What happens in Virginia may not stay in Virginia.
The Commonwealth’s three proposed constitutional amendments are a Trojan Horse. Their proponents present them as merely protecting reproductive freedom, enshrining same-sex marriage, and restoring felon voting rights, respectively. And indeed, if all one were to read is the amendments’ descriptions on the ballot initiatives, one could be forgiven for thinking things really were that simple.
But the actual language contained in the three amendments goes far beyond the deceptive descriptions on the ballot and could have significant legal consequences down the road. If passed, these ballot initiatives will undoubtedly become a model for radical Democrats in states across the country.
Question 1: Reproductive freedom or freedom for abusers?
Question 1 would establish a constitutional right to reproductive freedom and sharply limit the circumstances in which government may interfere with its exercise. Its implications extend beyond abortion to other areas of reproductive care, raising questions about existing laws governing minors, parental involvement, and child protection.
Virginia currently requires parental consent or judicial authorization for most abortions involving unemancipated minors, subject to exceptions. The wording of the amendment would make these commonsense restrictions unconstitutional.
And how would courts reconcile the amendment with existing child-abuse reporting requirements? These are not abstract concerns. In my years prosecuting sex crimes, I encountered cases in which adults who had abused underage girls took them for abortions, potentially concealing evidence of their crimes. I have also recounted concerns shared with me by a former Planned Parenthood executive about clinic practices involving suspected abuse.
Such accounts warrant scrutiny, particularly when evaluating safeguards for vulnerable minors.
The amendment’s precise effect on existing laws would depend on judicial interpretation. That uncertainty deserves serious examination before constitutional language is adopted. The proposed amendment protects the procedure of abortion, not the child forced to get one by her abuser.
Question 2: Protecting same-sex marriage or promoting radical gender ideology?
Proponents say the second amendment on the ballot would simply remove Virginia’s existing constitutional restrictions on same-sex marriage and establish equal treatment for lawful marriages.
But if that’s all its authors wanted, they could have used the same language in Obergefell v. Hodges or the Respect for Marriage Act. They didn’t — instead inserting the word “gender” into the amendment and effectively making it a protected class under constitutional law — a subjective self-identifying term never tested by the courts.
Constitutional language does not remain confined to a single circumstance. Once adopted, it becomes part of the legal framework governing courts, public officials, and future lawmakers. Current laws involving women’s privacy, sex-separated facilities, and other interactions between the sexes could be challenged if Virginia voters approve Question 2.
Question 3: Restoring voting rights or undermining election integrity?
The third amendment on the ballot in Virginia this year is framed by its supporters as merely restoring voting rights to felons upon their release, but it actually goes far further than that. The amendment does not require the felon to complete probation or pay restitution before restoring all “political rights,” including the right to vote and to serve on a jury.
Moreover, the amendment’s language effectively says that the government may only burden the voting rights of felons and the mentally incapacitated, laying fertile legal groundwork for challenges to existing election laws, including voter identification requirements, absentee-ballot rules, and ballot-challenge procedures the left claims constitute voter suppression and an unjustified burden on voters.
The amendment would not automatically invalidate those laws — the outcome of any challenge would depend on judicial interpretation and applicable law. Nevertheless, voters deserve to understand the potential for litigation over rules governing election administration. It is particularly telling that the questionable language was not needed to accomplish the claimed objective.
Beware the Democrats bearing gifts
Three amendments, one strategy. It worked for the Greeks, and if it works for the Democrats in Virginia, Americans across the country could soon find the rule of law subtly subverted in their own backyards.
TRUMP IS RIGHT. THE VIRGINIA REDISTRICTING REFERENDUM WAS RIGGED
A constitutional republic depends on citizens understanding the laws that govern them and ensuring that any constitutional changes are debated honestly and openly before adoption. Those standards should transcend party politics, but in Virginia, Democrats have done their utmost to ensure voters are not getting a chance to read the fine print.
If this strategy of deception works in Virginia — it will be coming to your state soon.
Phill Kline is the official spokesman for Defend Virginia’s Sons and Daughters. He served as the 41st attorney general of Kansas, as a Kansas district attorney, and state legislator. He is presently a law professor and lives in Amherst, Virginia, with his wife Deborah.