Amendment 2Constitutional amendment · Put on the ballot by lawmakers
Make probate judge elections nonpartisan
Explain it like I'm 5
Probate judges handle matters such as wills, estates, and guardianships. This would remove party labels from their ballots, like taking team colors off a referee's shirt, but it would not remove candidates' personal views.
Yes vote
Requiring all probate judges to be elected on a nonpartisan basis.
No vote
Leaving current probate judge election rules in place, including party labels where they are used.
The question to ask yourself
Do party labels provide useful information, or do they make judicial races appear more political?
The case for
- It creates one statewide rule matching the nonpartisan system used for most other Georgia judicial elections.
- Voters could focus more on legal experience and qualifications for judges handling personal and estate matters.
- Removing party labels may strengthen the appearance of judicial impartiality.
Backed by: Chief Justice Nels Peterson, Former Gov. Nathan Deal, Former Gov. Roy Barnes
The case against
- Party labels give voters a quick source of information when they know little about candidates.
- A statewide rule removes counties' ability to choose their own election format.
- Nonpartisan races may receive less attention and make candidates harder to distinguish.
Opposed by: No organized opposition found
- Money
- No direct cost or tax effect is stated in the official ballot materials.
- Don't be misled
- Saying the amendment makes probate judges completely nonpolitical is misleading because it removes ballot labels, not candidates' beliefs, endorsements, or campaign activity.