Georgia House Passes Nonpartisan Elections Bill for Atlanta Counties

Georgia House passed HB 369 on Friday, stripping party labels from local elections in metro Atlanta's five most populous counties.

Objective Facts

The Georgia House gave final approval Friday to HB 369, a measure that mandates nonpartisan elections for district attorneys, solicitors general, county commissioners, court clerks, and tax commissioners. The mandate applies only to Fulton, DeKalb, Gwinnett, Cobb, and Clayton counties starting in 2028. The measure cleared the House 93-64 over fierce Democratic opposition. The bill now heads to Governor Brian Kemp's desk. If signed, opponents have already signaled their intent to take the matter to court, with DA Sherry Boston stating that her colleagues are "prepared to file a legal challenge" if the legislation is not vetoed.

Left-Leaning Perspective

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis stated: "This bill is a blatantly unconstitutional attack on metro Atlanta voters, driven in part by race and by legislators who are trying to rewrite the rules because they do not like the outcomes of free and fair elections. Targeting five metro Atlanta counties that elected African American women as District Attorneys while leaving other areas untouched is discriminatory, hypocritical, and raises serious constitutional concerns." DeKalb County District Attorney Sherry Boston added that she is "appalled" by the effort to "hide information from Georgia voters." Willis and other Democrats noted the General Assembly's decision to ignore the bipartisan expertise of the District Attorneys Association of Georgia in opposing this bill in favor of purely partisan political action. District attorneys argue that because DAs are state judicial branch officers rather than county officers, changing their partisan status requires a state constitutional amendment and a statewide ballot measure, similar to the process used for Probate Judges. Boston added that defending the law in court could cost taxpayers "hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees." Democrats say the bill is blatantly unconstitutional because it targets only five counties -- Democratic party strongholds -- and not the other 154 counties in Georgia. The bill had failed in the Senate earlier this year, only to reemerge through a legislative maneuver this week when the content of another bill was stripped out and replaced with a version of the previously rejected proposal, allowing the measure to go straight to the House chamber, bypassing the normal committee process.

Right-Leaning Perspective

Republican sponsor State Sen. John Albers stated: "House Bill 369 passed with an overwhelming majority because it reflects a commonsense approach to public safety in Georgia's largest and most densely populated communities." House Majority Leader Efstration argued that "There isn't a Republican line and a Democrat line when entering the courthouse. All citizens should be treated the same as they seek out services from local governments." Albers said the bill is necessary for local jurisdictions to focus on public safety, as the five counties are considered "consolidated law enforcement counties." Albers told the Journal: "This important legislation will assure our consolidated law enforcement intensive counties are focusing on public safety," while State Rep. Ginny Ehrhart, R-west Cobb, believed it was "good legislation" because the bill recognizes "the unique and distinct public safety needs" of five of the largest counties in the state. Some Republicans, including Rep. Jordan Ridley, voted against the bill, arguing that if it were good policy, it should be applied statewide rather than targeting specific counties. However, while the bill's primary sponsors have denied the measure targets Willis, other Republicans edged closer to that theme, with Rep. Trey Kelley stating: "By passing this legislation, we're giving voters the opportunity to rid themselves of district attorneys who are more concerned with playing partisan games than prosecuting and delivering justice."

Deep Dive

This bill represents a calculated Republican response to sustained electoral losses in the Atlanta metro area. The growth of the Atlanta area, and the rapid shift of the suburban counties around it toward Democrats, have played a massive role in Georgia transitioning from a reliably Republican state into one with two Democratic senators, that voted for former President Joe Biden in 2020. Rather than compete under current election rules, Republicans are changing the rules themselves—but only in five counties they're losing, creating the perception of retaliation that invites constitutional challenge. The left's argument about constitutionality has real legal weight. District attorneys are state constitutional officers under Georgia's structure, and the District Attorneys' Association—a bipartisan professional body—unanimously opposed the bill, arguing the change requires a constitutional amendment. Yet the right's contention that the legislature can modify election procedures for specific regions serves a legitimate purpose is also plausible if courts defer to legislative judgment about public safety. The tension between these positions will likely determine the bill's fate in court. What both sides miss is the political optics: the bill affects Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, whom Republicans have repeatedly targeted because of her prosecution of Republican President Donald Trump after he pushed to overturn Democrat Joe Biden's key win in Georgia in 2020. This context makes it difficult for the public to view the bill as purely administrative, regardless of the legislature's stated intent. The bill's passage by only 93-64 (narrow for a Republican supermajority) and the unusual legislative maneuver—substituting the content of a dead bill after crossover—suggests Republicans faced internal pressure and felt forced to use procedural shortcuts. What comes next depends on Governor Brian Kemp's willingness to sign and courts' interpretation of how far legislatures can go in modifying election rules for constitutional officers in selected jurisdictions. The promised legal challenge will test whether Georgia's courts view election modification as a matter of legislative discretion or a constitutional constraint.

OBJ SPEAKING

← Daily BriefAbout

Georgia House Passes Nonpartisan Elections Bill for Atlanta Counties

Georgia House passed HB 369 on Friday, stripping party labels from local elections in metro Atlanta's five most populous counties.

