Why some Georgia DAs are pushing back against state law removing candidates’ party affiliations from ballots

Claim:

Prior to the 2026 midterm elections, Georgia eliminated political party identification labels from candidate ballots.

Rating:

What’s True

In May 2026, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp enacted House Bill 369, designating specific county-level elections in some of the state’s most reliably Democratic areas as “nonpartisan.” This change means local candidates will appear on the ballot without party tags. The mandate applies exclusively to five counties centered around and encompassing the Atlanta metropolitan area.

What’s False

The legislation is not scheduled to take effect until January 1, 2028. Furthermore, local district attorneys are actively contesting the legality of the measure in court, arguing that applying the rule to only a subset of counties violates the state constitution’s uniformity clause.

Amid the approach of the 2026 midterm elections, viral claims emerged suggesting that Georgia lawmakers had stripped political party markers from ballots to disadvantage Democrats in areas where they traditionally secure victories.

Online warnings urged voters to study sample ballots or memorize candidate lineups ahead of time to prevent accidentally casting votes based solely on name recognition.

“Georgia voters- It seems our Trump loving election denying Republican led election board has decided to remove the (R) and the (D) that normally appears next to candidate’s names on the upcoming midterm ballots. And you’re not allowed to use your phone while voting to look up affiliation,” stated a widely shared social media post from October 4.

An investigation into the matter reveals that while Republican Gov. Brian Kemp did sign House Bill 369 into law in May 2026 to make certain county contests nonpartisan, the legislation does not become active until January 1, 2028, and is restricted to five Atlanta-area counties rather than the entire state. Consequently, the claim is evaluated as a blend of accurate and inaccurate details.

The district attorneys for all five affected counties—each of whom is a Black woman representing the most demographically diverse portion of the state—filed legal challenges, contending the measure violates constitutional uniformity requirements because it singles out a specific region containing a Democratic stronghold.

The legislation applies the nonpartisan rule to counties where the traditional office of county coroner has been replaced by a medical examiner, though the rationale connecting medical examiners to party labels on ballots has faced scrutiny.

Proponents of the bill, including Republican state Sen. John Albers, argued during legislative debates that the change would enhance public safety. Another supporter, GOP State Rep. Trey Kelley, asserted that the measure gives constituents a way to move past partisan politics in local prosecution.

Legal challenges quickly followed. In June 2026, DeKalb County District Attorney Sherry Boston initiated a lawsuit against the law, backed by counterparts from neighboring jurisdictions. Their legal arguments target the legislation on three primary fronts:

1. Violation of Georgia’s Uniformity Clause – The state constitution mandates that laws apply uniformly across all jurisdictions, barring localized rules tailored to specific regions.
2. Violation of Equal Protection Clauses – The lawsuits argue there is no legitimate justification for treating these five metro counties differently from the state’s remaining 154 counties based on whether they use coroners or medical examiners, noting the targeted region features high Black voter turnout and Black female district attorneys.
3. Violation of Georgia’s Rejected Bills Clause – The measure was advanced as HB 369 after a nearly identical proposal, SB 573, failed to pass a full Senate vote, bypassing the two-thirds majority requirement for reconsidering defeated legislation.

Additional legal filings, such as one submitted by Gwinnett County District Attorney Patsy Austin-Gatson, reinforced these arguments, calling the distinction involving medical examiners arbitrary.

State officials have pointed out that voters concerned about their upcoming ballots can review official sample ballots directly through Georgia’s voter information portal while the legal battles play out.

Sources