---
title: Ga. Const. Art. X, Sec. I, Para. II. Proposals by the General Assembly; submission to the people.
collection: code
id: ga-const:art-x-sec-i-para-ii
cite_as: Ga. Const. Art. X, Sec. I, Para. II
canonical_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-x-sec-i-para-ii
md_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-x-sec-i-para-ii.md
text_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-x-sec-i-para-ii/text
source_url: https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/document/docs/default-source/joint-features-document-library/2ga-const-(v2)-2016-pdf.pdf?sfvrsn=f5de823e_0#page=1454
date: 2016
status: active
corpus_version: 2025-supplement-89aa39ab3c68
license: CC0-1.0
publisher: Georgia Commons, an independent project of Georgia Civic Data. Not the State of Georgia. Not legal advice.
up: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/index.md
previous: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-x-sec-i-para-i.md
next: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-x-sec-i-para-iii.md
index: https://georgiacommons.org/code/index.md
omitted: notes
omitted_chars: 11604
omitted_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-x-sec-i-para-ii.md?notes=all&start=11504
version: the only printed version
in_force: true
current_through: Including Acts of the 2025 Regular Session of the General Assembly
heading_path: CONSTITUTION OF THE / AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION / CONSTITUTION, HOW AMENDED
---

# Ga. Const. Art. X, Sec. I, Para. II. Proposals by the General Assembly; submission to the people.

A constitution provision shown as in force is in force as printed in the volume. A court decision can make a printed provision unenforceable without changing the volume, and the volume does not record that.

A proposal by the General Assembly to amend this Constitution or to provide for a new Constitution shall originate as a resolution in either the Senate or the House of Representatives and, if approved by two-thirds of the members to which each house is entitled in a roll-call vote entered on their respective journals, shall be submitted to the electors of the entire state at the next general election which is held in the even-numbered years. A summary of such proposal shall be prepared by the Attorney General, the Legislative Counsel, and the Secretary of State and shall be published in the official organ of each county and, if deemed advisable by the ‘‘Constitutional Amendments Publication Board,’’ in not more than 20 other newspapers in the state designated by such board which meet the qualifications for being selected as the official organ of a county. Said board shall be composed of the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Such summary shall be published once each week for three consecutive weeks immediately preceding the day of the general election at which such proposal is to be submitted. The language to be used in submitting a proposed amendment or a new Constitution shall be in such words as the General Assembly may provide in the resolution or, in the absence thereof, in such language as the Governor may prescribe. A copy of the entire proposed amendment or of a new Constitution shall be filed in the office of the judge of the probate court of each county and shall be available for public inspection; and the summary of the proposal shall so indicate. The General Assembly is hereby authorized to provide by law for additional matters relative to the publication and distribution of proposed amendments and summaries not in conflict with the provisions of this Paragraph.

If such proposal is ratified by a majority of the electors qualified to vote for members of the General Assembly voting thereon in such general election, such proposal shall become a part of this Constitution or shall become a new Constitution, as the case may be. Any proposal so approved shall take effect as provided in Paragraph VI of this article. When more than one amendment is submitted at the same time, they shall be so submitted as to enable the electors to vote on each amendment separately, provided that one or more new articles or related changes in one or more articles may be submitted as a single amendment.

## Editor's Notes

The constitutional amendment (Ga. L. 1988, p. 2116, § 2) which would have revised this Paragraph to remove the Attorney General from the committee which prepares the official summary of all proposed constitutional amendments was defeated at the general election on November 8, 1988.

## Law Reviews

For article discussing the amending process under the Georgia Constitution of 1945 as amended in 1952, see 18 Ga. B.J. 425 (1956). For article discussing venue problems in juvenile court practice and suggesting solutions, see 23 Mercer L. Rev. 341 (1972). For article, ‘‘History of the Veto Power in Georgia,’’ see 8 Ga. St. B.J. 513 (1972). For article discussing the structures placed on substantial governmental restructuring by the concurrent majority principle, and suggesting the unconstitutionality of same, see 10 Ga. L. Rev. 169 (1975). For article, ‘‘The Office of Legislative Counsel,’’ see 23 Ga. St. B.J. 114 (1987). For article, ‘‘Local Government Tort Liability: The Summer of ’92,’’ see 9 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 405 (1993).

## 1976 Constitution.

Art. XII, Sec. I, Para. I.

## Prerequisite to Submission of Constitutional Change to Voters.

No question concerning a change in the Constitution, or the creation of a new Constitution, shall ever be placed upon a ballot for submission to the people until the General Assembly has by a two-thirds vote authorized the placing of the proposition on the ballot. Wheeler v. Board of Trustees, 200 Ga. 323, 37 S.E.2d 322 (1946).

Judiciary will not interfere during tional amendment, from the time of the introduction of the proposing Act until the electors have acted. Gaskins v. Dorsey, 150 Ga. 638, 104 S.E. 433 (1920).

