Virginia voters should vote no on all three constitutional amendments this November.
Not because every arguement raised by supporters is imaginary. Not because every hard case has an easy answer. But because a constitution is supposed to do one thing above all else: set durable guardrails.
It is not meant to become a running list of partisan priorities, rewritten whenever one side briefly has the votes to do so.
That is the real issue here.
The three amendments on Virginia’s November 3, 2026 ballot would add a constitutional right to unlimited abortion on demand, repeal Virginia’s marriage-ban language and replace it with new language recognizing marriage regardless of sex, gender, or race, and automatically restore voting rights to felons upon release from incarceration.
Those are not minor statutory edits. They are permanent constitutional changes.
Start with abortion.
Virginia law can already be debated, amended, tightened, or loosened through the normal legislative process. Enshrining abortion in the state constitution takes a matter that deserves public accountability and elevates it beyond ordinary democratic correction.
Even supporters admit the amendment is designed to make abortion policy much harder to roll back.
Many have argued the language is too broad and pressed unsuccessfully for explicit protection of parental-consent rules for minors and care for infants born alive after attempted abortions, but the supporters would have none of that.
That should trouble anyone who believes constitutional language ought to be narrow, clear, and careful.
If the text is broad enough to spark serious disputes over parental rights and basic limits, it is too broad for the constitution.
Then there is the marriage amendment.
Here the problem is not only policy. It is precedent. Virginia voters adopted the current one-man, one-woman marriage amendment in 2006.
This year’s proposal would repeal that voter-approved constitutional language and replace it with new wording affirming marriage regardless of sex, gender, or race.
It would open the door for all the other 32 genders, return men to women’s sports, locker rooms in schools, and of course, any state agent could take your child away if you refuse to allow them to permanently mutilate their bodies.
Even people who think Obergefell settled the legal question should hesitate before writing fresh and expansive language into the constitution.
The most visible opposition has warned that the amendment’s wording goes beyond cleaning up dead text and could entrench broader gender-identity disputes, with implications for religious liberty, parental rights, and sex-based rules.
You do not have to agree with every slippery-slope argument to recognize the central point: when language is this sweeping, courts and activists will test how far it reaches. They always do.
Finally, the felon voting amendment.
Right now, Virginia’s constitution says people convicted of felonies are not entitled to vote unless their rights are restored by the governor or other proper authority. The proposed amendment would make restoration automatic upon release from incarceration.
That is a serious moral and civic question. But automatic restoration erases distinctions that voters may reasonably believe still matter.
Opponents argue that restitution, review, and the nature of the offense should count, and that gubernatorial review should not simply be discarded.
That is not extremism. That is prudence.
A constitution should be difficult to change because power is always eager to make itself permanent.
Today’s majority wants abortion insulated, marriage language rewritten, and felon voting made automatic.
Tomorrow another majority will want something else. That is exactly why constitutions should be reserved for broad first principles, not rushed ideological trophies.
Virginia voters do not need to ratify every ambition of the present moment.
They can say NO.
NO to turning disputed social policy into untouchable constitutional dogma.
NO to vague language with predictable legal fallout.
NO to rewriting foundational rules because one side finally has the pen.
Vote NO on all three.
Keep the constitution as a guardrail, not a playground.
Follow Us