Why the November Ballot Matters More Than Most Elections

Virginia Christian Alliance  |  Constitutional Education Series, Part 3 of 3  |  February 2026

This is the third and final article in VCA’s Constitutional Education Series. In Part 1, we showed that Virginia’s Declaration of Rights came before — and inspired — the U.S. Bill of Rights. In Part 2, we showed that Virginia’s Constitution protects your rights twice and, in several areas, goes further than federal law.

Now we come to the most urgent question of all.

On November 3, 2026, Virginia voters will decide two constitutional amendments — HJ1 and HJ3 — that were placed on the ballot by the Democratic-controlled General Assembly and signed by Governor Spanberger on February 6, 2026. If both pass, Virginia’s Constitution will be permanently transformed in ways that cannot be undone by any governor or any future legislature.

This is not a normal election. This is not a vote for a candidate. This is a vote on the Constitution itself — the same document George Mason wrote, the same document James Madison built the Bill of Rights upon, the same document founded on the conviction that rights come from God, not government.

Every Virginia Christian voter needs to understand exactly what a “yes” vote means before stepping into that booth. That starts with understanding two words: strict scrutiny.

What Is Strict Scrutiny? Plain English, No Law Degree Required

Courts review laws at different levels. Think of it as three tiers — low, medium, and high.

The lowest tier is called rational basis. Under this standard, a law stands as long as the government can point to any reasonable purpose for it. Almost every law passes this test. It is a low bar and easy to clear.

The middle tier is called intermediate scrutiny. The government has to show a more important reason, and the law has to actually achieve that goal. Some laws fail this test, but many still survive.

The highest tier is strict scrutiny. This is the most demanding standard courts apply. Under strict scrutiny, a law is presumed unconstitutional from the start. The government must prove two things: first, that it has a compelling interest — not just a good reason, but an urgent, overriding, rare reason; and second, that the law uses the least restrictive means possible to achieve that interest. If the government cannot prove both, the law is struck down.

Under strict scrutiny, the law is presumed unconstitutional. The government must prove it has a compelling interest — and that no less restrictive alternative exists.

Strict scrutiny was originally designed to protect the most fundamental rights — free speech, racial equality, voting. Courts apply it sparingly because it is nearly impossible to survive. That is the point. When a right is protected by strict scrutiny, almost any law that limits it will be struck down.

HJ1 proposes to embed abortion in Virginia’s Constitution as a fundamental right — protected by strict scrutiny. That is not a small thing. It means that virtually every law Virginia has ever passed to put any limit on abortion becomes vulnerable to a legal challenge. And the track record in other states shows exactly what happens next.

What Strict Scrutiny Has Already Done in Other States

HJ1 is not a new idea. A growing number of states — including Michigan, California, Vermont, and others — have adopted constitutional abortion or reproductive freedom amendments that trigger strict-scrutiny-style review. We don’t have to guess what happens. We can look at what already has happened.

The table below shows common-sense laws that were upheld under the previous federal standard — laws that most Virginians would consider reasonable — and what strict scrutiny has done to them in other states:

Let those examples sink in. A 24-hour waiting period — time for a woman to reflect and be sure — struck down in Michigan in 2025, with similar challenges now underway in other states. Parental consent for a minor seeking an abortion — struck down in Alaska, California, Florida, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. Informed consent — the requirement that a doctor tell a patient what they are agreeing to — permanently struck down in Michigan in 2025 under that state’s 2022 reproductive freedom amendment.

Laws like these were generally upheld under the old federal Casey standard. Once voters wrote abortion rights and strict-scrutiny-style tests into state constitutions, many long-standing protections have been struck down. That is what HJ1 brings to Virginia.

WHAT THIS MEANS FOR VIRGINIA:  Virginia currently has a parental consent law for minors seeking abortions. If HJ1 passes, that law would almost certainly face an immediate legal challenge under the new strict scrutiny standard — the same standard that has already struck down parental consent laws in five other states.

HJ1 in Plain English: What the Amendment Actually Says

The amendment’s language matters. Here is what HJ1 proposes to add to Virginia’s Constitution:

“That the right to reproductive freedom, including the right to make and carry out decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, shall not be denied or infringed by the Commonwealth or any political subdivision thereof. The Commonwealth shall not penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against an individual based on their actual, perceived, or potential pregnancy outcomes. Any governmental action that burdens this right must be justified by a compelling governmental interest and must be achieved by the least restrictive means.”

Walk through that language carefully.

“All matters relating to pregnancy” — this is broader than abortion alone. Legal scholars note it could encompass contraception, fertility treatments, and other reproductive decisions. The breadth is intentional.

“Potential pregnancy outcomes” — this phrase means the state cannot take adverse action based on what might happen in a pregnancy. Legal experts warn this language could be used to challenge any regulation that touches on pregnancy at any stage.

“Compelling governmental interest” and “least restrictive means” — this is the strict scrutiny formula. As the table above shows, it is a standard that strikes down parental consent, waiting periods, and informed consent requirements in state after state.

“Political subdivision thereof” — this language extends the amendment to every county, city, and town in Virginia. Local governments would have no ability to pass their own regulations.

KEY POINT:  The amendment does not define what counts as a compelling interest or what counts as least restrictive. Those questions will be answered by courts — not by voters, not by the legislature, not by the governor. Once ratified, the interpretation is out of Virginia voters’ hands.

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness.” — Isaiah 5:20

HJ3: What the Marriage Amendment Actually Does

HJ3 proposes to repeal the constitutional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman — a definition Virginia voters approved in 2006 — and replace it with a prohibition on denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Same-sex marriage is already required by federal law under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell decision. What HJ3 does is constitutionalize it specifically in Virginia’s own Constitution — and that distinction matters enormously for what happens next.