It is a judicial question whether the proposed amendment was properly adopted. Hammond v. Clark, 136 Ga. 313, 71 S.E. 479, 38 L.R.A. (n.s.) 77 (1911); Houser v. Hartley, 157 Ga. 137, 120 S.E. 622 (1923). opted is not conclusive, and courts can inquire into this question. Where it appears that the amendment was not ratified in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, it must be judicially declared of no force and effect, in that it never became a part of the Constitution. Towns v. Suttles, 208 Ga. 838, 69 S.E.2d 742 (1952). posed amendment permits court to

## The Formative Stage of a constitu-A Proclamation by the Governor Declaring That an Amendment Was ad-Interpreting Ballot Language of Prointerject Value Judgment on Voters.

Though ballot language is not a proper subject for more than minimal judicial review, to the extent to which the legislature describes proposed amendments in any way other than through the most objective and brief terms, or perhaps by number as is done in at least one other state, it exposes itself to the temptation to interject its own value judgments concerning the amendments into the ballot language and thus to propagandize the voters in the very voting booth in denigration of the integrity of the ballot. Sears v. State, 232 Ga. 547, 208 S.E.2d 93 (1974).

Distribution of the house journals

## Before Election Is Not Required.

Hammond v. Clark, 136 Ga. 313, 71 S.E. 479, 38 L.R.A. (n.s.) 71 (1911).

Requirement of publication does not need to be strictly complied with. Hammond v. Clark, 136 Ga. 313, 71 S.E. 479, 38 L.R.A. (n.s.) 77 (1911). General Consideration (Cont’d)

Acts need not specify the manner of ers. Hammond v. Clark, 136 Ga. 313, 71 S.E. 479, 38 L.R.A. (n.s.) 77 (1911); Clements v. Powell, 155 Ga. 278, 116 S.E. 624 (1923).

Necessary qualities for additional revenue amendment to comply with

## Submission of an Amendment to Votdue Process and Equal Protection.

A proposed amendment allowing a school district to receive additional revenues from municipalities for school purposes had to be drafted to include all areas within the county school districts and ratified by the voters of each school district therein on a consolidated basis in order to comply with the due process and equal protection of law requirements under the state and federal Constitutions. City of Lithonia v. DeKalb County Bd. of Educ., 231 Ga. 150, 200 S.E.2d 698 (1973).

## Same-sex Unions.

Prohibition against recognizing same-sex unions as entitled to the benefits of marriage was not ‘‘dissimilar and discordant’’ to the objective of reserving the status of marriage and its attendant benefits exclusively to unions of man and woman; Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. IV, Para. I did not violate the multiple-subject matter rule. Perdue v. O’Kelley, 280 Ga. 732, 632 S.E.2d 110 (2006).

Cited in Madronah Sales Co. v. Wilburn, 180 Ga. 837, 181 S.E. 173 (1935); Brackett v. Etheridge, 190 Ga. 216, 9 S.E.2d 275 (1940); McKnight v. City of Decatur, 200 Ga. 611, 37 S.E.2d 915 (1946); Houlihan v. Atkinson, 205 Ga. 720, 55 S.E.2d 233 (1949); Smith v. Hayes, 217 Ga. 94, 121 S.E.2d 113 (1961); Seago v. Richmond County, 218 Ga. 151, 126 S.E.2d 657 (1962); Henson v. Georgia Indus. Realty Co., 220 Ga. 857, 142 S.E.2d 219 (1965); Bedingfield v. Adams, 221 Ga. 69, 142 S.E.2d 915 (1965); Wilson v. Sanders, 222 Ga. 681, 151 S.E.2d 703 (1966); Richmond County v. Richmond County Bus. Ass’n, 228 Ga. 281, 185 S.E.2d 399 (1971); Camp v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth., 229 Ga. 35, 189 S.E.2d 56 (1972); Sims v. Town of Baldwin, 249 Ga. 293, 290 S.E.2d 433 (1982); Goldrush II v. City of Marietta, 267 Ga. 683, 482 S.E.2d 347 (1997).

Provision for New Constitution

## Procedure Validating New Constitution.

Where a new Constitution of the State of Georgia was passed by a two-thirds vote of each branch of the General Assembly, duly advertised and submitted to a vote of the people at a general election, ratified by a majority of the electors at the general election, and duly issued by the Governor in a proclamation, it is a valid and legal expression of the will of the people and has duly and legally been proclaimed the Constitution of Georgia. Wheeler v. Board of Trustees, 200 Ga. 323, 37 S.E.2d 322 (1946).

Resolution not amendment but new

## Constitution.

Where first paragraph of a resolution of the General Assembly pursuant to this paragraph repeals in its entirety the old Constitution, and then proceeds to create a new Constitution, but the resolution refers to ‘‘one single amendment,’’ the resolution is not an amendment to the Constitution; but on the contrary it is a completely revised or new Constitution. Wheeler v. Board of Trustees, 200 Ga. 323, 37 S.E.2d 322 (1946).

