The updated spending plan no longer includes environmental standards data centers would need to meet in order to be exempted from the state’s sales and use tax, an issue that has stalled budget negotiations for weeks and sparked speculation about a government shutdown if the parties can’t finalize the budget by June 30.

“This budget comes through for Virginians in a real and meaningful way without introducing a single new tax,” Torian said in a statement. “It anticipates future federal funding cuts by establishing a reserve – so when Washington turns its back again on Virginians we are prepared to step in.”

The dueling House and Senate budget proposals differ over whether data centers should continue to be exempt from the state’s 5.3% sales and use tax. State data shows the industry saves about $1.6 billion annually through the exemption, money Senate lawmakers say the state should recoup by ending the tax break.

Data centers have to routinely upgrade and replace pricey computer equipment, which is the bulk of where they save with the exemption.

The new House proposal removes the that would have mandated developers limit data centers from co-locating with power facilities that emit carbon emissions.

The previous proposal also outlined energy efficiency requirements for the digital warehouses, including using newer backup generator models that emit less carbon.

The instead proposes creating a commission of stakeholders and lawmakers to study the impacts and benefits of the data center industry in Virginia.

The commission would be required to report to the General Assembly by Nov. 1 on ways to ensure energy demands don’t put extra costs onto residential utility customers. The commission would also scrutinize local tax revenue impacts and “other ways to generate revenue from the industry”.

“(It will be a) full investigation into energy costs, financial impacts,
 air quality, water conservation, renewable energy, and community impacts,” Scott said, “So the 2027 General Assembly can pass real national reform. Or if the governor would like, we could come back right after that report … for a special session.”

Scott has staunchly supported preserving data centers’ exemption, he said,�� because of the local tax revenue the centers generate and the that come with the construction of the facilities.

Gov. Abigail Spanberger has also publicly supported keeping the exemption, saying the state should “honor its commitments” to businesses that have located in the commonwealth. She praised the updated House budget on Friday.

“This proposal creates a clear roadmap for evaluating the impact of the data center industry in Virginia and for reassessing the state’s incentives into the future, with a focus on fairness to ratepayers and the needs of local communities,” Spanberger said in a statement.

Senate members’ response to the updated House budget was unclear Friday afternoon, with no comment from Finance Chairwoman Sen. Louise Lucas, D-Portsmouth.

Lucas has been adamant about ending the tax exemption for data centers since the Senate spending plan was introduced earlier this year.

“I want (the money) to go towards hard working families. We’ve got people who are struggling to put food on the table, to put a roof over their heads, pay for their car payment, their kids school. I want that money to go back to them,” Lucas said then.

The House is slated to return to Richmond to debate this proposal on June 18, while the Senate, who has not yet released an updated budget proposal, will return on June 22. If a budget is not passed by the end of the month, state services and employee pay will be interrupted.

Source

Rocovich stated in a four-page letter addressed to the Secretary of the Commonwealth that he will not resign before his term ends on June 30, 2027. There was no sign of him at the board’s committee meetings on Monday in Blacksburg.

Spanberger’s decision is the latest effort by her administration to shake up governing boards at Virginia’s colleges and universities, amid concerns within the higher education community about the politicization of public university governing bodies. She recently appointed four new members to Tech’s governing board.

Spanberger removed Rocovich, citing “misconduct” in a letter sent last Wednesday, but the letter did not specify the details of Rocovich’s alleged violations, only stating that the findings provided “sufficient cause” for his removal. Rocovich pushed back on that claim.

“I was appointed to serve a term, I have served that term faithfully, and I intend to fulfill my obligations to the students, faculty, and people of Virginia who depend upon the proper governance of this great university,” Rocovich wrote. “Governor Spanberger’s letter failed to state my specific cause, as the law requires. I am confident she will find no such grounds.”

Board member Will Holtzman, who was appointed by former Gov. Glenn Youngkin and will complete his term next year, said he was “disappointed” with the governor’s decision.

“I think all of us were disappointed because I think it’s a unanimous feeling of our group that he has done a phenomenal job, and I didn’t understand at all why she removed him, and I don’t think there was any cause for it,” Holzman said.

Lawmakers have also urged the governor to explicitly state her reasons for the termination.

Senate Republican Caucus Chair Mark Obenshain, R-Harrisonburg, said Rocovich deserves “fairness,” and emphasized that transparency is “not optional” concerning the governor’s decision to boot Rocovich from the board.

“What makes this decision especially disappointing is that Governor Spanberger campaigned on a promise to depoliticize higher education governance and to reduce executive involvement in the affairs of Virginia’s universities,” Obenshain said in a statement on Friday. “Removing the sitting rector of Virginia Tech without publicly stating a lawful basis appears inconsistent with those commitments.”

Edward Baine, executive vice president of utility operations and president of Dominion Energy Virginia, who was appointed to replace Rocovich, attended the first committee meeting on Monday.

He did not comment on his appointment on Monday morning, but asked Provost Julie Ross about the university’s efforts to address enrollment, which the board expressed interest in growing.

Rocovich’s dismissal followed the board’s vote to grant an exception allowing him to serve a third one-year term as rector during the search for Virginia Tech’s next president, following Tim Sands’s departure in April, Cardinal News reported last month.

The board minutes noted that Rocovich was elected rector because no other nominees were available and he was willing to serve.

A native of Roanoke and a Virginia Tech graduate, Rocovich founded a law firm and specializes in taxation as well as trusts and estates law. He served on the board of visitors from 1997 to 2005, was appointed for a term from 2010 to 2014, and was rector from 2002 to 2004.

According to the Virginia Public Access Project, Rocovich has donated to several Republican campaigns and candidates, including formerRepublican gubernatorial nominee and Spanberger rival Winsome Earle-Sears.

In his letter, Rocovich criticized the termination and the governor, expressing his “disappointment” with her use of a “subordinate“ to deliver the message, which he said was the opposite of the respect he showed Spanberger by calling her directly to discuss the board.

“Virginia Tech deserves better than to be made a political football,” Rocovich wrote. “I have given too much of my life to this institution to stand by silently while its independence is threatened—regardless of which party holds the governor’s office.”

The governor and attorney general’s offices did not immediately respond for comment on whether they will enforce the termination.

The board’s committee meetings continued on Monday. The board will have a full meeting on Tuesday. The body will vote on a new rector and vice rector to replace Rocovich and Sandy Davis, who died on March 17.

Source

The House of Delegates is scheduled to reconvene its special session June 18 at 10 a.m., followed by the Senate on June 22 at noon, as budget that can pass both chambers and reach Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s desk before the June 30 deadline.

Failure to enact a budget before the new fiscal year begins would result in a government shutdown, creating fiscal uncertainty for state agencies, local governments and school divisions that depend on state funding. Spanberger has repeatedly warned against allowing negotiations to extend beyond the deadline.

“It’s absolutely unacceptable if the General Assembly would allow for the state to go past July 1,” .

Lawmakers have remained at since the regular 2026 General Assembly session ended without a budget, despite Democrats controlling both chambers of the legislature. A special session in April also ended .

The biggest sticking point is a Senate-backed to begin the state’s sales and use tax exemption for data centers before it expires nine years from now.

Senate Finance and Appropriations Committee Chair Louise Lucas, D-Portsmouth, has argued the fast-growing industry places increasing demands on Virginia’s electrical grid and water resources while producing relatively few long-term jobs.

Spanberger and have opposed ending the incentive prematurely, arguing it could damage Virginia’s reputation with businesses and discourage future investment.

The tax exemption was approved in 2008 and is authorized through 2035. Lawmakers originally estimated it would reduce state revenue by about $1.5 million annually. Today, its value is estimated at nearly $2 billion a year, as Virginia has become the world’s largest data center market.

