Democrats are pushing three constitutional amendment proposals that have already advanced out of committee in the House of Delegates.
The House Privileges and Elections Committee met in November to advance the proposals, which can now be heard on the full House floor as soon as this week.
“This meeting was an important next step considering the moment in history we find ourselves in,” said committee Chair Marcia Price, D-Newport News, at the time.
Abortion
A constitutional amendment proposal to protect access to abortion will be a key point of contention for both Democrats and Republicans this year.
The amendment proposal states that “every individual has the fundamental right to reproductive freedom, including the ability to make and carry out decisions relating to one’s own prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, abortion care, miscarriage management, and fertility care.”
There was some confusion at the time about whether this amendment would stand up, specifically regarding parental notification or minors receiving an abortion. The committee’s legal counsel said there is not a clear answer and that the United States Supreme Court could potentially become involved.
The amendment would also reduce the number of physicians to sign off on a third-trimester abortion from three to one.
Herring said during a press conference that this is included because of how hard it is to find three physicians in some parts of the commonwealth to sign off on the abortion, which would only be happening in the third trimester due to a health complication for the mother during what is often an urgent situation.
Voting rights
Democrats also advanced HJ 2, sponsored by Del. Elizabeth Bennett-Parker, D-Alexandria, which would automatically restore voting rights to individuals after incarceration for a felony conviction.
Bennett-Parker said requiring someone to petition for voting rights after a felony conviction is rooted in racism and would provide individuals with a fundamental right.
“The disenfranchisement of people with felony convictions is a relic of Virginia’s Jim Crow past and was intentionally inserted into the 1902 Virginia Constitution to disenfranchise as many black voters as possible,” she said. “Automatic restoration of voting rights encourages voting and civic engagement, which research shows benefits reentry, reduces recidivism and makes communities safer.”
House Minority Leader Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah, opposed allowing individuals to vote before paying restitution for the crimes they committed.
“Your amendment also applies to those people who face no other possible conviction itself that they also essentially never lose their right to vote,” Gilbert said during debate. “In addition to all the things that aren’t going to happen to them, including being incarcerated, they get to vote right away. Regardless of their felony conviction, if they never go to jail, they just keep can keep voting, and there’s no other consequence.”
Del. Paul Milde, R-Stafford, spoke about his personal experience of having to apply for his voting rights to be restored. He was convicted of cocaine possession in 1986, a felony charge.
“I believe I’m the only one up here with direct personal experience,” Milde said during the debate. “I, like thousands of others, a few of which we’ve heard from, went through a lengthy deliberative process to regain my rights that started with completing my court-imposed sentence in its entirety, including paying restitution to the victims and fines. I was incentivized to be a better member of society because I knew there was a process.”
Price closed out the debate by saying that Gov. Glenn Youngkin has made petitioning for restoration difficult.
“What we have today are formerly incarcerated people who have tried to go through that process, but we have an administration that has an opaque and inconsistent process by which no rationale, no reason, just a mass email can go out to say that your rights were denied. However, many people in this room or on this Dais can say that previous governors have done certain things, but that is not where we are today.”
Removing the same-sex marriage ban
The committee also advanced HJ 9, sponsored by Del. Mark Sickles, D-Fairfax, which would remove the language from the Virginia Constitution stating that a marriage is only between a man and a woman.
That section of the Constitution and other related provisions are no longer valid due to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which allowed for same-sex marriage across the country.
The Senate has its own versions of these proposals, which still need to be heard and advanced out of committee before going to the full chamber floor.
Constitutional amendments must be passed by both chambers of the General Assembly twice, with a House election in between, before going to Virginia voters for a final vote of approval.
House elections take place in November.
The governor cannot veto a constitutional amendment.