Provision for Amending

Constitution

1. In General persede other inconsistent parts of that instrument. McWilliams v. Smith, 142 Ga. 209, 82 S.E. 569 (1914).

The two important, vital, elements in any constitutional amendment are: the assent of two-thirds of the legislature and a majority of the popular vote; beyond these, other provisions are mere machinery and forms, they may not be disregarded, because by them certainty as to the essentials is secured, but they are not themselves the essentials. Mayer v. Adams, 182 Ga. 524, 186 S.E. 420 (1936).

Since substance is more important than form, and the will of the legislature lawfully expressed in proposing an amendment, and the will of the people expressed at the proper time and in the proper manner at the ballot box in ratifying such amendment, they ought not to be lightly disregarded and set at naught, even if an executive or ministerial officer should not strictly comply with the officer’s duty in connection with matters of detail, regarding the publication or the like, and which do not appear to have substantially affected the result. Mayer v. Adams, 182 Ga. 524, 186 S.E. 420 (1936).

No limitations are placed by this paragraph on the power of the Gen-guage. Sears v. State, 232 Ga. 547, 208 S.E.2d 93 (1974) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. X, Sec. I, Para. II).

Voter’s must know what they are

## Constitutional Amendment Will Sueral Assembly to Draft Ballot Lanvoting On.

Paragraph’s operative limitation on legislature’s control of ballot language is requirement that language be adequate to enable the voters to ascertain on which amendment they are voting. Sears v. State, 232 Ga. 547, 208 S.E.2d 93 (1974); Donaldson v. DOT, 262 Ga. 49, 414 S.E.2d 638 (1992).

Entire amendment need not be printed on the ballot. Goolsby v. Stephens, 155 Ga. 529, 117 S.E. 439 (1923). See also Hammond v. Clark, 136 Ga. 313, 71 S.E. 479, 36 L.R.A. (n.s.) 77 (1911).

Reference to proposed amendment

## Sufficient to Inform Voters.

A reference on the ballots to proposed amendment is to inform voters what they are voting for as an amendment to the Constitution; and such reference is sufficient when it contains enough to enable the voters to ascertain for what amendment they are voting. Pye v. State Hwy. Dep’t, 226 Ga. 389, 175 S.E.2d 510, cert. denied and appeal dismissed, 400 U.S. 913, 91 S. Ct. 173, 27 L. Ed. 2d 152 (1970).

## Amendment May Contain Legislative Acts Previously Held Invalid.

Hammond v. Clark, 136 Ga. 313, 71 S.E. 479, 38 L.R.A. (n.s.) 71 (1911).

## Inoperative Amendment.

Amendment to the Constitution of 1877, Ga. L. 1945, p. 101, which was ratified and proclaimed on the same dates as was the Constitution of 1945, never became operative either as an amendment to the Constitution of 1877 or as an amendment to the Constitution of 1945. Fulton County v. Lockhart, 202 Ga. 878, 45 S.E.2d 220 (1947).

2. General Amendment

Elections for members of Congress and presidential electors, required by law to be held on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, is a general election within the meaning of this paragraph. Moore v. Smith, 140 Ga. 854, 79 S.E. 1116 (1913) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. X, Sec. I, Para. II).

State-wide general election for

## Specified Purposes Established.

Proposed amendment to the Constitution as set forth in Ga. L. 1937, p. 13, authorizing the City of Atlanta to issue specified refunding bonds, which was submitted for ratification and duly ratified at a general election provided for in former Ga. L. 1937, p. 712, establishing a state-wide general election each June for specified purposes, including the ratification of constitutional amendments, became effective as part of the Constitution. Aycock v. State ex rel. Boykin, 184 Ga. 709, 193 S.E. 580 (1937).

## Test Determining Violation of Multiple Subject Matter Rule.

The test of whether an Act or a constitutional amendment violates the multiple subject matter rule is whether all of the parts of the Act or of the constitutional amendment are germane to the accomplishment of a single objective; if so, it does not violate the rule; otherwise, it does. Carter v. Burson, 230 Ga. 511, 198 S.E.2d 151 (1973); Sears v. State, 232 Ga. 547, 208 S.E.2d 93 (1974); Goldrush II v. City of Marietta, 267 Ga. 683, 482 S.E.2d 347 (1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 818, 118 S. Ct. 70, 139 L. Ed. 2d 31 (1997); Perdue v. O’Kelley, 280 Ga. 732, 632 S.E.2d 110 (2006).

## Breakdown of Amendment Not Required.

The legislature is not required to break each general objective down into the smallest component elements and submit each separately to the voters for their acceptance or rejection. Were this done, it would be almost impossible to change many constitutional provisions by a single amendment, and such an amendment could not be submitted as a whole, but would have to be broken up into fragments, and submitted in disjointed propositions. Sears v. State, 232 Ga. 547, 208 S.E.2d 93 (1974). Provision for Amending

Constitution (Cont’d) 2. General Amendment (Cont’d)


> The printed notes continue for 11,604 more characters, not shown here. Continue at https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-x-sec-i-para-ii.md?notes=all&start=11504