Spanberger said she is open to discussions about what happens after 2035.

“There are efforts afoot in the General Assembly, as it relates to the budget, to ensure that data centers are paying their fair share, as I think everyone broadly agrees is necessary,” Spanberger in mid-April. ”And so that will continue to play out in those negotiations.”

But the governor said she opposes changing the policy before the exemption lapses.

“If Virginia were to take an adversarial stance towards any particular industry, it sends the wrong signal broadly, and we’re already seeing it with the decision to move away from the tax abatement,” she in an interview published last week.

“It is the absolute prerogative of the General Assembly to look towards the future and to have conversations about incentives they do or do not want to give into the future.”

She also warned that ending the incentive early could invite legal challenges.

“As governor, I’m not going to break a contract that the state has signed — one, because who’s going to fund those lawsuits when we have to defend ourselves from broken contracts?” Spanberger said.

The dispute has put the governor at odds with Lucas, one of the Senate’s most powerful members.

, formerly Twitter, Lucas blamed the administration and House Democrats for the continued stalemate.

“The Governor and the House are the ones that are gambling with our future by allowing the data centers to expand without concern for power, water, or paying their fair share of taxes,” Lucas wrote.

“The Governor should be honest and tell the public what she won’t do — she won’t tax billion dollar corporations to provide long term revenue to help pay for K12 and public safety and to backfill the federal cuts from Trump.”

“That’s the budget hold up!! Once again, the Governor is wrong on the policy and knows Virginians will cook her if there is a government shutdown.”

Lucas has repeatedly defended the Senate proposal during budget discussions.

At a Senate Finance Committee meeting in May, the state should not continue providing the incentive without additional policy changes.

“Data centers will employ very few permanent jobs for a sizable tax giveaway,” Lucas said.

“This is imperative to encourage responsible growth in the commonwealth to protect our electric grid and natural resources, while also ensuring hard working Virginians are not asked to pick up higher utility costs to fund a higher share of our existing core services,” she added.

Despite the disagreement, Lucas said at the time that she expects lawmakers to reach a deal before the new fiscal year begins.

“Virginia will have a budget by June 30,” she said. “We will have to get this right for Virginians.”

Meanwhile, state officials are preparing to aid negotiations.

Earlier this month, state finance officials to roll out a revised revenue forecast that will include projections through fiscal year 2031. The administration said the updated forecast is intended to give budget conferees a clearer picture of the state’s fiscal outlook.

“When making long-term budget commitments, it is important that policymakers have the most current and accurate information available,” Spanberger said in a statement. “This updated forecast will help provide budget conferees and the public with greater confidence as negotiations continue on the commonwealth’s next two-year budget.”

The request came as Virginia Secretary of Finance Mark Sickles that parts of the state’s economy are showing signs of weakness.

During last month’s meeting of the Senate’s money committee, Sickles pointed to slower job growth, persistent inflation and declining consumer confidence, even as state revenues continue to exceed expectations.

Those stronger revenues have given negotiators additional room as they work toward a budget agreement before July 1.

Source

The focus on reinvesting express lane revenue is reflected in the estimated $46.5 million the commonwealth expects to generate from its express lanes, which are designed to mitigate congestion through alternative traffic lanes.

The Office of the Virginia Secretary of Transportation said in a statement that one of its core goals is maximizing the benefits and value of Virginia’s existing infrastructure, including express lanes in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads.

Rising operating and labor costs threaten the stability of transit funding in Virginia, underscoring the urgency of reinvesting toll revenue into public transportation.

“Governor (Abigail) Spanberger has clearly said that affordability is a primary goal for this administration,” the office stated. “Offering affordable transportation choices looks different across Virginia and for different Virginians. But for much of urban and suburban Virginia — one way of providing transportation affordability means expanding fast and reliable transit options.”

The , operated in partnership with the commonwealth and the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission for the past 10 years, has helped take cars off the road and move commuters onto express lanes.

The program also invests toll revenue to improve transportation options and reduce congestion, including transit.

“There’s an incredible benefit of putting express lanes and transit together,” said Kate Mattice, NVTC executive director, during the May 19 Commonwealth Transportation Board work session.

“The ability to take 50 people who otherwise would be in a car, either in the general purpose lanes or in those express lanes paying tolls, could be sitting in a single bus. And so the program that we have here is a way to effectively remove vehicles, which means both for the general purpose lanes as well as the express lanes is the ability to be moving things more reliably.”

Arlington County Board of Supervisors Chair Matt de Ferranti told the board during last week’s work session that transportation is about “the people.”

“There are many residents in different parts of the commonwealth who are walking, biking, or taking transit and the buses,” de Ferranti said. “We certainly saw it through COVID that so many of the heroes in our community were taking the bus and Metro.”

As government interest in using toll funds for public transit grows, the Virginia Department of Transportation has pushed back on cost-related objections by noting that most trips are toll-free because of HOV and transit exemptions.

Data shows 55% of users pay no toll on Interstate 66 inside the Beltway Express Lanes, meaning more than half of trips are toll-free. Similarly, 55% pay no toll during morning hours on I-95 express lanes from Exit 166 to Exit 169 in Fairfax County.

Other concerns include whether express lanes are beneficial and whether drivers improperly switch their Flex Pass to HOV mode to avoid tolls. A Flex Pass allows drivers to save on lane use or ride for free when enough passengers are in the vehicle.

VDOT said it is adding more cameras and automated enforcement to detect misuse.

On the other hand, the agency said express lanes offer ”significant benefits for economic competitiveness and travel reliability” by reducing travel times, incentivizing carpooling and managing congestion through pricing.

“Express lanes work best when many of the people in them ride in carpools or buses,” the secretary’s office stated. “We will work with stakeholders in our existing express lanes, and the soon-to-open lanes in Hampton Roads, to maximize the benefits by maximizing carpooling and transit use.”

The board took no action on the presentation but instructed staff to improve communication about how express lanes work and to avoid placing them in every location.

“I think as we think about I-81 and other projects in the future, maybe we need to give more consideration to using express lanes where that makes sense,” board member Raymond Smoot said on May 19. “They don’t make sense everywhere obviously, but this has been very insightful.”

Source

“It’s something that you don’t necessarily notice, or don’t notice when it’s missing — until you need it,” she said.

As a state lawmaker, she knew the next window of opportunity to update the state’s uniform building code would come in 2026. The process, where public health, safety and efficiency standards can be set for future construction, happens every three years.

At the state’s May 11 Board of Housing and Community Development meeting, it advanced the Northern Virginia lawmaker’s . After the public has the chance to weigh in, there will be a final vote on the measure.

Bennett-Parker also planned to submit a proposal to include , which resemble the ones for babies, albeit a bit larger. But she learned that Virginia’s code was already being updated to include it. The adult-sized stations can help people with mobility challenges or disabilities.

As she worked on drafting her proposal, Bennett-Parker posted in various parents-focused Facebook groups where she said she was “inundated very quickly with lots of stories.”

The experiences reflected a “public health issue,” Bennett-Parker said, because without changing stations, caregivers must often choose between using a restaurant table, limited bathroom counter space or the “dirty floor” to tidy up their infants.

“I think some people think ‘oh just go change your baby in your car,’” she said. “But that only works if you have a car.”

As respondents weighed in on social media to Bennett-Parker’s prompts, they shared anecdotes about keeping “puppy pee pads” in their diaper bags to use as disposable mats to lay babies on.

“I can’t even count the number of times where this happened to me or where I’ve encountered a fellow parent in this situation,” Marta Schantz wrote. “I’d often be judged by fellow bathroom-goers, but where else are parents supposed to change our kids’ diapers?”

