Proposed Constitutional Amendment - 2

Cobb County, Georgia · November 3, 2026

Provides for the nonpartisan election of all probate court judges.

House Resolution 251; Ga. L. 2026, p. 1110

Full ballot text

“Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to require that all probate court judges be elected in nonpartisan elections?"

What it does

This amendment would require that all probate court judges in Georgia be elected without party labels. Probate judges handle wills and estates, guardianships, marriage and weapons carry licenses, and in some counties traffic and misdemeanor matters and election duties. The change affects how these judges appear on the ballot, not their powers.

How it lines up with you

Loading your answers…

Dossier

Researched 2026-09-22 · Claude Code research agent with web search

A yes vote requires all Georgia probate court judges to run in nonpartisan elections, ending the last partisan judicial race in the state; a no vote keeps the current system. The measure, sponsored by Rep. Kimberly New, is backed by the Council of Probate Court Judges, the state's chief justice, and former Govs. Deal and Barnes; it narrowly missed the required Senate supermajority on a first vote before passing 46-0 on reconsideration, and no organized opposition group was found.

For

Council of Probate Court Judges of Georgia source
Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Nels Peterson source
Former Georgia Govs. Nathan Deal (R) and Roy Barnes (D) source

Against

None found.

What it does

A "yes" vote requires all Georgia probate court judges — currently the only judges in the state still elected with a party label — to run in nonpartisan elections, like every other Georgia judgeship (AJC, Aug. 10, 2026; WTVM, Sept. 18, 2026). Probate judges handle wills and estates, appoint guardians, and issue marriage and weapons-carry licenses (AJC). A "no" vote keeps the current system, where Georgia's 53 probate judges run with a "D" or "R" next to their names (WTVM).

Why it's on the ballot

The legislature referred it as House Resolution 251, sponsored by Rep. Kimberly New (R-Villa Rica) (AJC). The House passed it with 94.3% of Republicans and 85.4% of Democrats voting yes (Ballotpedia News, Apr. 2, 2026). In the Senate, a March 19, 2026 vote (31-18) fell short of the two-thirds threshold required for a constitutional amendment; senators then moved for reconsideration, and a second vote passed 46-0 on March 31, 2026 (search result seen via LegiScan bill page).

Who supports it and why

The Council of Probate Court Judges and Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Nels Peterson backed the change, along with former Chief Justice Michael Boggs and former Govs. Nathan Deal (R) and Roy Barnes (D) (Ballotpedia News). Supporters argue judges should be judged on qualifications rather than party, and that a partisan label undercuts judicial impartiality and public confidence in the courts (AJC).

Who opposes it and why

No organization is reported publicly opposing the amendment. During Senate debate, some senators questioned whether removing party labels would restore confidence in the courts or instead depress turnout in these down-ballot races, contributing to the amendment's initial vote falling short of the needed supermajority (search result seen via LegiScan bill page). Some voters interviewed by WTVM said they want a candidate's party listed on the ballot to inform their choice (WTVM).

Money

No campaign committee, PAC, or fundraising activity tied to this amendment was found.

What to watch

Whether removing party labels changes turnout or name-recognition dynamics in low-profile probate races was raised as an open question in Senate debate; no independent analysis of that effect was found (search result seen via LegiScan bill page).

What we couldn't find

The exact final House vote tally; a Georgia Secretary of State fiscal or legal analysis of the amendment; and any formal opposition campaign or committee.

Sources (4)