On November 3, 2026, Virginia voters will decide three proposed amendments to the Virginia Constitution involving reproductive freedom, marriage equality, and voting rights.

At first glance, these may look like three unrelated ballot questions. They are not.

All three ask Virginians a larger and increasingly important question:

Which fundamental rights should depend on federal law, federal courts, or the policies of a particular administration — and which rights should Virginians protect in our own state constitution?

That question has become particularly important as protections involving reproductive health, LGBTQ+ families, transgender people, and people with disabilities are being challenged around the country.

Virginia voters have an opportunity this November to decide whether protections in three important areas should become part of the Commonwealth’s highest law.

Amendment 1: Reproductive Freedom — Including Fertility Care

The first proposed amendment would establish a fundamental right to reproductive freedom in the Virginia Constitution.

Importantly for individuals and families affected by infertility, the amendment is not limited to abortion.

Its language explicitly protects decisions involving:

• prenatal care;
• childbirth;
• postpartum care;
• contraception;
• abortion care;
• miscarriage management; and
• fertility care.

The proposed constitutional language states that every individual would have a fundamental right to make and carry out these decisions. The Commonwealth generally could not deny, burden, or infringe that right unless it could demonstrate a compelling state interest pursued through the least restrictive means.

For the infertility community, the inclusion of the words “fertility care” deserves particular attention.

IVF and other forms of assisted reproduction have traditionally been regulated primarily through state law. Questions involving embryos, donor conception, fertility medications, genetic testing, miscarriage care, and reproductive decision-making therefore can be directly affected by decisions made in state legislatures and state courts.

Putting fertility care expressly into Virginia’s Bill of Rights would create a level of state constitutional protection that does not currently exist.

This does not mean every conceivable IVF regulation would automatically become unconstitutional. But it would mean that Virginia government could not simply interfere with an individual’s reproductive decisions without satisfying a very demanding constitutional standard.

The ballot question also expressly addresses abortion. Virginia could regulate abortion during the third trimester, but the proposed amendment would prohibit the Commonwealth from banning an abortion when a physician determines that it is medically indicated to protect the patient’s life or physical or mental health, or when the fetus is not viable.

For Virginians who have experienced infertility, pregnancy loss, complicated pregnancies or assisted reproduction, Amendment 1 therefore involves considerably more than the abortion debate alone.

It asks whether reproductive decisions — including fertility care — should receive constitutional protection in Virginia.

Amendment 2: Marriage Equality — and the Families Built Within Those Marriages

Virginia’s Constitution currently states that only a union between one man and one woman may be recognized as a marriage.

That provision is presently unenforceable because of federal constitutional protections established by the U.S. Supreme Court, most notably Obergefell v. Hodges. But the language remains in Virginia’s Constitution today.

Amendment 2 would remove that prohibition.

In its place, Virginia’s Constitution would recognize marriage as an important personal right and prohibit the Commonwealth or its local governments from denying a marriage license to two adults because of their sex, gender, or race. Virginia would also be required to recognize lawful marriages between two adults and treat those marriages equally under the law.

For the infertility and family-building community, this has implications beyond the wedding ceremony itself.

Marriage is also a family-building issue.

Same-sex couples build families through IVF, donor sperm, donor eggs, gestational carriers, and adoption.

Recognition of a marriage can have consequences for:

• legal parentage;
• adoption and stepparent adoption;
• custody;
• inheritance;
• survivor benefits;
• medical decision-making; and
• other legal rights involving parents and children.

At present, federal law protects the marriages of same-sex couples. The key distinction is that federal protections are not the same as an affirmative right in Virginia’s Constitution.

If Amendment 2 passes, Virginia would have its own constitutional obligation to recognize these marriages equally — regardless of what might happen in the future in Washington or in the federal courts.

That distinction matters.

A family should understand the difference between having a right because the federal government currently requires Virginia to recognize it and having an additional guarantee written directly into Virginia’s own Constitution.

Amendment 2 would provide that state-level protection if federal law or federal court precedent protecting these individuals were changed in the future.

Amendment 3: The Fundamental Right to Vote — Including Important Protections for Virginians With Disabilities

The third amendment has often been described primarily as the amendment restoring voting rights to people convicted of felonies.

It does that — but it does considerably more.

The proposed amendment would establish the fundamental right to vote in the Commonwealth.

