With Virginians already casting ballots in the November election, a legal challenge over the process used to place a proposed constitutional amendment protecting reproductive freedoms on the ballot is moving to the Virginia Court of Appeals.
The appeal was filed Oct. 19 by Liberty Counsel on behalf of Bedford County Supervisor Charla Bansley. It asks the appellate court to overturn a lower court decision that dismissed Bansley’s complaint asserting that the General Assembly did not satisfy constitutionally required public notice procedures when advancing the amendment now presented to voters as Question One.
What the amendment would do
The amendment’s ballot text would add protections for a range of reproductive-health decisions to the Virginia Constitution, including abortion, contraception and fertility treatment. The wording presented to voters reads in part:
"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?"
Bansley’s legal team contends that officials did not meet notice requirements the state constitution establishes when the General Assembly passed the amendment in its two required sessions separated by an intervening House election. Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver has argued that the public notice steps were not properly followed.
Procedural challenge at the heart of the case
Under Article XII of the Virginia Constitution, an amendment must be approved by the General Assembly in two consecutive sessions, with a House of Delegates election occurring between those approvals, before it can be referred to voters. The language and notices associated with those approvals are part of the constitutional scheme that informs voters and the public about proposed changes.
The appeal does not directly challenge the substance of the amendment. Instead, it raises questions about whether the procedural steps — specifically public notice obligations identified by Bansley and Liberty Counsel — were satisfied before the amendment was forwarded to the ballot.
Legal posture and possible implications
Liberty Counsel filed an opening brief asking the Court of Appeals to reinstate the challenge and to review the lower court’s dismissal. If an appellate court were to find merit in the notice argument, it could prompt additional litigation over whether Question One should remain on the ballot or what remedial steps, if any, would be required. The filing arrives while ballots are being cast, creating practical and legal tensions about how and when courts can act in the run-up to election certification.
The challenge underscores the interplay between legislative procedure and voter-facing ballots: even measures that clear the General Assembly can face later legal scrutiny about the way they were advanced.
What’s on the ballot
To clarify the proposal for readers, here are the amendment’s three central elements as presented to voters:
- Protect personal decisions about prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion, miscarriage management and fertility care.
- Protect medical providers and patients from punishment related to those decisions.
- Permit restrictions on abortion during the third trimester except when the patient's health is at risk or the pregnancy cannot survive.
| Ballot item | Summary |
|---|---|
| Question One | Add constitutional protections for reproductive decisions and carve out third-trimester restrictions with health exceptions |
Local actor, statewide stakes
While the plaintiff in the case is a local official from Bedford County, the challenge has statewide implications because it targets the process that placed a measure before all Virginia voters. The dispute highlights how actions taken in the General Assembly and the procedural safeguards built into the state constitution can become the focus of litigation with broad consequences.
The Court of Appeals will consider the questions presented in the opening brief; the filing asks that the earlier dismissal be reversed. The appeal does not itself change what is printed on ballots, and election administrators continue to accept and count ballots while courts weigh procedural questions.
As the appeal proceeds, voters and local officials will be watching for any rulings that could affect the certification of results or prompt further court action. For now, Question One remains on the ballot and voters’ choices will be tallied under existing election rules.
Adrian Larsen, ZTL.
