Virginia is poised for a significant decision that could reshape its state constitution regarding abortion rights. A proposed ballot measure aims to establish a “fundamental right to reproductive freedom” within the state’s governing framework. However, a lawsuit filed by the conservative legal group Liberty Counsel threatens to halt the process. The contention lies in the procedural correctness of how this measure secured its position for consideration in the upcoming 2026 elections.
Liberty Counsel announced the lawsuit on March 4. They are bringing the case against state election officials in Bedford County, claiming they did not adhere to the Virginia Constitution’s amendment process when approving the pro-abortion measure. The complaint is on behalf of Charla Bansley, a Bedford County Board supervisor who asserts that the state legislature overlooked several essential steps mandated by the Constitution. Specifically, the lawsuit states, “the Virginia House of Delegates missed several key procedural steps” necessary before such an amendment is put before voters.
The requirements for placing a proposed amendment on the ballot are clearly defined. These stipulations include distributing the amendment to circuit court clerks statewide and making the measure available for public inspection three months ahead of the election cycle. Liberty Counsel emphasizes that these actions did not take place as required in the lead-up to the 2025 election cycle. As a result, they argue, the amendment approved in the 2026 legislative session is “void” and “wholly ineffective.”
The push for this ballot measure follows a notable shift in Virginia’s political landscape. Democrats, building on significant gains during the 2025 elections, strengthened their control in the General Assembly and flipped key statewide offices. This repositioning allowed the House Joint Resolution 1 to advance, setting the stage for potential changes to Virginia’s abortion laws.
Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, has voiced strong opposition to the amendment’s advancement. He insists that the amendment cannot legally be placed on the ballot due to the flawed legislative process. “This measure is invalid because the General Assembly advanced it to a second legislative vote without completing the constitutionally mandated notice and posting requirements,” he argued.
Staver is clear about the broader implications of this lawsuit. He contends that the Virginia Constitution mandates strict compliance with the amendment process to ensure that voters receive adequate notice and have the opportunity to evaluate any proposed changes. “These procedures exist to protect the people’s right to transparent, orderly constitutional change,” he stated. He expresses concern that “any misstep undermines the integrity of the amendment process and can interfere with the will of the voters.”
As the legal battle unfolds, the future of this abortion rights amendment hangs in a delicate balance, reflecting larger issues at play within Virginia’s electoral and political landscape. Whether voters will have the opportunity to weigh in on this contentious issue now rests not only on public sentiment but also on the legal framework governing state amendments. The outcome of this lawsuit could have lasting effects on both the amendment process and the rights enshrined in Virginia’s constitution.
"*" indicates required fields