A person convicted of a felony would lose that right while incarcerated but would automatically regain political rights upon release, without needing an individualized restoration from the governor.

But another part of the amendment deserves far more attention, particularly among Virginia’s disability community.

Virginia’s current Constitution says that a person adjudicated “mentally incompetent” cannot vote until competency is restored.

The proposed amendment changes that standard.

Instead, voting could be denied on capacity grounds to someone specifically found to lack the capacity to understand the act of voting.

That is a profound distinction.

Having a guardian is not the same as being unable to understand voting.

An adult may need assistance managing money, healthcare, housing, transportation, or other aspects of daily life and nevertheless be perfectly capable of understanding that an election presents choices and that casting a ballot expresses that person’s choice.

Virginia has already enacted implementing legislation, contingent on approval of the constitutional amendment, that makes this distinction especially clear.

Under the new standard, a person could not be disqualified because of incapacity unless a court specifically found, by clear and convincing evidence, that the person lacks the capacity to understand the act of voting.

The law also requires considering reasonable accommodations appropriate to the person’s diagnosis or condition before making that determination.

This matters for Virginians with intellectual disabilities, developmental disabilities, neurological conditions, communication disabilities, and others who may require guardianship or extensive support.

Needing assistance is not the same as having no political voice.

Amendment 3 would put that distinction into Virginia’s Constitution.

Why State Constitutional Protection Matters Now

Virginians should understand what is happening this November for a larger reason.

For many decades, Americans have understandably assumed that major federal civil-rights protections, once established, would remain largely secure.

Recent events demonstrate why states also matter.

A particularly important example is unfolding right now in disability law.

Texas v. Kennedy and the Right of People With Disabilities to Live in Their Communities

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is one of the foundational federal civil-rights laws protecting people with disabilities.

At its core, Section 504 prohibits disability discrimination by programs and organizations receiving federal financial assistance.

Federal disability policy has also developed an integration mandate — the principle that people with disabilities should receive services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs rather than unnecessarily being segregated in institutions.

That principle is closely associated with the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 1999 decision in Olmstead v. L.C.

This is not an abstract legal issue.

For people who rely on Medicaid home- and community-based services, personal care attendants, developmental-disability services and other supports, community integration can mean the difference between living at home as a member of a community and being forced into an institution to receive necessary care.

That protection is now being challenged.

A lawsuit originally brought by a much larger group of states was amended in January 2026 to challenge federal Section 504 regulations concerning the integration mandate. After numerous states withdrew, Alaska, Florida, and Texas have continued to challenge the integration requirements.

The states argue, among other things, that the federal government exceeded its authority by requiring services to be delivered in the most integrated setting and by treating a serious risk of institutionalization as discrimination.

Then, on June 18, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion taking a significant position.

The OLC concluded that neither Section 504 nor Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act itself imposes an integration mandate on states and that federal executive agencies do not have authority to impose such a mandate through regulation. (Read their opinion here.)

Whatever ultimately happens in the litigation, that development should get the attention of every family in Virginia that depends upon disability services.

For decades, disability advocates have fought against the assumption that people who need significant support belong in institutions.

The modern disability-rights principle is very different:

People with disabilities should have the opportunity to live, receive services, and participate in their communities whenever community living is appropriate for them.

The current Section 504 dispute demonstrates something larger.

Federal protections can be challenged.

Federal regulations can be rewritten.

Federal agencies can change their legal interpretations.

Federal courts can reconsider precedent.

Administrations change.

Virginia governments change, too.

A right that exists only because the current General Assembly has enacted a statute can potentially be changed or repealed by a future General Assembly. One governor can also reverse policies established by another.

A constitutional right is different.

If Virginia voters place these protections in the state Constitution, a future governor or General Assembly with very different political views could not simply repeal them through ordinary legislation or executive action. State officials would remain bound by the Virginia Constitution, and courts could strike down laws or policies that violated those constitutional protections.

That does not mean constitutional rights are absolute or that future legal disputes disappear. Courts still interpret constitutional language, and Virginia’s constitutional process can ultimately amend constitutional provisions.

But the threshold is much higher.

That is one of the most important decisions voters are making in November: not merely whether they agree with today’s policies, but whether these rights should remain protected when Virginia’s political leadership changes.

State constitutions therefore matter.

A state constitution cannot prevent every change in federal law, and none of Virginia’s three 2026 amendments creates a broad substitute for Section 504 or the ADA.

