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 the formative stage of a constitutional 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).

A proclamation by the Governor declaring that an amendment was adopted 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).

Interpreting ballot language of proposed amendment permits court to interject 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).

Acts need not specify the manner of submission of an amendment to voters. 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 due 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).

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).

Voter's must know what they are voting 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).

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).

Amendment saved from unconstitutionality because germane to subject of Constitution being amended.

- A constitutional amendment, adopted by the voters in a general election, that deals with only one subject matter, the establishment of area schools, which under the amendment can be established only by contract between counties, or municipalities, or a county and a municipality, or combination thereof, is germane to the provisions of the Constitution, pertaining to the contractual powers of counties and municipalities, and does not violate the Constitution. Cason v. State, 217 Ga. 339, 122 S.E.2d 232 (1961).

Georgia Laws 1972, p. 1015, had but a single subject matter, governmental reorganization, and all its parts were germane to a single purpose and therefore not unconstitutional under this paragraph. Carter v. Burson, 230 Ga. 511, 198 S.E.2d 151 (1973) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. X, Sec. I, Para. II).

Publication in newspapers.

- Publication of proposed amendments in their entirety in designated newspapers of general circulation prior to election is method by which voters should inform themselves of the contents and merits of proposed amendments. Sears v. State, 232 Ga. 547, 208 S.E.2d 93 (1974).

Duties of legislative branch.

- The legislative branch of the government is charged with the duty of providing manner of holding elections and providing for the ballot, and what shall go on the ballot - of course subject to the limitations contained in the Constitution. Wheeler v. Board of Trustees, 200 Ga. 323, 37 S.E.2d 322 (1946).

Every reasonable presumption, both of law and fact, is to be indulged in favor of the validity of a Constitution when it is attacked after its ratification by the people. Wheeler v. Board of Trustees, 200 Ga. 323, 37 S.E.2d 322 (1946).

Liberal interpretation of advertising requirements applies rather to manner of compliance with constitutional requirements in regard to amendments than to a total omission or disregard of such a requirement. Mayer v. Adams, 182 Ga. 524, 186 S.E. 420 (1936).

Law imposes no duty upon the Secretary of State with regard to publication or advertisement of a proposed amendment to the Constitution. Horrigan v. Rivers, 183 Ga. 141, 187 S.E. 836 (1936).

This paragraph refers to the General Assembly as a whole; it has no reference to the Speaker of the House of Representatives or the President of the Senate in their individual capacities. Horrigan v. Rivers, 183 Ga. 141, 187 S.E. 836 (1936) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. X, Sec. I, Para. II).

Absence imposition of duty legislative officers not bound to submit amendment to voters.

- Where it appears that no specific legislative action was taken by the General Assembly imposing a duty upon either the President of the Senate or Speaker of the House of Representatives to procure the proper submission to the people of a proposed constitutional amendment, there is no duty resting upon either of these officers to bring about such submission, and a writ of mandamus would not lie against them to compel action in the premises. Horrigan v. Rivers, 183 Ga. 141, 187 S.E. 836 (1936).

Distinguishing Constitution between legal and revolutionary one.

- If a Constitution is to be a legal one, as distinguished from a revolutionary Constitution, it must be adopted by the people by compliance with the legal machinery in operation at the time of its adoption in order to obtain a legal expression of the will of the people. Wheeler v. Board of Trustees, 200 Ga. 323, 37 S.E.2d 322 (1946).

Brief and concise summary of amendment need not be published.

- An amendment to the Constitution of this state, duly proposed by the General Assembly and published for 60 days before the election in one or more papers in each congressional district, will not be declared by the courts to have been illegally submitted to the people because a brief and concise summary thereof was not published in a newspaper carrying the sheriff's advertisements in a certain county. Cartledge v. City Council, 189 Ga. 267, 5 S.E.2d 661 (1939).

Failure of three counties out of 159 to open polls on day when a constitutional amendment is being voted upon would not affect the validity of its submission to the people or of the election itself. Cartledge v. City Council, 189 Ga. 267, 5 S.E.2d 661 (1939).