Mar 27, 2026· Updated Mar 29, 2026
What's Going On

The Georgia House gave final approval Friday to HB 369, a measure that mandates nonpartisan elections for district attorneys, solicitors general, county commissioners, court clerks, and tax commissioners. The mandate applies only to Fulton, DeKalb, Gwinnett, Cobb, and Clayton counties starting in 2028. The measure cleared the House 93-64 over fierce Democratic opposition. The bill now heads to Governor Brian Kemp's desk. If signed, opponents have already signaled their intent to take the matter to court, with DA Sherry Boston stating that her colleagues are "prepared to file a legal challenge" if the legislation is not vetoed.

Left says: Critics argue the bill is an unconstitutional move to target Democratic leaders and African American women holding office. Democrats assailed the bill as trying to rig elections so Republicans running without party labels had a better chance to win.
Right says: State Sen. John Albers, the bill's sponsor, argued the change is necessary to promote public safety and move away from political games. Republicans argued there isn't a Republican line and a Democrat line when entering the courthouse, and all citizens should be treated the same as they seek out services from local governments.
✓ Common Ground
All stakeholders agree that the five targeted counties—Fulton, DeKalb, Gwinnett, Cobb, and Clayton—have seen significant Democratic electoral gains and are among Georgia's most populous metro areas.
Both sides acknowledge the constitutional framework question: whether district attorneys are state judicial officers whose election method requires constitutional amendment, or county-level officials whose elections can be changed by statute.
Voices across the political spectrum recognize that nonpartisan elections for judicial and law enforcement offices exist elsewhere in Georgia and nationally, validating the concept's precedent, even if applying it selectively remains controversial.
Objective Deep Dive

This bill represents a calculated Republican response to sustained electoral losses in the Atlanta metro area. The growth of the Atlanta area, and the rapid shift of the suburban counties around it toward Democrats, have played a massive role in Georgia transitioning from a reliably Republican state into one with two Democratic senators, that voted for former President Joe Biden in 2020. Rather than compete under current election rules, Republicans are changing the rules themselves—but only in five counties they're losing, creating the perception of retaliation that invites constitutional challenge.

The left's argument about constitutionality has real legal weight. District attorneys are state constitutional officers under Georgia's structure, and the District Attorneys' Association—a bipartisan professional body—unanimously opposed the bill, arguing the change requires a constitutional amendment. Yet the right's contention that the legislature can modify election procedures for specific regions serves a legitimate purpose is also plausible if courts defer to legislative judgment about public safety. The tension between these positions will likely determine the bill's fate in court. What both sides miss is the political optics: the bill affects Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, whom Republicans have repeatedly targeted because of her prosecution of Republican President Donald Trump after he pushed to overturn Democrat Joe Biden's key win in Georgia in 2020. This context makes it difficult for the public to view the bill as purely administrative, regardless of the legislature's stated intent.

The bill's passage by only 93-64 (narrow for a Republican supermajority) and the unusual legislative maneuver—substituting the content of a dead bill after crossover—suggests Republicans faced internal pressure and felt forced to use procedural shortcuts. What comes next depends on Governor Brian Kemp's willingness to sign and courts' interpretation of how far legislatures can go in modifying election rules for constitutional officers in selected jurisdictions. The promised legal challenge will test whether Georgia's courts view election modification as a matter of legislative discretion or a constitutional constraint.

◈ Tone Comparison

Democrats employ language rooted in civil rights concerns—"discrimination," "targeting," "racist, sexist"—emphasizing the bill strips voter choice and unfairly singles out Black women prosecutors. Republicans use managerial and efficiency language—"commonsense," "public safety," "consolidated law enforcement counties"—depersonalizing the measure as administrative rather than political. The right's secondary argument, when pressed, leans toward characterizing Democratic prosecutors as "playing partisan games," implying partisanship is the problem Republicans are solving.

✕ Key Disagreements
Motivation and constitutionality of selective application
Left: Democrats argue the bill is unconstitutional because it targets only five counties and specifically those headed by Black Democratic women, violating equal protection principles and representing political retaliation for electoral losses.
Right: Republicans contend the bill applies to a legitimate category—counties with consolidated law enforcement structures—and the five counties happen to be the most populous and highest-crime areas, making the public safety rationale legitimate regardless of political demographics.
Whether nonpartisan elections strengthen or weaken voter voice
Left: Democrats contend that removing party labels prevents voters from knowing candidates' party affiliation and policy positions, stripping voter choice and giving candidates without party infrastructure better cover to win despite unpopular records.
Right: Republicans argue that removing party labels forces voters to focus on individual qualifications and records rather than party affiliation, improving decision-making for public safety and judicial roles that should be depoliticized.
Whether this is a genuine policy shift or targeted retaliation
Left: Democrats point to Republicans' history of repeatedly targeting district attorneys (especially Fani Willis) and the legislative maneuver (bill substitution after crossover) as proof the real motivation is removing prosecutors who have pursued cases against Republican targets.
Right: Republicans maintain the bill addresses genuine public safety concerns in high-crime counties and applies to all county offices, not just DAs, though some Republicans acknowledge the political advantage of removing partisan labels in counties Republicans are losing.
Proper procedure for changing how constitutional officers are elected
Left: Democrats argue that because DAs are state constitutional officers, changing their election method requires a state constitutional amendment and statewide ballot approval, not a simple statute targeting specific counties.
Right: Republicans contend that district attorneys, while constitutional officers, can still have their election procedures modified by statute for specific regions if the legislature determines it serves a legitimate public purpose like public safety in consolidated law enforcement counties.