Crystal Martin relayed that she’s experienced about 60 to 70% of women’s bathrooms having changing stations while only about 10% of men’s bathrooms have them.

Men echoed the issue when Bennett-Parker first presented her proposal to the state board last October, and signaled support by raising their hands.

Though the requirement will entail extra costs to developers, Bennett-Parker said she didn’t get much pushback on that front because “in the grand scope of things, this is a fairly minimal expense.”

, the leading brand for wall-mounted changing stations, typically retails for under $300 dollars per table, though some can cost over $1,000.

Virginia will be among 16 states that have implemented or are considering requiring along with 10 states that have required .

“A bunch of other states have done this, so I am happy we are joining them,” Bennett-Parker said.

Editor’s note: This story has been corrected to reflect that the proposal to require diaper-changing stations in all newly constructed buildings has advanced but must still receive public feedback and the Board of Housing and Community Development’s final approval before it is added to the state’s building code.

Source

The mixed actions frustrated and baffled some Democratic lawmakers who argue Spanberger is sending conflicting signals on immigration enforcement and other legislative priorities during a period of growing fear surrounding ICE operations across Virginia.

The moves highlighted the careful line Spanberger has tried to maintain during her first six months in office. She has  criticized federal immigration enforcement tactics while resisting proposals she argues could create legal conflicts, public safety concerns or unintended consequences.

The immigration decisions came alongside a wider set of vetoes touching on legal cannabis retail, prescription drug regulation, election administration, higher education governance and criminal justice policy — angering some Democratic lawmakers and advocacy groups that had expected more support from a Democratic governor.

Mixed immigration signals

Among the most controversial vetoes were �����Ի���, companion measures focused on courthouse security procedures, attorney access and electronic device policies in Virginia courthouses.

While the legislation itself focused on courthouse operations and attorney access, some supporters and immigrant-rights advocates previously argued the measures could also help reduce fears surrounding immigration enforcement activity at courthouses.

But Spanberger rejected the measures, saying she was unconvinced they would improve safety.

“Without additional study or a clear public safety benefit, I do not support mandating new statewide security screening exemptions for attorneys at courthouses,” the governor — a former law enforcement official herself — wrote in her veto statement.

“Any such statewide changes to security protocols should be based on clear evidence that such changes would have no impact on — or ideally, improve — public safety.”

The decision drew immediate criticism from Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell, D-Fairfax, who is an attorney, and the legislation’s sponsors, Sen. Saddam Azlan Salim, D-Fairfax, and Del. Karen Keys-Gamarra, D-Fairfax.

In a joint statement, the lawmakers said they were “deeply disappointed” by the veto and argued the governor misunderstood both the legislation and existing courthouse practices.

“The governor’s stated concern, that allowing attorneys to bypass security screening poses a public safety risk, misreads both the bills and the people they cover,” they said, arguing attorneys are licensed professionals subject to Virginia State Bar discipline and criminal penalties for the misuse of credentials.

The lawmakers also noted that law enforcement officers already routinely bypass courthouse screening procedures.

“The very population the current system trusts to skip screening has a documented misconduct rate higher than the population the governor’s veto deems too risky to extend the same courtesy,” they said.

They also argued that the veto preserves what they described as a “scattershot patchwork of local rules” that creates confusion and delays for attorneys and clients statewide.

On Wednesday, Spanberger still took several steps aimed at addressing concerns surrounding federal immigration enforcement in Virginia.

She signed �����Ի���, which increase transparency and accountability requirements for law enforcement officers operating in the commonwealth. The legislation comes amid national scrutiny over federal immigration agents conducting operations while masked or without visible identification.

“Law enforcement officers wearing masks on American streets undercut basic expectations of accountability, sow fear and confusion, and erode the public trust,” Spanberger said in a statement.

The governor said Virginians had witnessed “the horrors of what can occur when masked federal immigration enforcement agents engage in fear-based policing and enforcement theater on American streets.”

Executive order addresses ICE activity

Also on Wednesday, Spanberger issued , directing state agencies and institutions to establish guidance for employees interacting with federal immigration officers at sensitive locations including schools, hospitals, courthouses, polling places and commonwealth attorneys’ offices.

The order bars state property from being used as a staging area, processing site or operational base for federal civil immigration enforcement activity. It also requires state agencies to verify federal officers seeking access to state property possess valid warrants or other legal authorization.

The order additionally directs state agencies to create online resources explaining residents’ legal rights and allowing reports of alleged misconduct by federal agents.

“Kids in elementary school are afraid to get on the bus, neighbors fear being targeted based on their appearance at the grocery store, and workers are not showing up at their jobs,” Spanberger said. “Public trust in state and local law enforcement is being undermined by the aggressive tactics used by federal immigration officials.”

The executive order follows Spanberger’s veto of �����Ի���, legislation supporters said was intended to further limit immigration enforcement activities in sensitive areas.

“We strongly disagree with Gov. Spanberger’s veto of SB 351. This is a disappointing choice that undermines public safety and accountability in Virginia,” said Salim, the sponsor of the Senate measure.

“This bill is a common-sense measure that would have protected Virginians and strengthened trust in our institutions. As an immigrant who carries his passport card as many immigrants do, I know the fear of being separated from our families due to the Trump administration’s lawlessness.”

The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia also criticized Spanberger’s decision on the legislation, arguing the governor undermined protections lawmakers intended to create for immigrants and courthouse visitors.

“Lawmakers recognized that when ICE agents can make warrantless arrests inside Virginia courthouses, the rule of law itself is under attack — so they took decisive action to protect it,” ACLU of Virginia Policy Director Chris Kaiser said in a statement.

“It is shocking that Gov. Spanberger would choose to veto the protections these bills would have provided and replace them with an executive order that does nothing to keep Virginians safe.”

Spanberger acknowledged the concerns behind the legislation but said the bills would create unworkable legal conflicts for local officials and security personnel.

“As a former law enforcement officer, I share many Virginians’ concerns regarding the dangerous and unchecked federal immigration enforcement actions we have seen across the country,” she wrote.

But the governor said the bills would place security staff and law enforcement “in the untenable position of choosing between violating state law or federal law.”

She also warned the legislation would create a false sense of legal protection for immigrant families.

The actions build on earlier immigration-related measures  last month, including legislation limiting cooperation agreements between local jails and ICE.

Broader vetoes frustrate Democrats

Immigration bills were only part of a much larger wave of vetoes that angered Democratic lawmakers and advocacy groups this week.

On Tuesday, Spanberger  that would have launched Virginia’s adult-use cannabis retail market, delaying legal marijuana sales in the commonwealth for at least another year. She also  establishing a Prescription Drug Affordability Board intended to lower certain medication costs statewide.

The governor also vetoed , dealing with voter roll maintenance, saying she supported the bill’s intent but worried it could create unintended burdens for grieving family members of deceased voters.

She rejected , which would have restructured  program, arguing the changes could strip nearly 800 businesses of eligibility and reduce SWaM spending by at least $340 million.

Spanberger also vetoed �����Ի���, saying the proposals would create inconsistent legal standards involving defendants with mental illness or developmental disabilities.

Other vetoes include , dealing with private funding and gifts for election administration;�������Ի���, which would have added menopause and perimenopause protections to the ;��, involving mandatory recordings of child welfare interviews; and �����Ի���, which proposed changes to higher education governance that Spanberger said risked further politicizing Virginia universities.

“I support the intent of many of the bills I am vetoing,” Spanberger said in a statement summarizing her actions, “however, it is my responsibility as governor to make sure all new laws can be successfully implemented and protect against unintended consequences that harm Virginians.”

