Virginia voters face three proposed constitutional amendments
The amendments would address reproductive freedom, same-sex marriage and voting rights for people convicted of felonies. Their supporters describe them as protecting abortion access, recognizing marriage rights and restoring voting rights, while critics say the proposed language could have wider consequences.
Kline argues the abortion measure would limit parental involvement and state regulation, including in cases involving minors. He says its protections for people who assist with abortions could also impede investigations of abuse. The marriage amendment’s use of the word “gender,” he contends, could invite legal disputes over rules involving sex-separated spaces and sports.
On voting, Kline says the proposed amendment’s stated exceptions do not include requirements such as photo identification or absentee-ballot verification, potentially exposing election safeguards to legal challenges. He also objects that voting rights would return upon release from incarceration, without waiting for parole or restitution to be completed. Kline urges Virginia voters to reject all three measures and warns that similar proposals could be pursued in other states.
Virginia amendments would protect rights, despite opponents’ warnings
Virginia’s three proposed amendments put basic rights before voters: reproductive freedom, recognition of same-sex marriage and restoration of voting rights for people convicted of felonies. Opponents have cast the measures as a hidden agenda, but their stated purposes are direct protections for people whose rights are at stake.
A former Kansas attorney general, Phill Kline, argues the abortion amendment could curb parental involvement and hinder abuse investigations. He also warns that the marriage measure’s use of “gender” could affect rules on sports and private spaces. Those concerns are his interpretation of the proposed language; the amendment is presented by supporters as protecting marriage rights.
Kline further argues that the voting amendment could prompt lawsuits against election safeguards and restore voting rights before parole or restitution is complete. Voters weighing the measures should consider the rights they are intended to protect as well as critics’ claims about their possible effects. The vote is scheduled for November 3.
Virginia’s ballot amendments reach far beyond their reassuring labels
The reassuring labels attached to Virginia’s three constitutional amendments obscure, in Phill Kline’s view, the risks in their text. Voters are being asked to approve changes described as protecting reproductive freedom, marriage and voting rights; Kline urges them to reject all three.
He argues the abortion amendment could weaken parental involvement and shield people who assist minors from state action, while making abuse investigations harder. He says the marriage proposal’s inclusion of “gender” could open disputes over women’s sports and private spaces. For conservatives concerned about courts and agencies expanding gender-related rules, he portrays that wording as a constitutional foothold.
Kline also warns that the voting amendment’s limited stated exceptions could invite legal challenges to photo identification, absentee-ballot verification and other election rules. It would restore voting rights upon release from incarceration, he says, without requiring completion of parole or restitution. His central argument is that constitutional changes are difficult to undo, and that Virginia’s vote could encourage similar measures elsewhere.
Reported by The Washington Examiner, The Daily Wire.
