The 2026 ballot contains three proposed amendments to the Virginia Constitution. Such proposals are traditionally written in ways that can be confusing even to those who closely follow Virginia politics.
As a result, The Lebanon News reached out to the Russell County Republican Party and the Russell County Democratic Committee for more information on the amendments.
RCDC Chair Alice Schlichting is asking voters to cast a “yes” vote on all three proposals on Election Day.
The first question on the 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?”
Schlichting said, “This will be the most controversial of the three. This amendment would establish a fundamental right to reproductive freedom, including decisions about prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion, miscarriage management, and fertility care. It would also protect doctors, nurses, and patients from being punished for those decisions. The state could regulate abortion care in the third trimester, but it could never prohibit an abortion that a physician judges medically indicated to protect the patient’s life or physical or mental health, or when a physician judges the fetus is not viable.”
She added, “There’s been a lot of misinformation about ‘third-trimester abortions’ so let me address that here. Only about one percent of abortions happen at 21 weeks or later, and the third trimester doesn’t begin until 28 weeks, so the number is smaller still. Virginia law already restricts them. They must be performed in a hospital, and the physician and two consulting physicians must certify that continuing the pregnancy would likely result in the woman’s death or substantially and irremediably impair her physical or mental health. The amendment on the ballot says the state can still regulate these procedures, but can’t prohibit one that a physician, using their professional medical judgment, finds necessary to protect the patient’s life or health, or when the fetus isn’t viable.”
Schlichting said such procedures are tragedies.
“Women are not seeking these out,” she said. “When this happens, it is a tragedy: a pregnancy that cannot result in a surviving child, or one that threatens the mother’s life, where without treatment both could be lost. These are deeply personal medical decisions. Politicians, who may lack medical expertise and knowledge of the individual situation, shouldn’t be making them. Laws written without that nuance can leave doctors and expectant parents afraid to make difficult but necessary decisions for fear of legal consequences.”
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?”
“This amendment is more straightforward. It would remove the ban on same-sex marriage from Virginia’s Constitution, affirm that two adults may marry regardless of sex, gender, or race, and require all legally valid marriages to be treated equally under the law,” Schlichting explained.
She went on to say, “It’s worth separating personal beliefs from civil rights. People can hold different beliefs about marriage, and those beliefs deserve respect. But our laws must protect civil rights equally for everyone, whether or not they share those beliefs.”
She added that it was also a question of personal freedom and limited government.
“Many people believe the government should have a limited role in the private decisions of consenting adults and should focus on protecting individual rights,” she said. “Its job is not to decide which beliefs are correct, but to treat all citizens equally under the law.”
She further stated, “That principle is part of religious freedom, too. The First Amendment protects both the freedom to practice religion and freedom from the government, establishing one person’s beliefs as the rule for everyone. Virginia’s Constitution likewise protects the free exercise of religion and says a person’s civil rights should not depend on their religious beliefs. People should be free to live by their own faith and values while recognizing that others have the same right.”
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?”
Schlichting said, “This amendment would establish the fundamental right to vote in Virginia. It would also automatically restore voting rights to those convicted of a felony once they are released from incarceration. They would still be ineligible to vote while incarcerated.”
Schlichting added, “Under the current Virginia Constitution, a person convicted of a felony must go through a separate restoration process before voting again. Many states have moved toward automatic restoration after incarceration or completion of a sentence, and a few don’t remove voting rights based solely on a felony conviction in the first place.”
She went on to state, “The felony provision raises a question about the purpose of incarceration. Once someone has completed their sentence and returned to the community, should the goal be to support their rehabilitation and reintegration, including participation in civic life? Or should they continue to lose the right to take part in our elections?”
In closing, Schlichting said it is important for voters to hear different perspectives on these issues in order to make an informed decision. “People make better decisions when they have accurate information and room to think things through for themselves,” she said. “And in short: think, learn, vote. I encourage you to vote: Yes. Yes. Yes.”
The difference between a constitutional amendment and passage of a law is that a law can be amended rather easily by future General Assemblies. An amendment to the constitution becomes a fixed law that every future governor, legislature and judge is bound to.
Undoing or changing an amendment would require a multi-year process ending with another election.