At the same time, Spanberger highlighted major legislation that she did sign this year, including measures ,�� and addressing , healthcare and �����ڴڴǰ��岹���������ٲ�.

“With the chaos out of Washington continuing to raise prices and create uncertainty for families and businesses alike, we have shown Virginians that we can deliver to make our communities safer, stronger, and more affordable for all,” the governor said.

Source

The governor previously expressed support for the bills that would allow more Virginia public workers to organize in unions and negotiate their working conditions and pay rates.

Spanberger first sought amendments to and , which one of the bill’s carriers, Senate Majority Leader Scott Surrovell, D-Fairfax, characterized as “a total rewrite.” On Thursday, Surovell confirmed the governor told him in a private call she planned to veto the measure.

The proposal, backed by the Virginia Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and various labor groups, would expand on a 2020 law that permits local government employees in Virginia to opt-in to collective bargaining if their localities allow it.

“I put forth amendments which would have required the state to set up a system allowing state employees, home care workers, and higher education service employees to enter into collective bargaining agreements first, in order to demonstrate the efficacy of this new system, with public employees in localities following closely after,” Spanberger said in a explaining her veto.

The governor’s action came just over three weeks after legislators rejected her recommendations in their in Richmond on April 22.

Some Virginia counties and cities have allowed public school teachers, city hall janitorial staff, firefighters and other workers to do this and the proposed measure would have made it possible statewide.

Spanberger seemed on board with the bills, lawmakers said, and had attended a SEIU rally in Richmond in February in support of them.

Surovell said that he and fellow Democratic Fairfax County lawmaker Del. Kathy Tran, who carried the House version, compromised aspects of their bills during the legislative session as part of the process to get it to Spanberger’s desk.

But “when the session was over, (Spanberger) came up with an entirely new bill,” he said. “It’s kind of hard to negotiate when the goal post gets put on a different field.”

Spanberger’s proposed changes sought to delay provisions of the bill until 2030 and shift authority over how the system operates to a state board.

Thursday afternoon,�� Spanberger defended the changes she’d suggested for the bill.

“While preserving the enrolled bill’s focus on allowing public employees to achieve collective bargaining, my amendments would have also provided additional flexibility for public employers to take into account existing local budget timelines and processes,” she wrote.  “However, the General Assembly rejected these amendments.”

Workers call veto ‘a betrayal,’ Hashmi reaffirms support of bills

With a May 23 deadline to take final actions on remaining legislation, SEIU members crashed a bill signing Spanberger attended earlier this week to urge her to sign the collective bargaining bills.

On Thursday ahead of the formal veto, Virginia Professional Firefighters, who’d been at their association’s biannual convention in Henrico County, stepped away to protest Spanberger’s planned veto.

Kurt Detrick, the new incoming president of the union association, called the governor’s actions “an absolute betrayal” after the conversations and advocacy the association has been part of with other unions throughout the legislative session.

He noted that Virginia’s firefighters and other groups had also lent their input and support when Surovell and Tran advanced their proposal to former Gov. Glenn Youngkin. That too, faced a veto.

Of Virginia’s roughly 11,000 firefighters, Detrick said about 8,000 to 9,000 of them still don’t have seats at the table because their localities have not opted in.

Many of these public safety workers want to push for safe staffing levels, which they hoped the bills’ success could enable them to do, Detrick said.

This would ensure that more staff are on duty at the same time to respond to emergencies. It would also require localities to pay more, a key concern for opponents of the bargaining bills.

House Minority Leader Terry Kilgore, R-Scott County, said that his caucus has “made repeatedly clear, this bill would have driven up local taxes unsustainably.”

Tran’s and Surrovell’s new law would have mandated localities allow for collective bargaining, although there was also language to allow localities to reject the mandate if they lacked the local funding to handle it.

The Virginia Public Sector Labor Coalition, which includes SEIU and Virginia’s firefighters, also issued a press release calling Spanberger’s expected veto “Orwellian,” because she had previously expressed support for the bills.

The labor coalition also chalked up the governor’s rejection of the bills to pressure from local leaders. Local officials from all regions of the state sent the governor of collective bargaining on Monday.

Thursday evening, Virginia Lt. Gov. Ghazala Hashmi, who was elected alongside Spanberger on the Democratic statewide ticket last fall, restated her support for the collective bargaining bills, a stance at odds with the governor’s position.

“Virginia’s workers deserve the right to organize for fair wages, worker protections, and a seat at decision-making tables,” Hashmi wrote. “I am determined and optimistic that Virginia will make collective bargaining available to public sector unions.”

The first-term lieutenant governor, a career educator and former state delegate said she would “continue to fight for legislation that lifts up public servants.”

Spanberger’s office has not responded to requests for comment on her veto.

Source

In a multi-state , the attorneys general argue the proposal is unlawful and would create what they describe as a dangerous loophole in federal law that has restricted the mailing of concealable firearms for nearly a century.

“This loophole puts guns in the hands of those barred by Virginia law from buying weapons, and it allows people to blatantly dodge background checks and access illegal firearms,” Jones said in a statement. “The federal government continues to undermine the law and (is) putting our communities at risk in the process.”

The dispute stems from a issued by the U.S. Department of Justice under President Donald Trump’s administration, which concluded that a long-standing federal statute restricting the mailing of certain firearms is unconstitutional.

“So long as Congress chooses to run a parcel service, the Second Amendment precludes it from refusing to ship constitutionally protected firearms to and from law-abiding citizens, even if they are not licensed manufacturers or dealers,” the opinion stated.

The department said it would no longer enforce the law and directed the Postal Service to align its regulations accordingly.

On April 2, the Postal Service published that would conform to that guidance, prompting pushback from a coalition of states — including Virginia — that say the executive branch lacks the authority to override in 1927.

In their letter, the attorneys general contend that the statute remains valid and enforceable, noting it has never been struck down by a court.

They argue that allowing firearms to be shipped through the mail without going through licensed dealers would bypass background check requirements and increase access for people barred from owning guns, including felons and domestic abusers.

The states also warn the change could complicate criminal investigations by weakening existing firearm tracing systems. Without federal trace data tied to licensed sellers, law enforcement agencies could face higher costs and new logistical challenges in tracking weapons used in crimes.

The proposal would mark a significant shift in how firearms move across state lines. Under current practice, federal law limits the mailing of concealable weapons through USPS, while private carriers such as UPS operate under their own policies and legal obligations regarding firearm shipments.

According to the letter, USPS “recognizes no statutory obligation” to ensure packages comply with varying state laws governing firearm purchases and transfers, raising concerns about enforcement gaps if the rule takes effect.

The attorneys general further argue that the Second Amendment does not require the Postal Service to permit firearm shipments, because the underlying federal law governs only the mailing of weapons, not the right to possess them.

They also point to historical precedent, noting that firearms were largely excluded from the mail for much of the nation’s history.

Beyond legal questions, the states say the proposal could carry financial consequences. They warn that state and local law enforcement agencies may need to develop new tracking systems to monitor firearms sent through the mail, adding strain to already tight budgets.

The letter outlines scenarios in which individuals prohibited from owning firearms under state law — including those with felony convictions or subject to restraining orders — could obtain weapons shipped from other states, potentially including firearms that are otherwise banned where they live.

Virginia joined a group of states led by New Jersey, New York and Delaware in signing the letter. Other states include Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia.

The debate comes amid broader national disputes over gun policy and federal authority, as states continue to adopt different approaches to firearm regulation.

In Virginia, Gov. Abigail Spanberger last month amended and signed of gun legislation, marking one of the most significant overhauls of Virginia’s firearm laws in years.

