and dedicate revenue to a fund titled the Georgia Next Generation 9-1-1 Fund.” The money would be used solely to expand, maintain, and operate emergency 9-1-1 systems.

Typically, revenue flows into the state’s general fund, and legislators decide each year how to spend it. Locking money into one use is generally against the constitution, so this specific fund requires constitutional permission. The amendment would not create a new tax or fee; it would dedicate existing revenue, and supporters say that would help pay for statewide upgrades. On the other hand, a dedicated fund could reduce budget flexibility.

Constitutional amendments can seem confusing, but they shape how states are governed. Whether or not they affect every citizen, it is nonetheless critical for voters to know what they are voting for.