Historic Push for Constitutional Protections in Virginia Gains Momentum

The Virginia House of Delegates on Tuesday advanced a slate of proposed constitutional amendments that could enshrine voting rights, reproductive rights, and marriage equality into the state’s Constitution, setting up a potential ballot showdown next year. A Senate committee also moved forward with its versions of the same measures, ensuring the debate continues in both chambers.

To reach voters, the resolutions — which do not require Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s signature — must pass both chambers this year and again next year before appearing on statewide ballots in November 2026.

Tuesday’s debate in the House, which Democrats control by a small margin, was intense, with passionate arguments on both sides of the aisle.

Reproductive rights

Virginia law currently permits most abortions up to around 26 weeks of pregnancy. After that point, three physicians must agree that continuing the pregnancy would endanger the pregnant person’s life or cause severe physical or mental harm.

In response to sweeping bans and restrictions in neighboring states, Virginia Democrats are pushing to enshrine abortion access and other reproductive healthcare protections into the state Constitution. They argue that the measure is essential to safeguarding personal freedoms amid shifting national politics.

Republicans, however, l have fiercely criticized the proposal, labeling its language as overly “broad” and “extreme.” They also warned it could pave the way for abortions up to the “moment of birth,” a characterization that Democrats reject as a misrepresentation of the bill’s intent. So-called infanticide, which has been levied at Democrats from Virginia Republican lawmakers and President-elect Donald Trump is illegal.

Minority Leader Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah, for example, called the resolution a “word salad” designed to “cloud the true intentions” of the amendment. He argued that reducing the current requirement for three doctors to sign off on a procedure to just one would lower safeguards.

“The abortion doctor can do that,” Gilbert said.

Supporters of the amendment countered that the change is intended to address barriers faced by rural patients.

“It is hypocritical for people who ruled this chamber for decades to allow their communities to become maternal health deserts — where women can’t even find one doctor, let alone three,” said Del. Candi Mundon King, D-Prince William.

Gilbert and other Republican lawmakers further argued that the proposed abortion amendment could undermine parental rights by allowing minors to seek the procedure without parental consent.

House Majority Leader, Charniele Herring, D-Alexandria, pushed back, emphasizing that Virginia law  already requires parental oversight for medical and other decisions regarding minors.

“The law is the law until the court says it’s not that,” said Herring, who sponsored the amendment.

While heated debate unfolded among lawmakers in the House chamber over the proposal, the Senate Privileges and Elections heard testimony from constituents, reflecting the deep public engagement and division over the measure.

Reston-area resident Shyamali Roy Hauth shared a deeply personal story during Tuesday’s committee hearing, recounting how access to abortion after a rape allowed her to heal, serve in the military and later become a mother.

“I had the right to choose what to do with my body,” said Hauth, urging the committee to advance the proposal.

A long line of speakers, both for and against the amendment, stood before the committee. Some, like Susan Muskett, echoed Republican lawmakers’ concerns that the measure would undermine parental rights.

Sen. Jennifer Boysko, D-Alexandria, who is sponsoring the Senate version of the amendment, dismissed such claims. “This is a reproductive freedom amendment that lets doctors and patients make those decisions themselves,” Boysko said.

Voting rights

A second proposed constitutional amendment aims to restore rights to individuals who have completed their prison sentences for felony convictions, addressing a longstanding issue in Virginia’s legal system to be able to have lost rights restored. Currently, the state Constitution effectively disenfranchises people with felony convictions unless the governor chooses to restore their rights or grant a pardon.

Under three previous governors — both Republican and Democratic — the process was streamlined to automatically restore rights upon prison release. However, Gov. Glenn Youngkin quietly shifted the process to a petition-based system, sparking lawsuits and renewed debate over the fairness of the current approach.

But Youngkin’s office has defended the current rights restoration process, stating it is  handled on an “individual basis.”

However, last fall, hundreds of petitioners received a mass email rejecting their requests without explanation. Questions linger over whether probation status, unpaid restitution fees, or community standing play a role in decisions. Unable to vote in last year’s congressional and presidential elections, some petitioners have questioned whether the process is truly individualized as claimed. 

Screenshot of a response from Newport News resident Justin Brown to an email chain of people with felony convictions whose voting rights were not restored.

“I did a crime. I broke the law, you know, this is what I’ve got to deal with,” Roanoke resident Jared Rose told The Mercury last year. “But somewhere along the line, there’s just so much red tape.”

Lawmakers advocating for constitutional protections argue that enshrining a clear and fair path to restoration would eliminate ambiguity and ensure rights for those who have served their time. Despite Republican opposition, the measure advanced in the House with bipartisan support, signaling a momentum for change.

Marriage equality

Although federal protections ensure same-sex marriage remains, Virginia’s Constitution still includes a prohibition against such unions. In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn federal abortion protections, Democratic lawmakers are emphasizing the need to amend the state Constitution to safeguard these marriage rights. They argue that without this change, Virginians’ marriage law could be at risk if the Supreme Court reverses its stance on same sex marriage — a possibility Justice Clarence Thomas has expressed interest in doing.

Del. Mark Sickles, D-Arlington, one of Virginia’s openly gay lawmakers, recalled opposing the 2006 ban when it was first enacted. He now hopes voters will have the opportunity to correct what he sees as a past mistake.

“Hopefully we can give the voters a chance to fix what we did back in 2006,” Sickles said.

Sickles also noted that many younger Virginians may be unaware that same-sex marriage is still technically prohibited in the state Constitution. “If we read it to them, they would be appalled,” he said, emphasizing the importance of giving voters the opportunity to repeal outdated language.

The same-sex marriage amendment, like the restoration of rights amendment, passed the House with bipartisan support on Tuesday.

Sickles and Gilbert acknowledged in brief news conferences after the votes how public attitudes on the issue have shifted dramatically in recent years. They pointed to figures like former President Barack Obama, who initially opposed same-sex marriage but became a vocal supporter during his presidency, as evidence of how societal views have evolved.

GOP lawmakers to push a right-to-work amendment

Republicans are also taking a stab at an amendment by advancing a proposal to solidify Virginia’s “right-to-work” protections in the state Constitution.

The measure, sponsored by Sen. Mark Obenshain, R-Harrisonburg, has the backing of Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears, who emphasized during a Tuesday morning news conference that the proposal is not “anti-union.”

Instead, she said, it aims to protect workers from being compelled to join unions or pay union dues.

“This should not be controversial,” Earle-Sears said. “What we are saying simply is ‘we do not want a worker to be forced to unionize’ — that’s it.”

Nathaniel Cline contributed to this report.

by Charlotte Rene Woods, Virginia Mercury

Virginia Mercury is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Virginia Mercury maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Samantha Willis for questions: info@virginiamercury.com.