The changes clarify a ban on the future sale of certain semi-automatic “assault” firearms, restore background checks for private sales, raise the minimum age for some purchases to 21 and impose new safe-storage requirements, while also expanding restrictions on where guns can be carried publicly.

At the same time, lawmakers across the country are grappling with how firearms are bought, sold and transported, particularly as online marketplaces and interstate transactions become more common.

The Postal Service proposal remains in the rulemaking process, and it remains unclear whether or how the agency will revise the measure in response to the states’ objections.

Source

“I want to set a precedent for my kids, grandkids, nieces and nephews. I can’t tell them to go out and vote if I can’t do it myself,” King said in a to Virginia’s American Civil Liberties Union website, the organization that represented him and others in the class action lawsuit challenging Virginia’s restoration of rights process. “I want to set an example. The world is in uproar and chaos right now. It’s about trying to make things right.”

A federal court ruled earlier this year that Virginia’s current disenfranchisement of anyone with felony convictions violates laws that required former Confederate states to guarantee voting rights for newly-emancipated Black residents.

The series of laws, called the , had barred states from constitutionally disenfranchising people other than those convicted of crimes considered common law at the time. Under current law, however, unless they’ve petitioned a governor successfully.

The federal judge had originally given state officials a May 1 deadline to make sure that many of today’s crimes don’t strip voting rights. A new joint filing last week between King’s lawyers and the Office of Attorney General Jay Jones, grants an extension to June 1.

“We are committed to working with the Commonwealth to implement this historic expansion of voting rights and ensure newly eligible voters know their rights have been restored,” said ACLU attorney Vishal Agraharkar. “It’s past time for us to finally and formally right this wrong.”

Groundwork for a constitutional amendment

The legal back and forth represents a multiyear effort to ensure people who are done serving time can participate in the democratic process again.

King’s lawsuit challenged Virginia’s historic disenfranchisement by targeting former Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin, who’d adjusted a once-automatic process to restore voting rights when someone finishes their sentence.

Two previous governors had streamlined that process before Youngkin switched the process to petition-based. With little clarity on what would garner a successful petition, under his tenure.

Concurrently, state lawmakers advanced an effort to into the state’s constitution. Having cleared the legislature two years in a row, it will appear on statewide ballots this November — meaning King and others will be able to vote to change the constitution that had once disenfranchised them.

“Voting to me means that my voice is being heard,” King said. “It means that I am fulfilling my obligation as a citizen of this state and of this country.”

When Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed the measure to advance the amendment to a ballot referendum earlier this year, she said: “When Virginians have paid their debt to society, they deserve to regain their right to vote.”

As state agencies work to formally define the list of crimes that may qualify or disqualify past offenders, June 1 will become the first day of eligibility for some to register to vote without first needing a governor’s approval. Details on how to register to vote are available on the .

Source

Filed in Tazewell County Circuit Court, the suit claims the ballot language is misleading and echoes arguments in a that challenged the .

Bluefield town council member Meagan Kade and Chesterfield County child psychiatrist Sheila Furey are represented by the Founding Freedoms Law Center, the legal arm of the conservative advocacy group Family Foundation.

“The language voters will see when they walk into the voting booth in November is engineered to obscure what this amendment actually does,” Family Foundation President Victoria Cobb said when introducing the lawsuit Thursday morning.

The plaintiffs argue the pending amendment would requirements for minors seeking abortions or surgical birth control procedures and pose safety risks by removing the current three-physician approval threshold for abortions later in pregnancy.

Those arguments mirror concerns that Furey and the Family Foundation have raised in public comments before legislative committees, as well as objections voiced by Republican lawmakers during of the amendment’s approval process so far.

Existing requires parental or guardian consent for surgeries on minors unless a minor successfully petitions a judge for approval.

Democrats, who to the ballot later this year, say it would not override existing state law but instead more firmly protect access to abortion, contraception and fertility treatment.

They have also pushed for years to eliminate the state’s three-physician requirement for certain later-in-pregnancy abortions, arguing that it can delay care for patients in rural areas facing life-threatening emergencies.

Alleging misleading representation in the ballot language, plaintiffs in the case reiterated that voters might not really know what they are voting for or against.

As a planned “no” vote, Kade said: “I could not stand by and allow my vote and the votes of many other Virginians to be effectively canceled out because the General Assembly has deliberately chosen to materially misrepresent the effects of the so-called reproductive freedom amendment.”

Ballot language: “Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to protect the freedom to make personal decisions about prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion, miscarriage management, and fertility care; protect doctors, nurses, and patients from being punished for these decisions; and 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?”

Kade is the second local government official to challenge the amendment. Bedford County Supervisor Charla Bansley filed March, represented by Liberty Counsel, alleging that Virginia House of Delegates Clerk Paul Nardo invalidated the amendment by failing to formally send a copy of its language to circuit court clerks across the state.

But a bill signed by Gov. Abigail Spanberger retroactively that requirement from .

“Courts do allow laws to take effect retroactively. They just sort of balance the damage done by retroactive laws,” Rich Meagher, a Randolph-Macon College political science professor, said when the previous suit dropped in March.

If upheld, the issue could affect all four constitutional amendments on the ballot this year. Aside from the reproductive rights amendment are referendums to restore voting rights for people with felony convictions who have served their time, same-sex marriage protections and a controversial mid-decade redistricting effort in Virginia that . A challenge to it is currently by the Supreme Court of Virginia.

Josh Hetzler, legal counsel in the latest case, said he believes the Liberty Counsel argument is “valid.”

The issue surfaced earlier in the week when the high court heard oral arguments in the redistricting suit.

“One of the points was, ‘there’s a reason why we require strict compliance with the rules for constitutional amendments, because these bind future generations.’ There was also some talk that ‘maybe people don’t necessarily get their news from the courthouse,’” he said.

Hetzler said his case is primarily focused on what he described as the “deceptive language” of the ballot amendment. He said his clients hope the court could order a rewrite before early voting begins Sept. 18.

He and Cobb emphasized they are not trying to block the amendment from reaching voters, but believe the current wording is misleading.

Hetzler also suggested the decision to file the suit in Tazewell County was strategic. With Kade as plaintiff in the area — and the Town of Bluefield located in Tazewell County — he said the venue made the case possible.

Tazewell County has already been the source of legal challenges to the redistricting amendment, cases that have since been elevated to the Supreme Court of Virginia.

“It’s no secret that the Tazewell Circuit Court has become something of a subject matter expert on ballot measures,” Hetzler said. “They’ve had a lot of time to think about it. And so we felt that we should go there.”

Source

Six years before police say he fatally shot his wife and himself, Justin Fairfax had been the tie-breaking vote on state legislation that allows temporary confiscation of guns from people deemed at-risk of harming themselves or others.

“This is a terribly painful irony,” Del. Rip Sullivan, D-Fairfax, said. “The red flag process is directed at trying to prevent these tragedies.”

New ways to raise a flag

Two of Sullivan’s bills to update the red flag law were recently signed by Gov. Abigail Spanberger. Preventing gun violence is an issue he’s cared about for a long time, he said.

Sullivan’s House Bill 901 (and companion Senate Bill 495 by Sen. Creigh Deeds, D-Charlottesville) expands the option for people to petition a judge for substantial risk orders.

When these orders are granted, the subject loses their firearms and the ability to purchase others for up to 14 days. People can petition to restore their access to guns and can also be subject to a gun prohibition for up to 180 days under the law, if they’re deemed a threat.

Previously, commonwealth attorneys or law enforcement officers had been the only parties allowed to file the orders. With the new law, social workers, mental health professionals, school administrators and immediate family or household members will be able to seek them too.

