Georgia CommonsSenate · Failed · 2025-2026 Regular Session
SB 573: Primaries and Elections; the nonpartisan election for county officers and district attorneys in certain counties; provide
Last action March 6, 2026 · Senate Notice to Reconsider
A Georgia Senate bill would require nonpartisan elections for most county offices and certain district attorneys in counties that appoint, rather than elect, a medical examiner instead of a coroner, starting January 1, 2027.
The summaries below were written by an AI model (claude-sonnet-5) from the text of the bill and are not part of it. Quote the text, not the summary. The stored text is the Introduced version, the latest the General Assembly's website lists.
In plain language
Right now most county officers and district attorneys in Georgia run in partisan elections, meaning they run as Democrats, Republicans, or other party nominees. This bill creates a new category called a 'medical examiner county,' defined as any county whose governing authority appoints a medical examiner instead of electing a coroner. In those counties, the bill would switch elections for county offices to nonpartisan elections, meaning candidates would not run under a party label. The sheriff's office, local school board seats, and county governing authorities set up under a local constitutional amendment are excluded from the switch. District attorneys serving a judicial circuit made up entirely of one medical examiner county would also become nonpartisan, and would qualify through the Secretary of State the same way judicial candidates do. Any existing local law setting up partisan elections for these offices would be repealed and replaced by the new nonpartisan process. The changes take effect January 1, 2027.
What the bill does
- Creates a new legal category, 'medical examiner county,' defined as a county that appoints rather than elects a medical examiner in place of a coroner.
- Requires nonpartisan elections for county offices in medical examiner counties, except for sheriff, local school board seats, and governing authorities set up by local constitutional amendment.
- Extends nonpartisan elections to district attorneys who serve a judicial circuit made up entirely of a single medical examiner county, and requires them to qualify through the Secretary of State like judges do.
- Repeals any existing local law that set up partisan elections for county offices in a medical examiner county, replacing it with the new nonpartisan process.
- Sets these nonpartisan elections to be held alongside the general primary in even-numbered years, without a separate nonpartisan primary beforehand.
- Sets the effective date of the changes as January 1, 2027.
Who it affects
County officials and candidates in counties that appoint rather than elect a medical examiner, district attorneys serving judicial circuits limited to one such county, county election superintendents who run qualifying and ballots, and voters in those counties who currently vote in partisan primaries for these offices.
Why it matters
Voters in affected counties would no longer see party labels next to candidates' names for most county offices and, in some circuits, for district attorney. This changes how candidates qualify and campaign, and it overrides any existing local law that set up partisan elections for those offices.
Key provisions
- Section 1 amends O.C.G.A. § 21-2-9 to add district attorneys and county officers elected under the new nonpartisan process to the list of offices decided in nonpartisan general elections rather than the November partisan election.
- Section 2 amends O.C.G.A. § 21-2-132 to adjust the candidacy filing rules for nonpartisan county and local school board offices.
- Section 3 adds new Code Section 21-2-140, defining 'medical examiner county' and requiring nonpartisan elections for county offices there, except sheriff, local school board seats, and governing authorities under local constitutional amendments.
- Section 3 also requires nonpartisan elections for district attorneys whose judicial circuit consists solely of one medical examiner county, with qualifying through the Secretary of State as judicial candidates do.
- Section 3 states these elections happen with the general primary in even-numbered years, without a separate nonpartisan primary, and repeals conflicting local laws that set up partisan elections for the affected offices.
- Section 4 sets the effective date as January 1, 2027.
From the bill
“the term 'medical examiner county' means any county in which the governing authority of the county appoints a medical examiner in lieu of an elected coroner, regardless of whether such appointment is made pursuant to a local constitutional amendment or by general law.”
“all candidates to fill elected county offices in a medical examiner county shall be elected in nonpartisan elections.”
“all candidates to fill the office of district attorney for a judicial circuit comprised solely of a medical examiner county shall be elected in nonpartisan elections.”
Discussed in meetings (6)
The House and Senate meetings that took this bill up, from their machine transcripts. Each account was written by Georgia Commons with AI and is not part of the record; the video is what was said.
Senate Ethics Committee, March 2, 2026
From 0:21:19 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel
Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor presented a substitute to make elections for commissions, prosecutors, court clerks and certain other offices nonpartisan in Fulton, Gwinnett, Cobb, Clayton and DeKalb counties. The sponsor said these counties’ concentrated governing and policing responsibilities justified the change, but said DeKalb’s governing body was protected by a local constitutional amendment. Sheriffs and school boards were excluded. Members questioned the five-county scope, local support and whether sheriffs retained patrol powers. The sponsor acknowledged that sheriffs retained those powers. The District Attorneys’ Association president said all 40 participating district attorneys opposed the limited scope, although the president personally supported statewide nonpartisan elections. District attorneys from DeKalb and Clayton argued that the proposal targeted Black women prosecutors. The DeKalb district attorney also warned that moving elections to the primary date would reduce participation. Several district attorneys argued that a constitutional amendment was required, while acknowledging they cited no case law. The sponsor said Legislative Counsel considered the proposal constitutional. A motion to table failed 4-8. A member proposed extending the change statewide, but the chair did not proceed without amendment language. The committee approved the bill with eight votes in favor; the opposing count was not stated.
Senate Rules Committee, March 5, 2026
From 0:29:23 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel
Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said SB 573 would make certain local elections in central metropolitan counties nonpartisan. No substantive questions followed. The committee unanimously included the bill in the floor-calendar package.
Senate floor session, March 6, 2026 (legislative day 28, part 1)
From 1:05:46 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel · Confirmed by the bill's status history (Senate Engrossed)
Summary by Georgia Commons: The Senate initially barred floor amendments to SB 573 through a six-measure vote of 32 to 20. The sponsor later said the bill would make elections nonpartisan for district attorneys and several county offices in counties using medical examiners instead of elected coroners. The sponsor argued that large metro counties would benefit from the nonpartisan model used by cities. Opponents said the change singled out Cobb, Clayton, DeKalb, Fulton and Gwinnett, including five Black women serving as Democratic district attorneys. Two opponents said all 41 district attorneys responding to a poll opposed the bill. Members also argued that changing district-attorney elections required a constitutional amendment and questioned the connection to medical examiners. A supporter said nonpartisan elections would keep officials focused on public safety. The sponsor denied targeting the current prosecutors and argued that general law could make the change. The bill failed, 24 to 29. The sponsor requested reconsideration. The chair tentatively set a later time and said members would have an opportunity to vote on reconsideration, but no such vote appears in this transcript.
Status timeline
- Senate Notice to Reconsider (Senate)
- Senate Lost (Senate)
- Senate Third Read (Senate)
- Senate Taken from Table (Senate)
- Senate Tabled (Senate)
- Senate Engrossed (Senate)
- Senate Read Second Time (Senate)
- Senate Committee Favorably Reported (Senate)
Show full history (10 actions)
- Senate Read and Referred (Senate)
- Senate Hopper (Senate)
Sponsors
- Ed Setzler (R, SD-37)
- Kay Kirkpatrick (R, SD-32)
- John Albers (R, SD-56)
- Shawn Still (R, SD-48)
- Clint Dixon (R, SD-45)
Votes
- Senate voteMarch 6, 2026
32 yea, 22 nay (1 not voting, 0 excused)
- Senate voteMarch 6, 2026
24 yea, 29 nay (1 not voting, 1 excused)
Topics
- election rules
- nonpartisan elections
- county government
- district attorneys
- coroners and medical examiners