On its face, HJ3 is narrower than HJ1. But its passage would have two significant consequences that Virginia Christians need to understand.

It Removes the 2006 Voter Decision from the Constitution

In 2006, Virginia voters amended their Constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. That was a direct expression of the will of Virginia’s citizens through the constitutional process.

HJ3 erases that decision and replaces it with the opposite principle — in the same document that George Mason used to declare that rights come from God and that governments exist to protect them.

It Creates New Legal Exposure for Christian Institutions

Once same-sex marriage is a state constitutional right — not just a statutory right or a federal mandate — the legal pressure on Christian businesses, churches, and nonprofits in Virginia increases significantly. A constitutional right carries more legal weight than a statute. Courts can apply it more broadly. And the history of similar provisions in other states shows that religious liberty exemptions come under sustained legal challenge once constitutional marriage equality is in place.

The 2023 Vlaming ruling — which we covered in Part 2 — shows that Virginia’s religious liberty clause gives Christians meaningful protection. But that protection is tested most severely when it is pitted directly against a competing constitutional right. HJ3 creates that competition.

“So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” — Genesis 1:27

Why This Vote Is Different From a Normal Election

When you vote for a candidate, you are choosing who holds power for two, four, or six years. If you don’t like what they do, you can vote them out. Elections are reversible.

When you vote on a constitutional amendment, you are not choosing a person. You are changing the foundation that every law is built on. And unlike an election, that change cannot be reversed by the next governor or the next General Assembly.

To undo a constitutional amendment in Virginia, you need a majority of the legislature in two consecutive sessions — which means the earliest a reversal could take effect is four years after ratification — plus another statewide voter referendum. That is a long road back, especially in a state where the political environment can shift quickly.

THE MATH:  Democrats currently hold the Virginia House 64–36 and the Senate 21–19. If they maintain those margins in November 2026 legislative races, a future reversal of HJ1 or HJ3 becomes constitutionally impossible until at least a different legislative majority exists — and then it requires two full sessions plus a voter referendum on top of that.

George Mason designed Virginia’s rights to be durable. The amendment process he created was meant to make changes deliberate and serious. The Democrats in Richmond have now used that process to insert the opposite of Mason’s founding principles into his founding document.

If Virginia voters ratify HJ1 this November, the document that declared all men have inherent rights given by God will also declare that the unborn have no constitutional protection — and that any law attempting to give them one must survive the most hostile legal standard courts apply.

The same constitutional process Mason designed to protect liberty is now being used to entrench its opposite. What voters decide in November cannot be undone by morning.

A Word About Voting and the Church

Some Virginia pastors are uncertain about addressing ballot measures from the pulpit. The concern about maintaining a church’s tax-exempt status is real and understandable. But there is an important distinction that every pastor should know.

Federal tax law prohibits churches from endorsing or opposing candidates for political office. It does not prohibit churches from educating their congregations about ballot issues, constitutional amendments, or public policy questions — within the IRS’s limits on lobbying activity. A pastor can say — and say clearly — what a constitutional amendment does, what its legal effects are, and what Scripture teaches about the sanctity of life and the nature of marriage. That is not partisan politicking. That is pastoral faithfulness.

The Family Foundation of Virginia has materials designed specifically to help pastors address these issues in a legally appropriate and theologically faithful way. Connecting your pastor with those resources is one of the most valuable things a Virginia Christian can do before November.

The prophets were not silent about unjust laws. They spoke directly to lawmakers who used legal authority to contradict God’s righteousness and harm the vulnerable. Isaiah’s words have not expired.

“Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed…” — Isaiah 10:1–2

“When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.” — Proverbs 29:2

What You Can Do Before November

1. Understand the amendments before you vote. Read the actual text of HJ1 and HJ3, available at the Virginia Division of Legislative Services at lis.virginia.gov. Do not rely on a headline or a campaign ad.

2. Share this series with five people in your church before the summer. Most Virginia Christians don’t know this history or these stakes. Parts 1, 2, and 3 together give them everything they need to vote as informed citizens.

3. Talk to your pastor. Share the Vlaming ruling, the strict scrutiny table, and the reversibility question. Ask if the church will distribute voter education materials in October.

4. Pray specifically. These are not abstract legal questions. Real families, real children, and real institutions are affected by what Virginia voters decide in November. Bring it before God.

5. Vote. Virginia’s off-year elections are decided by margins that most people would find shocking. In 2021, the Virginia House of Delegates flipped on an average margin of a few hundred votes per district. Your vote — and the votes of the people you talk to — can decide this.

To read the Virginia Constitution yourself, visit law.lis.virginia.gov/constitution — it’s shorter than you think and belongs in every Christian household in Virginia.

The Complete Constitutional Education Series:

Part 1 — Virginia Didn’t Copy the Constitution: The Constitution Copied Virginia The historical foundation — George Mason, the Declaration of Rights, and how Virginia came first

Part 2 — Your Rights Are Actually Doubled: What Virginia’s Constitution Adds on Top of Federal Protections The legal framework — how state and federal protections stack, the Vlaming ruling, and the amendment threat

Part 3 — Why the November Ballot Matters More Than Most Elections The urgent call — strict scrutiny in plain English, the comparison table, HJ1/HJ3 consequences, and the November vote

Virginia Christian Alliance  |  vachristian.org  |  Constitutional Education Series, Part 3 of 3  |  February 2026