Likewise, Sullivan’s HB 896 directs the state Department of Criminal Justice Services to establish a training program for law enforcement to ensure they know how to use the law and to spread the word about them through public outreach campaigns.

Sullivan said the measures are “meant to make sure that our communities know that this is an option out there.”

The updates to the law don’t take effect until July 1 but the current law was designed to prevent tragedies like the one that unfolded in the Fairfax home on April 16, when deadly violence erupted following signs of declining mental health, a judge had noted in a March 30 .

Justin Fairfax was accused of sexual assault while still serving as lieutenant governor in 2019, allegations he denied and that didn’t result in criminal charges. By 2021, he’d lost a Democratic primary for governor and his political career continued a downward trajectory.

His behavior changed, according to the custody order that included insights from family members amid their prolonged divorce.

Cerina Fairfax had described his periods of isolation, excessive alcohol consumption and failure to pay his half of the mortgage, groceries and utilities.

In 2022, he purchased a handgun with money meant for their two children to have horseback riding lessons. His brother later found him with it in a park and facilitated him speaking with a mental health professional in a mall parking lot late one night, The Richmond Times-Dispatch .

That moment, Sullivan noted, might have been one where the updated red flag law could have come into play, had it been law at that time.

Virginia’s divorce laws ‘outdated’

While the enhanced gun safety laws could have been helpful for the Fairfaxes, it appears their living situation was not.

Virginia law requires that couples be separated for six months or a year, if there are children involved, before being granted a divorce.

The Fairfaxes separated in the summer of 2024 and by 2025, Cerina Fairfax had initiated the divorce. show her husband tried legal tactics to prolong the process, arguing she had not initially disclosed intent to divorce when they separated.

The couple continued to live together during the separation and after initiating the divorce process, sleeping in different bedrooms.

Courtenay Schwartz with the Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Action Alliance said that finances are often a reason for couples to remain under the same roof when separating.

Though the former lieutenant governor was a lawyer and his wife was a dentist with her own practice, his legal work largely dried up after he left public office and he’d accumulated debt. Cerina Fairfax — as the rock of her family and a woman with a kind nature — handled household expenses and support for the children.

In the leadup to him murdering his wife and committing suicide, a Fairfax County judge noted Justin Fairfax’s “undefined emotional and psychological issues” that were “in fact defining him.”

If finances hampered the couple from living apart as tensions between them rose, it may have worsened matters, Loudoun Democrat Sen. Russet Perry, who is also a lawyer, said.

Perry’s prosecutorial background has included working with victims of domestic violence, and she has spotted trends in contributing factors to heightened violence.

“When people are very upset and to have them in this powder keg with difficulty separating, I’m not sure it does anyone any favors,” Perry said. “It can exacerbate things.”

The Fairfax murder-suicide on April 16 appeared to be the result of “ongoing domestic dispute surrounding what seems to be a complicated or messy divorce,” Fairfax County Police Chief Kevin Davis said.

Officers had been dispatched to the home months prior after Justin Fairfax alleged that his wife had attacked him. Police reviewed cameras she’d installed in the home, Davis said, to dispel the allegation and, after their deaths, to corroborate the sequence of events.

Schwartz suggested the interior cameras could have been a red flag amid their ongoing separation and imminent divorce, saying the surveillance was  “not normal.”

A judge had ordered Justin Fairfax to move out of the estranged couple’s shared home by April 30, and he had to undergo a breathalyzer before permitted visits with his children.

He was also scheduled to appear in court on April 21, to face a for failure to comply with previous orders.

Davis surmised the latest serving of paperwork may have been the “spark” that motivated him to kill his wife.

Perry said that while the public doesn’t know all the intricacies of the Fairfaxes’ crumbling relationship, their tragic ending is a reminder of how  laws can help people in similar or related situations.

She pointed to Sullivan’s HB 303, which Spanberger also recently signed.

While that law focuses on instances of adultery as grounds for a divorce being decreed, it also establishes a workgroup that can explore whether the state should end fault-based divorces altogether.

Schwartz and Perry say the concept is particularly helpful for spouses experiencing domestic violence. By allowing marriages to end without a fault-based system, it prevents prolonged and costly proceedings that can lead to further contact between the abused and abuser.

In her role as a lawmaker, Perry said she is considering carrying legislation to end fault-based divorce and remove waiting periods.

“I’ve thought for some period of time that our divorce laws are really outdated and pretty paternalistic,” Perry said.

Schwartz has witnessed how the delays impact some of her clients or people who have called a hotline hosted by her organization. They have relayed fear for their safety and their inability to afford  legal services to continue their divorce proceedings.

“The legal system is designed to move slowly and sometimes that is for good reason,” Schwartz said. “But I agree some reform is necessary. When people need to end their marriages, it should not be this difficult.”virginia

Source

The move leaves Spanberger with a binary choice: sign a long-debated proposal to launch retail sales or veto it and prolong a yearslong stalemate that has left Virginia in a legal gray area, where cannabis is allowed to be possessed, but not legally purchased.

The , which frustrated many lawmakers and stakeholders, would delay the latest start of retail sales to July 1, 2027, while restructuring much of the framework lawmakers during the session.

“Five years ago, the commonwealth took the first steps to legalize marijuana — and for five years, the work sat unfinished,” Spanberger said in a statement.

“We are working to set up a marketplace that is controlled, regulated, and responsible — because legal markets only succeed when there are clear guardrails and enforcement to back it up.”

Under her proposal, regulators would begin accepting license applications by Sept. 1, 2026, with various licenses issued in early 2027 ahead of the planned launch.

Lawmakers reject extensive rewrite

At the heart of the dispute is the governor’s attempt to rewrite large portions of and , the companion measures aimed at establishing an adult-use cannabis market in Virginia.

Del. Paul Krizek, D-Fairfax, who sponsored the House bill, said the modifications went too far.

“Some of the changes in there were fine, but most of them were contrary to where we had arrived through the legislative process,” Krizek said. Legislators and the governor “want a well-regulated, adult-use cannabis retail market in Virginia, and we’re going to get there. It’s just a process right now.”

Krizek said he hopes Spanberger ultimately signs the bill but acknowledged the uncertainty ahead.

“Whether it takes another session, or if she doesn’t veto it, then we’ll work with her on some of the changes that maybe she needs to see,” he said.

Pressed on whether the process has been challenging, Krizek did not hesitate.

“I can’t lie and say I’m not frustrated. I am a little bit frustrated, but she is the governor, I’m not the governor,” he said. “It’s a long process, but good legislation sometimes takes time.”

Spanberger, in a separate statement, said she intends to keep negotiating with lawmakers.

“I will continue to work with the patrons of the bills that are coming back to my desk to make sure that when these bills become law, we get it right,” she said.

Shift to regulatory framework, tighter controls

The governor’s proposed changes would fundamentally shift how the legislation that lawmakers sent to her desk structures Virginia’s cannabis market.

Rather than embedding detailed licensing rules in state law, Spanberger’s substitute would remove large portions of the statutory framework and instead direct the to establish those rules through regulations.

The proposal also reduces the number of retail licenses from 350 to 200 and extends that cap through Jan. 1, 2029, after which regulators would determine future limits.

It further restructures oversight of the Cannabis Control Authority by eliminating legislative appointments to its board and making all members gubernatorial appointees, while reducing required agricultural representation.

Other provisions of the enrolled bill would be stripped entirely.

Those include the , authority for the governor to negotiate cannabis-related agreements with tribal governments — federally recognized Native American tribes that can operate with a degree of sovereign authority — and a requirement for the to operate a tip line for reporting illegal activity.

