Voters will consider three proposed amendments addressing reproductive healthcare, same-sex marriage and the restoration of voting rights for people convicted of felonies.
Reproductive healthcare amendment
The ballot question for Constitutional Amendment 1 states:
Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to (i) protect the freedom to make personal decisions about prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion, miscarriage management, and fertility care; (ii) protect doctors, nurses, and patients from being punished for these decisions; and (iii) allow for restrictions on access to abortion during the third trimester of pregnancy except when the patients health is at risk, or the pregnancy cannot survive?Jamie Lockhart, executive director of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia, was among those who helped push the amendment onto the ballot.
Lockhart called the amendment simple and reasonable, arguing a "yes" vote would keep personal medical decisions in the hands of patients, families and their doctors rather than politicians.
We have seen women die as a result of not getting access to care, and so we focused on this amendment, on making sure that later in pregnancy, someone can get the care that they need. And if the pregnancy is not viable or the pregnant person's health is at risk, that their physician can make the best decision for them in that moment, Lockhart said.
Victoria Cobb, president of the Family Foundation of Virginia, has been one of the most vocal opponents urging Virginians to vote down the amendment saying her concern stems from parental rights.
The moment that Virginians make a bad decision and put this into the Constitution, you'll have litigation, Cobb said. Every law that's on the books will be litigated by the pro-abortion industry. So immediately they will argue that we cannot have parental consent.
Lockhart rejected Cobb's concerns about parental consent, saying the amendment does not address that issue.
What this does by enshrining reproductive freedom in the constitution by voting yes on one, people are saying they want reproductive health care to be protected for years to come, and they don't want our rights to be at the whims of who's in office.
In October, doctors and other advocates gathered at the Virginia State Capitol to oppose the amendment, arguing its language is too broad and could compromise patient safety.
"Protect our patients, protect standards. Vote 'No' on question one," Dr. Timothy Bowley, an OB-GYN and maternal-fetal medicine specialist and founding member of Virginia Medical Professionals for Women's Safety, said. "It's so vague and broad-reaching that it covers all aspects of reproductive care."
According to the Guttmacher Institute, there were more than 39-thousand abortions in Virginia in 2025, including over 84-hundred from out of state.
If approved, Lockhart the amendment's immediate effect would be constitutional protection, rather than any automatic change to medical care.
Same-sex marriage amendment
The ballot question for Constitutional Amendment 2 states:
Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to (i) remove the ban on same-sex marriage; (ii) affirm that two adults may marry regardless of sex, gender, or race; and (iii) require all legally valid marriages to be treated equally under the law?Virginia's Constitution still contains a ban on same-sex marriage, although that provision is currently unenforceable following the U.S. Supreme Court's 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
Cobb with the Family Foundation of Virginia urged Virginians to vote no on the amendment.
Voters should beware of what they're voting for because they are not simply putting in same-sex marriage into our constitution. They are also laying the legal groundwork for transgender rights because the language has been written that way intentionally, Cobb said.
Cobb said she takes issue that the amendments language highlights sex and gender.
For a lot of people, that means the battles we're having over boys and girls' sports, men in women's locker rooms, are going to get that much harder, Cobb said.
Cobb said the amendment doesnt include religious protections and is worried churches who do not perform same-sex marriages could be sued.
Our Founding Freedoms Law Center will likely end up defending the churches that say that their definition of marriage simply can't be the same as what the state has defined, and they can't participate. So we will end up being the defense arm for those places of worship, she said.
However, supporters of same-sex marriage view the amendment, simply, as removing discrimination from the constitution.
Leiah Morlette said she and her wife faced that potential head-on after purchasing their home in 2019, about a year after they married.
She said their realtor warned the Richmond couple theyd have to refile their home ownership documents if the Supreme Court ever overturned same-sex marriage in Virginia.
I think it would be an incredible movement for the state of Virginia to [vote yes]. It would be such an incredible step for safety and security for couples like me and my wife, or some of our friends who are married and have children and own their own homes, Morlette said.
Chesterfield couple Mary Townley and Carol Schall experienced discrimination firsthand after getting married in San Francisco in 2008 and returned to Virginia to start a family together.
The couple spoke about having to carry additional documents to prove their daughter had two mothers while trying to renew her passport.
Schall recalled doctors who prevented her from seeing her wife in the hospital after Townley experienced issues during pregnancy.
It was the most terrifying moment of my life that I was a full legal stranger to the woman that I had committed to, Schall said. That's what this amendment is about.
The couple's fight for marriage equality became part of a landmark legal battle in Virginia. In 2014, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Virginia's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional in Bostic v. Schaefer. The U.S. Supreme Court later stayed the appeals court's mandate before ultimately legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide in 2015.
More than a decade later, the fight over how marriage equality is protected under Virginia's Constitution is now in the hands of voters.
We're not asking for you to fully endorse us. When you check yes, all you're saying is the state doesn't get to judge your relationships as long as you are two consenting adults who understand the commitment that you're making, Schall and Townley said.
Restoration of rights amendment
The ballot question for Constitutional Amendment 3 states:
Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended (i) to provide for the fundamental right to vote in the Commonwealth, (ii) to revise the qualifications of voters so that a person convicted of a felony is not entitled to vote during his period of incarceration but is automatically invested with the right to vote upon release from incarceration, and (iii) to update the existing prohibition on voting by persons found to be mentally incompetent to instead apply to persons who have been found to lack the capacity to understand the act of voting?A "yes" vote would automatically restore voting rights to people convicted of felonies once they are released from incarceration. Under the proposed amendment, those individuals would lose their right to vote only while serving their sentences.
Under current law, people convicted of felonies lose their voting rights unless the governor individually restores them.
Among those pushing for the amendment's passage is Del. Cia Price (D-Newport News), who said giving someone back their right to vote will help improve their morale as they try to get back on the right path.
"Instead of it being based on who is in charge at the time, this would be a right for all eligible Virginians to have that right to vote, no matter who's in charge," Price said.
"When someone walks out from incarceration, they have moved on into the next phase of their lives and I think that that is important that they come back to our communities as full citizens," Price added. "So it's exciting for people to get that right back and then rejoin the rest of us that would have that right to vote because of the first part of the amendment."
But opponents like House Minority Leader Terry Kilgore (R-Scott) said they are not opposed to second chances, but there are elements of the proposed amendment they cannot support including that it does not differentiate between giving the automatic restoration between violent and nonviolent crimes.
"We've separated nonviolent and violent felonies as it relates to different issues and I think this is one of those times it should have been separated," said Kilgore.
He added the second issue was that felons would not have to finish paying any court costs or restitution before getting their vote back.
"I think the end result is going to be that we're going to leave our victims and our state high and dry," Kilgore said. "I think a lot of us would have supported the amendment had there been a provision in there that once an individual is released from incarceration and they've paid their fines and cost and and or their restitution, then they would get their rights back to vote automatically."
This is a developing story, so check back with WTVR.com for updates. Email the CBS 6 Newsroom if you have info, photos or videos to share.