But the Section 504 controversy illustrates why Virginians may want to ask a more fundamental question:

When we believe a right is fundamental, how much of its protection do we want to leave entirely to Washington — or to whichever political party happens to control Richmond at a particular moment?

That common thread runs through the three questions Virginia voters will answer this November.

Three Amendments — One Larger Question

Amendment 1 asks whether Virginians should have a constitutional right to make reproductive decisions, including decisions about fertility care.

Amendment 2 asks whether Virginia itself should guarantee that lawful marriages between two adults receive equal recognition regardless of sex, gender, or race.

Amendment 3 asks whether voting should be recognized as a fundamental right, whether people should regain that right after incarceration, and whether people with disabilities should lose the vote only when they have actually been shown to lack the capacity to understand the act of voting.

Different communities are affected by each amendment.

But there is considerable overlap.

A same-sex couple may need IVF to create a family.

A transgender person may need reproductive healthcare.

A person with an intellectual or developmental disability may need a guardian but still understand an election and want to vote.

A family raising a child with significant disabilities may depend upon community-based services that allow that child eventually to live outside an institution.

Human beings do not fit neatly into separate civil-rights categories.

And that may be one of the most important things for Virginians to remember when they see these three questions on their ballots.

Before You Vote: Think about it personally

Constitutional amendments can sound abstract when we read them as legal language on a ballot.

But these amendments are about people.

Before voting, think beyond political parties and consider the people in your own life.

You may have a daughter, sister, niece, friend, coworker, or neighbor who has struggled with infertility, experienced a miscarriage, undergone IVF, needed contraception, or faced a difficult pregnancy. Amendment 1 could determine what protections Virginia’s Constitution provides for that person’s reproductive and fertility decisions in the future.

You may have a son, daughter, sibling, cousin, friend, coworker, or neighbor who is gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. You may know a same-sex couple who is married, raising children, considering adoption, or using fertility treatment to build their family. Amendment 2 asks whether Virginia itself should guarantee that their marriage and the legal family built around it will continue to receive equal recognition.

You may know a person with an intellectual, developmental, neurological, or communication disability. Perhaps that individual has a guardian or needs considerable assistance in daily life but understands the world around them, has opinions, follows issues important to them, and understands what it means to choose one candidate over another. Amendment 3 asks whether the Constitution should distinguish between needing support and actually lacking the capacity to understand the act of voting.

Or perhaps none of these descriptions applies to you personally today.

That does not mean they never will.

Infertility can enter a family unexpectedly. Disability can result from birth, illness, injury, aging, or accident. A child or grandchild may one day tell you that they are gay or transgender. Someone you love may need a guardian. Families change.

Civil rights become much less abstract when the person whose rights are at stake has a name and a face you know.

So before marking the ballot, consider a simple question:

If this amendment affected my child, my grandchild, my sibling, my parent, my closest friend, or someone else I love, what protection would I want Virginia’s Constitution to provide to them?

We do not write constitutions only for ourselves.

We write them for our neighbors, our families, people we may never meet, and generations of Virginians who will come after us.

Virginia Voters Make the Decision

Constitutional amendments in Virginia ultimately belong to the voters.

Under Virginia’s constitutional process, after a proposed amendment has passed the required General Assembly process, it must be submitted to Virginia voters. If a majority of voters approve an amendment, it becomes part of the Virginia Constitution.

The Department of Elections confirms that all three amendments will appear on the November 3, 2026 general-election ballot and, if approved, will take effect January 1, 2027.

These votes deserve more than slogans from either side.

Virginians should read the language, understand whom it affects, and consider not only what the law looks like today, but what protections they want their Commonwealth to guarantee tomorrow.

Constitutions are written for precisely that reason: they establish rights that are meant to endure beyond a particular legislature, governor, president, or political moment.

On November 3, Virginians will decide whether reproductive freedom, equal marriage, and the fundamental right to vote should receive that protection in Virginia.

Note:

17 states filed the original lawsuit in 2024. By January 2026, only 9 states remained on the amended complaint focused on Section 504’s integration mandate: Alaska, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, South Dakota, and Texas.

Since then, 6 of those 9 states have dropped out or stopped participating — Indiana, South Dakota, Kansas, Missouri, Louisiana, and Montana — leaving only Texas, Florida, and Alaska actively pursuing the challenge as of August 2026.