A Campbell County judge on Tuesday dismissed a case that challenged Virginia’s pending reproductive rights amendment. Those who challenged the amendment said they plan to appeal.
In February, the General Assembly passed and Gov. Abigail Spanberger sent onto voters a proposed reproductive freedom amendment to the state constitution that will be one of three proposed amendments on the fall ballot. If a majority of voters approve the amendment, it would take effect in 2027 and would protect Virginians’ right to make and carry out decisions relating to contraception, fertility treatments, childbirth and abortion in most instances. The other two amendments would enshrine the right to a same-sex marriage and automatically restore civil rights to felons once they have served their time.
In March, Charla Bansley, a Bedford County supervisor, filed a lawsuit against the clerk of the House of Delegates, Paul Nardo, and other Virginia election offices and officials, claiming that they hadn’t followed proper procedure when advancing the reproductive rights amendment to the ballot. Bansley’s complaint sought an injunction to stop the constitutional amendment from proceeding to the ballot and asked a judge to rule that Nardo had failed to follow the rules.
At the center of the case is a now-repealed section of state code that had directed the clerk of the House to send copies of proposed amendments to circuit court clerks across the state, and directed that proposed amendments be posted on the courthouse door and made available for inspection at every circuit court to educate voters on upcoming referendums. The code was repealed by the General Assembly in February when it advanced this year’s constitutional amendments, including the one for reproductive rights.
On Tuesday, Bansley’s lawsuit, which was filed in Bedford County Circuit Court, was heard by Judge John Cook in Campbell County Circuit Court. Cook dismissed the case, citing the repeal of the code — and saying that, even when the code was in effect, it was “directory” and not “mandatory.”
Cook also agreed with Erin McNeill, Nardo’s legal counsel from the attorney general’s office, that Bansley lacked standing in the case. McNeill said that Bansley did not experience unique, particularized harm that would warrant a lawsuit, and that generalized harm to voters across the state doesn’t qualify her for standing.
Daniel Schmid, the associate vice president of legal affairs for the Liberty Counsel, who represented Bansley, said in an interview after the hearing that he’s disappointed in Cook’s decision and plans to appeal it.
“Virginia citizens have the right to a transparent, orderly constitutional change, and any misstep undermines the integrity of the amendment process and can interfere with the will of the voters,” Liberty Counsel stated in a news release Tuesday.
Throughout Tuesday’s two-hour hearing, lawyers discussed details of the now-repealed code section, including how and when it was repealed and applied to this year’s constitutional amendment process, and how much of an effect it really has on voters’ rights.
The future of the reproductive rights amendment remains in flux as an appeal takes shape and as a November vote looms.
This isn’t the first time an amendment has hit legal snags this year. In May, the Supreme Court of Virginia voided the vote for the redistricting amendment as unconstitutional due to issues with the legislative process used to advance it, after the majority of Virginians supported the redistricting amendment in an April referendum.
