When going to the polls, voters often find on their ballots proposed constitutional amendments. Unfortunately, the questions are often written in what is commonly known as “legalese” and can be confusing even to the most astute voter.
To help voters understand the 2026 proposed amendments to the Virginia Constitution, The Lebanon News reached out to the chairs of the local political parties for a clear explanation on where they stand on the proposals and why.
Tara Dye, who chairs the Russell County Republican Party, explained the difference between passing a law and amending the state’s constitution.
“It all starts with one principle, and it is the most important thing: changing the constitution is not the same as passing a law,” Dye said. A law can be amended or repealed by the very next session of the General Assembly. The constitution cannot. Once a policy is written into it, it stops being a question the voters and their representatives get to decide each year – it becomes a fixed rule that every future governor, every future legislature, and every future judge is bound to, whether they like it or not. And undoing it would take another multi-year amendment process that is deliberately, extraordinarily hard. When we amend the constitution, we are not making a decision for today – we are making it for our children and grandchildren, and taking it out of their hands. That is a far bigger thing than most people realize, and it is the reason these three measures should be judged by a far higher standard than an ordinary bill.”
The first question voters will find on their ballot asks, “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 patient’s health is at risk or the pregnancy cannot survive?”
Dye urged voters to cast a “no” vote to this question.
She said, “This would write a broad right to ‘reproductive freedom’ – abortion, birth control, fertility care, and more – into our Bill of Rights, and shield doctors, nurses, and patients from being ‘punished’ for decisions made under it. Read what that means in practice: once abortion is a constitutional right, every safety regulation around it – clinic licensing and standards, informed consent – becomes a legal target that courts can strike down as an unconstitutional ‘burden’ on the right. And a clause protecting providers from ‘punishment’ is a clause that weakens oversight of them. The effect is not simply that abortion remains legal; it is that the safeguards around it become far harder to keep.”
Dye went on to state, “And there is a third consequence that touches nearly every family: parental rights. Under Virginia law today, a minor generally needs a parent’s consent to obtain an abortion. But once ‘reproductive freedom’ is written into the constitution, those parental-consent and notification laws become legal targets – vulnerable to being struck down as ‘burdens’ on the new right. The amendment does not say so outright, but it would put courts in a position to take parents out of decisions they are a part of today.”
She went on to say, “Whatever one’s view of abortion, writing it into the constitution in a way that makes it harder to regulate, harder to oversee providers, and easier to push parents out of their children’s decisions is the wrong way to make law. That decision belongs with the people’s elected representatives, where it can be revisited and kept answerable to voters.”
The second question on the ballot asks, “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?”
Dye also called for a “no” vote on the second question.
She said, “This would strike Virginia’s definition of marriage and replace it. But read the actual words: it does not just remove the old definition – it affirms that two adults may marry ‘regardless of sex, gender, or race.’ Note ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ listed as two separate things. That is not an accident of drafting; it writes the modern sex-versus-gender distinction – the idea that ‘gender’ is a self-declared identity separate from biological sex – into our founding document. That is a far larger change than the label ‘marriage equality’ lets on, and it is being made quietly.”
The final question asks, “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?”
The Republican Party asks voters to vote against this proposal as well.
Dye stated, “This would automatically restore the right to vote to every released felon, the moment each walks out of prison. Read what that means: the amendment makes no distinction between crimes.
“A person convicted of a non-violent offense and a person convicted of murder or rape are treated exactly the same – both automatically regain the right to vote upon release, with no case-by-case review, no consideration of the offense, and no requirement to first complete probation or parole.
“Our Committee believes the right to vote is sacred, and that restoring it should be done thoughtfully and individually – weighing each case on its own merits – not granted automatically and identically to every released felon regardless of what they did. This amendment would replace judgment with automaticity, and it would do so permanently.”
Dye added, “The constitution is the one document we are not supposed to rewrite lightly – and these three amendments would rewrite it in the most permanent way our government allows. They would settle, at the highest and most permanent level, exactly the kind of policy questions that belong where the rest of our laws are made – with elected representatives who answer to you, in the daylight, and able to be changed when circumstances change.”
She concluded, “On Nov. 3, our Committee respectfully asks you to vote ‘NO’ on all three proposed amendments. Early voting runs through Oct. 31. Please vote – your voice belongs in the voting booth.”