The substitute would also change how cannabis tax revenue is distributed, eliminating fixed percentage allocations and instead directing lawmakers to allocate funds through the state budget for priorities such as public health, education and workforce development.

The state tax rate would be set at 6% until July 2029, rising to 8% thereafter.

Spanberger framed the changes as necessary to strengthen enforcement and public safety, particularly as the state grapples with an illicit market offering unregulated products.

“To keep our next generation safe, we must also ensure real consequences for vape shops that have spent years targeting Virginia’s kids,” she said. “We need to rein in these shady businesses and make sure a legal marijuana market does not make the problem worse.”

Penalties, timelines and market uncertainty

The substitute also proposes tougher penalties in several areas. Public consumption would increase from a civil penalty to a Class 4 misdemeanor, while underage possession would be treated as a Class 1 misdemeanor, with potential fines, community service and license suspension.

The personal possession limit would be reduced from 2.5 ounces to 2 ounces.

Additional changes target advertising restrictions, medical cannabis delivery requirements and hemp regulations, including delaying the elimination of the state’s 25:1 hemp ratio — a standard used to distinguish legal hemp products from marijuana based on THC concentration — until November 2026.

Beyond the retail legislation, lawmakers also rejected the governor’s proposed amendments to and , which would allow reconsideration of sentences for certain marijuana-related convictions.

Her changes would have clarified that individuals convicted of violent offenses or serious drugcrimes would not be eligible for reconsideration.

At the same time, Spanberger signed separate legislation targeting vape retailers, including and , which establish enforcement mechanisms to shut down shops that repeatedly sell to minors.

The measures require the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Authority to conduct periodic compliance checks.

Stakeholders warn of continued delays

Advocates and industry stakeholders offered different reactions to the legislature’s rejection of the governor’s substitute.

Chelsea Higgs Wise, executive director of , called the move a victory for equity-focused organizers.

“Virginia’s General Assembly rejecting the governor’s substitute is a testament to the work of equity, racial and criminal justice organizers,” she said.

“Not only would the governor’s substitute be worse for Black, brown and low income communities than the status quo, her language ignored the reform, repair and redress required to acknowledge the decades of racist enforcement.”

She urged Spanberger to allow the legislation to become law without further changes.

“The leader Virginia needs right now would listen to her constituents and allow the marijuana bills to become law this year,” Wise said.

Industry leaders, however, warned that continued delays risk prolonging an unregulated market.

“While we are disappointed by delays in establishing an adult-use cannabis market, we remain hopeful that the governor and lawmakers can come together to chart a clear, workable path forward for Virginia,” said Rodney Holcombe, vice president of public policy at .

“Unfortunately, every day without a regulated market is a day the illicit market continues to operate unchecked, undermining public safety, consumer protections, and, ultimately, legitimate businesses,” he added. “Virginia has done the hard work to get to this point, now it’s time to finish the job.”

Spanberger must take action on the cannabis retail bill — approve it without her tweaks or reject it completely — within 30 days.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Virginia Mercury maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Samantha Willis for questions: info@virginiamercury.com.

Source

“I have made it very clear that I support a yes vote, and I think Virginians should vote ‘yes,’” she told reporters outside the Executive Mansion in Richmond. But, she added, “my priority and my responsibility is on governance.”

The governor has until midnight on Monday to act on hundreds of bills that the General Assembly sent to her desk last month.

, set for April 21 with early voting already underway, would temporarily allow Virginia to redraw its congressional districts mid-decade — a departure from the once-per-decade redistricting cycle — in response to aggressive map changes in other states encouraged by President Donald Trump.

Supporters say the move is necessary to maintain partisan balance nationally, while critics argue it risks politicizing the process.

A recent highlighted the tight divide among voters, with 52% of likely voters saying they’re in favor of the measure. The findings underscore both the significance of the vote and the uncertainty heading into the final weeks before the election.

Spanberger dismissed suggestions that her approach has been too restrained compared with other Democratic leaders, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who for a redistricting-related ballot measure in his state last year.

That measure, expanded reforms tied to independent redistricting oversight and was framed as a response to partisan gerrymandering concerns nationwide.

“I would argue that a second-term governor taking up an issue that’s important to him, that’s his choice,” Spanberger said of Newsom, drawing a contrast with her own position as a brand-new governor less than 90 days into her tenure: “It’s very different from a first-term governor, literally at the end of her first session.”

She pointed to significant spending already backing the referendum, including “seven-figure ad-buys” featuring her directly addressing voters.

“There’s over a million dollars worth of TV ads with my face on it,” Spanberger said. “And at the same time, my priority is doing the job that I told Virginians I want to do, which is governing.”

The governor’s balancing act comes as she faces mixed political headwinds. The Washington Post-Schar School poll also found her approval rating at 47%, with 46% disapproving and 7% undecided — a tightening margin that has drawn national attention.

Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, the dip as “stunning” in early coverage of the poll, noting that such numbers could complicate her standing within the Democratic Party as national attention intensifies.

Spanberger brushed aside concerns about the polling, emphasizing her electoral mandate and ongoing work in office.

“If everybody hated me, why is everybody putting my face on their mailers for the referendum?” she said. “What matters to me in the end is what I am delivering for people.”

She added that criticism of her approach “seems to run at odds with the fact that everybody thinks I’m a convincing character in whichever way they want that referendum vote to go,” seemingly referencing a GOP-funded featuring Spanberger and former President Barack Obama that critics decried as misleading.

Spanberger reiterated Wednesday: “For the record, the misinformation’s strong. I voted ‘yes’ and encouraged other Virginians to do the same.”

National and state Democrats are also ramping up public engagement efforts in the final stretch before the vote.

On Thursday evening, Roland Martin is set to host a live “Vote Yes” town hall at Virginia State University, featuring House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, U.S. Sens. Mark Warner and Tim Kaine of Virginia, Virginia House Speaker Don Scott, and U.S. Rep. Jennifer McClellan, D-Richmond.

The event, which will also be live-streamed, is expected to focus on encouraging early voting ahead of “Super Saturday,” when additional early voting access expands statewide, as supporters make a final push to mobilize voters before the April 21 referendum.

Republicans, meanwhile, have seized on the issue to mount a coordinated opposition campaign.

Former Gov. Glenn Youngkin recently criticized the referendum during an appearance hosted by Sean Hannity of Fox News, calling it “illegal and unconstitutional” and warning it would undermine the state’s redistricting framework.

Youngkin is scheduled to appear at a “Vote No Rally” in Lynchburg on Saturday alongside U.S. Rep. John McGuire, R-Powhatan, and U.S. Rep. Jen Kiggans, R-Virginia Beach. Also slated to attend are state Sens. Mark Peake, R-Lynchburg, and Luther Cifers, R-Prince Edwards, and Del. Wendell Walker, R-Lynchburg.

McGuire and Kiggans are among the Republican incumbents whose districts would become more competitive if the referendum passes.

The politics around it have put Spanberger in a delicate spot — one that analysts say reflects both caution and the realities she’s dealing with.

Veteran Virginia political analyst Bob Holsworth said the governor’s approach is consistent with how she has handled the issue from the outset.

“She’s supportive, but at the same time, she doesn’t want to place all her political capital on it,” Holsworth said, noting that the referendum was not originally her initiative. “This was something that she almost inherited.”

Holsworth added that governing demands — including stalled — have likely limited her ability to campaign more aggressively, even as Democrats work to turn out voters.

“I think it would have been helpful if Spanberger had been more supportive,” he said, “but the reality is that she still doesn’t have a budget yet, so this has not been her highest priority.”

As early voting continues, the referendum is shaping up as both a policy question and a political test — not just for Virginia’s congressional map, but for Spanberger’s influence within her party.

