An Act to provide for the submission to the voters of a proposed amendment to Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution of Virginia, relating to qualifications of voters; right to vote; persons not entitled to vote.
HB963 is a constitutional amendment resolution that places before Virginia voters a proposed change to Article II, Section 1 of the Virginia Constitution. The amendment would declare that every qualified voter has a fundamental right to vote in the Commonwealth, while preserving existing disqualifications for certain persons. It would also revise the felony-voting language so that a person convicted of a felony would be unable to vote during incarceration, but would automatically regain the right to vote upon release without needing further action from the Governor or another authority.
The proposal also updates the constitutional language concerning mental incompetence. Instead of the broader existing phrasing, the amendment would bar voting only for persons adjudicated by a court to lack the capacity to understand the act of voting, and only during that period of incapacity until competency is restored as provided by law. The measure further retains and clarifies residence and registration rules, including provisions for overseas voters, voters who move within Virginia, and preregistration for eligible younger voters. The bill itself does not directly change election law; it submits the amendment to the voters at the November 2026 general election and sets out ballot language and administrative procedures for canvassing and certification.
If ratified, the amendment would alter the Virginia Constitution’s voter-qualification provisions and supersede inconsistent statutory or constitutional language. The most significant legal effect would be to constitutionally guarantee a fundamental right to vote, narrow the felony disenfranchisement rule to incarceration only, and create automatic restoration of voting rights upon release. It would also modernize the mental-incompetence standard by tying disenfranchisement to a court finding that a person lacks capacity to understand voting, rather than the prior wording. Election officials and the State Board of Elections would be responsible for placing the question on the ballot and administering the referendum process.
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded vote history, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge sentiment directly. Based on the text, the measure appears to be framed as a voting-rights expansion and clarification effort, suggesting support from proponents of broader franchise protections and automatic rights restoration. Because it is a constitutional amendment on voting rights, it would likely draw interest from both voting-rights advocates and those concerned about the scope of disenfranchisement rules, but the provided materials do not show any formal opposition or support statements.
The main points of contention are likely to be the automatic restoration of voting rights for people convicted of felonies upon release, the constitutional recognition of a fundamental right to vote, and the revised standard for disqualifying persons found mentally incompetent. Supporters would likely emphasize expanded access to the ballot, clearer constitutional protections, and removal of administrative barriers to re-enfranchisement. Opponents, if any, would likely focus on whether the amendment goes too far in limiting state discretion over voter qualifications or in changing long-standing disenfranchisement rules. No specific contested arguments are documented in the provided committee or vote materials.