Substantial compliance sufficient to uphold validity of amendment.

- Where there is substantial compliance with this paragraph, and the irregularities complained of were not such as could be said to affect the result, the validity of the ratification of a proposed amendment must be upheld. Mayer v. Adams, 182 Ga. 524, 186 S.E. 420 (1936) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. X, Sec. I, Para. II).

1990 amendment upheld.

- The ratification of the 1990 amendment to Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. II, Para. IX was not invalid on the grounds that the ballot language was inaccurate, affirmatively misleading, not complete enough, or did not include enough of the history of the amendment. Donaldson v. DOT, 262 Ga. 49, 414 S.E.2d 638 (1992).

Establishment of Constitutional Amendments Publication Board.

- This paragraph does not establish the Constitutional Amendments Publication Board; however, the General Assembly was authorized to establish the board since this paragraph states that amendments shall be published "as provided by law." 1974 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 74-127 (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. X, Sec. I, Para. II).

Executive and legislative branch members eligible for service on board.

- Contracting for publication of proposed amendments is not an executive function, since no existing law is being executed by the Governor or other executive officers but rather an amendment to the fundamental legislation, the Constitution, is being proposed to the people; therefore, the presence of the Speaker of the House on the Constitutional Amendments Publication Board does not conflict with the separation of powers requirement of the Constitution of Georgia because the unique and sole function of the Constitutional Amendments Publication Board is to submit constitutional amendments to the people, by proper publication; and, furthermore, members of both the executive and legislative branches may serve on the board. 1974 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 74-127.

It would require the vote of 137 of the 205 members of the House (House now consists of 180 members) to pass a constitutional amendment, notwithstanding that there exist vacancies in the House, in that the reference to the two-thirds of the members elected would obviously refer to two-thirds of the total membership of the House; the existence of a vacancy for whatever reason would not be the basis for the reduction of the requisite number of votes of the total membership of the House to adopt a constitutional amendment. 1962 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 259.

Minimum advertising time.

- Any constitutional amendment must be passed and submitted by General Assembly in sufficient time prior to general election to be advertised once a week for three weeks prior thereto. 1962 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 258.

Method of advertisement legally permissible.

- General Assembly could legally convene and submit to electorate proposed constitutional amendments after democratic primary but in sufficient time prior to general election to be properly advertised. 1962 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 258.

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 16 Am. Jur. 2d, Constitutional Law, §§ 13 et seq., 19 et seq., 107 et seq.

C.J.S.

- 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, §§ 20 et seq., 34, 37, 48, 52 et seq.

ALR.

- Construction of requirement that proposed constitutional amendment be entered in journals, 6 A.L.R. 1227; 41 A.L.R. 640.

Repeal of constitutional provision or amendment, 36 A.L.R. 1456.

Construction of requirement that proposed constitutional amendment be entered in journals, 41 A.L.R. 640.

Applicability of constitutional requirements as to legislation or constitutional amendments, to statutes or constitutional amendments under provision conferring initiative or referendum powers, 62 A.L.R. 1349.

Construction and application of constitutional or statutory provisions expressly excepting certain laws from referendum, 146 A.L.R. 284; 100 A.L.R.2d 314.

Effect of modification or repeal of constitutional or statutory provision adopted by reference in another provision, 168 A.L.R. 627.

Removal or suspension of constitutional limitation as affecting statute previously enacted, 171 A.L.R. 1070.

Construction and application of constitutional or statutory provisions expressly excepting certain laws from referendum, 100 A.L.R.2d 314.

Capacity of taxpayers to maintain suit to enjoin submission of initiative, referendum, or recall measure to voters, 6 A.L.R.2d 557.

Injunctive relief against submission of constitutional amendment, statute, municipal charter, or municipal ordinance, on ground that proposed action would be unconstitutional, 19 A.L.R.2d 519.

Validity of legislation relating to publication of legal notices, 26 A.L.R.2d 655.

Power of legislative body to amend, repeal, or abrogate initiative or referendum measure, or to enact measure defeated on referendum, 33 A.L.R.2d 1118.