“The reality is that this is about Congress, this isn’t about governing Virginia,” Holsworth said. “For someone who certainly would want to have a national profile, if the referendum doesn’t pass, she will take a significant hit from national Democrats, they will put the blame on her.”

Source

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the lawsuit argues that Trump’s March 31 order unlawfully attempts to reshape voter eligibility and mail-in voting by directing federal agencies to create a national list of approved voters — and limiting ballot distribution to those on that list.

“This is a blatant attempt by Donald Trump to sow confusion and distrust in our democratic processes and to influence the midterm elections for his own personal gain,” Jones said in a statement.

He added that the president’s order does not affect balloting for Virginia’s April 21 redistricting referendum. Early voting is already underway, and state leaders sought to reassure voters about the integrity of the current process.

But if left in place, the order would disenfranchise voters in the November election, Jones said.

“This fearmongering and arrogation of states’ authority is plainly unconstitutional. I’m proud to join attorneys general across the country in defending the right to the franchise and to use every legal tool available to us to stop the president’s illegal power grab,” he said.

According to the complaint, Trump’s executive order directs the United States Postal Service to transmit mail ballots only to voters included on a federally maintained eligibility list — a move the attorneys general argue would override existing state voter rolls and election procedures.

The order also threatens state officials with criminal prosecution and the loss of federal funding if they fail to comply.

The coalition contends that such directives conflict with longstanding constitutional principles that give states primary authority over administering elections.

While Congress has some authority to regulate federal elections, the lawsuit argues, the president cannot unilaterally impose sweeping changes without legislative approval.

Legal scholars and election experts have long emphasized that the decentralized nature of U.S. elections — with states and localities controlling voter registration, ballot access and vote counting — is a core feature of the system.

Disputes over election administration have intensified in recent years, particularly following the expansion of mail voting during the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent political battles over access and security.

The attorneys general argue the executive order would force states to abandon or significantly alter their existing systems for maintaining voter rolls and administering absentee ballots. All states involved in the lawsuit currently allow eligible voters to cast ballots by mail under their own laws and procedures.

State and federal law entitle all eligible voters to cast ballots and have their votes counted, the complaint states. Mail voting, the coalition notes, is widely used by voters across the political spectrum, including the president himself.

The complaint warns that states would be forced to overhaul election procedures within weeks of primary contests and just months before mail voting begins for the 2026 general election.

That compressed timeline, attorneys general argue, risks “confusion, chaos, and distrust” while potentially disenfranchising eligible voters.

The coalition’s lawsuit asks the court to block the federal government from implementing or enforcing the executive order, arguing it violates the separation of powers and unlawfully interferes with state-run election systems.

Source

The package of bills, all of which cleared the General Assembly with unanimous or bipartisan support during its 2026 session, reflects a broad push by lawmakers to strengthen emergency preparedness in schools, improve mental health resources, modernize student safety education and provide additional tools for educators working with at-risk youth.

With the governor’s signature, the measures will become law.

“As the parent of three daughters in Virginia public schools and a former federal law enforcement officer, nothing is more important to me than the safety of Virginia’s kids,” Spanberger said in a statement.

“Every Virginia parent deserves peace of mind knowing their kids are safe, supported, and set up for success — and that their school is prepared for any emergency.”

Spanberger added that the legislation is intended to give teachers and school staff the training and resources they need while reinforcing safety priorities shared by families across the commonwealth. She thanked both Democratic and Republican lawmakers for their support.

Lawmakers target threats, school readiness

At the center of the legislative package is an effort to strengthen how schools identify and respond to potential threats.

One measure, , sponsored by Del. Amy Laufer, D-Albemarle, requires threat assessment teams in K-12 schools and public colleges and universities to receive additional training on emergency substantial risk orders, often referred to as “red flag” laws.

Those orders, already permitted under Virginia law, allow for the temporary removal of firearms when someone is deemed a danger to themselves or others.

The new requirement incorporates that training into existing annual instruction, aiming to ensure school-based teams are better prepared to recognize warning signs and coordinate with courts when intervention is needed.

Lawmakers also expanded how educators are trained to support students facing mental health challenges.

by Del. Rozia Henson, D-Woodbridge, sets clearer standards for required mental health awareness training, directing school divisions to include evidence-based practices tailored to students considered at higher risk.

That includes youth affected by suicide, students with disabilities or chronic illnesses, those experiencing housing instability or foster care placement, and students who identify as LGBTQ+.

The law also makes explicit that the training cannot be used to justify discriminatory or biased treatment, while still allowing local divisions flexibility in how the instruction is delivered.

In response to the evolving digital landscape, legislators updated requirements for internet safety education.

Under , Del. Alex Askew, D-Virginia Beach, schools will incorporate expanded instruction on topics such as online privacy, responsible social media use and the risks associated with digital platforms.

The updated framework also emphasizes recognizing online exploitation and understanding the permanence of digital footprints, integrating those lessons into existing curricula rather than creating a separate course.

Another measure gives school divisions the option to equip staff with wearable panic alarm systems designed to alert emergency responders of a crisis.

, carried by Del. Shelly Simonds, D-Newport News, allows the devices to send signals directly to 911 and trigger schoolwide alerts when necessary.

The law also directs the Virginia Department of Education to establish a grant program — contingent on state funding — to help offset the cost for divisions that choose to adopt the technology, with priority given to those demonstrating need.

Beyond emergency preparedness, several of the newly signed laws focus on expanding support for students considered at risk of academic failure.

A separate bill, by Del. Delores McQuinn, D-Richmond, broadens how school divisions can use state funding targeted at those students, allowing the money to cover physical and mental health services.

That includes hiring licensed practical nurses, registered nurses and advanced practice registered nurses to work in schools, reflecting a growing emphasis on the connection between student health and academic outcomes.

Sen. Barbara Favola, D-Arlington, sponsored the companion measure, .

Another proposal, , sponsored by Del. Sam Rasoul, D-Roanoke, makes permanent a school-based initiative originally launched as a pilot program in Roanoke and Petersburg.

By removing the program’s expiration date and designating it as a statewide demonstration model, the law signals an intent to expand efforts aimed at improving school climate and reducing youth violence.

The initiative focuses on workforce development, exposure to career and technical education and building social and emotional skills, combining academic support with broader community-based services.

Sen. David Suetterlein, R-Salem, carried the companion .

Measures aim to improve safety standards and fight child hunger

In addition to education-focused legislation, Spanberger signed measures aimed at improving public health oversight and addressing child hunger.

One new proposal, , introduced by Del. Patrick Hope, D-Arlington, requires Virginia’s Board of Health to establish comprehensive regulations governing public swimming pools and other water recreational facilities.

The updated framework shifts away from narrower requirements and instead mandates broader health and safety standards for facilities, including those associated with hotels and health spas, with the goal of creating more consistent statewide oversight.

Another measure, by Del. Cia Price, D-Newport News, requires school divisions to track and report unpaid student meal debt.

Each local school board will submit annual data to the Virginia Department of Education, which will then compile a statewide report for lawmakers.

The requirement is designed to provide a clearer picture of the scope of unpaid meal balances across Virginia while protecting student privacy by prohibiting the inclusion of personally identifiable information.

The effort stems from recommendations by the and is intended to inform future policy decisions addressing food insecurity.

This latest round of bill signings comes just days after Spanberger approved of legislation focused on lowering costs for Virginians, including measures targeting health care affordability, housing supply and energy prices.

Taken together, the legislation reflects a wide-ranging approach to student safety and well-being, combining immediate emergency response measures with longer-term investments in mental health, educational support and public health infrastructure.

With Spanberger’s signature, the measures will take effect as law by July 1.

Source