Ballot Breakdown

What it does

Georgia offers reduced property tax assessments to qualifying owners of farmland and timberland through a program called Conservation Use Valuation Assessment, or CUVA.

Instead of taxing the land based on what it might sell for on the open market, the program bases its taxable value on how it is currently used, such as farming or growing timber. In exchange, owners generally agree to keep the land in an approved use for 10 years. Breaking that agreement can trigger substantial tax penalties.

Under current law, one owner generally can receive this tax treatment on up to 2,000 acres. Amendment 1 would double that limit to 4,000 acres, allowing qualifying owners of larger properties to receive the tax break on more land.

The change would take effect January 1, 2027.

Why it came to be

Voters approved the constitutional foundation for CUVA in 1990, and the program began in 1992. The 2,000-acre limit has been in place since the program’s early years.

Supporters say farming has changed since then, with some operations needing more land to remain financially viable. They argue that expanding the tax break would help keep farmland in agricultural production rather than encourage owners to sell it for development.

Rep. Chuck Efstration sponsored the amendment in the House, where it passed 168-5 in 2025. Sen. Sam Watson carried it in the Senate, which approved it 50-1.

What critics raise

The additional tax break would primarily benefit qualifying owners with more than 2,000 acres of land, raising questions about whether the change is necessary to protect family farms or would also provide substantial benefits to large agricultural and timberland owners.

The amendment could also reduce property tax revenue for counties and school districts. Critics question whether local governments would have to make up the difference through other taxes or spending cuts.

What it does

Amendment 2 requires every probate judge in Georgia to be elected without a Democrat or Republican party label next to their name.

Probate judges handle wills and estates, appoint guardians and conservators, issue marriage licenses and weapons carry licenses, oversee involuntary mental health commitments, and in some counties hear traffic and misdemeanor cases.

Why it came to be

Probate judges are the last judges in Georgia who can still run as Democrats or Republicans. Supreme Court justices, appeals judges, and superior, state, and magistrate court judges all run in nonpartisan races, and magistrate races became nonpartisan in 2025. Most counties have already removed party labels from probate races through local legislation, but 53 of Georgia’s 159 counties still hold partisan probate elections.

Chief Justice Nels Peterson urged lawmakers to make the change in his 2026 State of the Judiciary address, arguing that requiring judges to publicly identify with political parties can undermine confidence in their impartiality.

Rep. Kimberly New of Villa Rica sponsored the resolution, saying that requiring some judges to run in partisan elections makes it more difficult to maintain the appearance of fairness and independence. It passed the House 147-20 and the Senate 46-0.

More than 60 leaders from both parties, including former Democratic Gov. Roy Barnes and former Republican Gov. Nathan Deal, signed an open letter urging a yes vote.

What to watch

Opponents argue that party labels provide useful information to voters who may know little about candidates in local judicial races.

Rep. Charlice Byrd, a Woodstock Republican who voted against the amendment, argued that individual counties should be allowed to decide whether their probate elections are partisan or nonpartisan, as many already have.

The organization representing Georgia’s county governments has remained neutral.

What it does

Amendment 3 allows state lawmakers to create the Georgia Next Generation 911 Fund and put existing revenue, such as the 911 fees already on phone bills, into it. The money could be spent only on expanding, maintaining, and operating 911 systems, and it would not lapse back into the general budget at the end of the year. The amendment does not create a new fee or change the current $1.50 monthly charge; future laws would decide what goes into the fund and how it is managed.

Why it came to be

Georgia’s traditional 911 systems rely on technology originally developed for landline telephones in 1968. Today, more than 80% of emergency calls in many parts of the country come from wireless devices.

Next Generation 911 uses internet-based technology to improve call routing and location accuracy and allow callers to share information such as text messages, photos and video with emergency dispatchers.

Lawmakers established a framework for the transition in 2025 through House Bill 423. This amendment would allow the state to create a dedicated, long-term funding source for 911 operations and upgrades.

The proposal follows a 2025 legislative study that recommended replacing locally imposed 911 fees with a statewide fee, collected and distributed by the state. Currently, Georgia’s local governments collect approximately $250 million annually in 911 fees, which cover about 55% of emergency call centers’ budgets.

A constitutional amendment is needed because Georgia’s constitution generally restricts lawmakers from permanently dedicating state revenues to specific purposes.

The House passed the proposed amendment 162-0, and the Senate gave it final approval in a 49-0 vote.

What to watch

The amendment would not itself establish a statewide fee or determine how 911 funding is distributed. Those decisions would be left to future legislation.

A legislative study committee has recommended shifting collection of existing local 911 fees to the state, then distributing the money using a new formula. That could change how cities and counties pay for the emergency call centers they operate.

No prominent organized opposition to the amendment has been identified. The important unresolved questions include who would control the funding, how much each community would receive, and whether the new system would adequately cover both technology upgrades and day-to-day operations.