An Act to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 18.2-174.2, relating to impersonating any local, town, city, or county elected official; penalty.
Summary
HB1150 creates a new criminal offense in Virginia for impersonating a local, town, city, or county elected official. The bill makes it unlawful to willfully and intentionally falsely assume or exercise the powers of such an office, pretend to be such an official to obtain access, information, services, or anything of value, or otherwise impersonate the official with intent to defraud. The definition of covered officials expressly includes constitutional officers.
The measure classifies a violation as a Class 3 misdemeanor, adding a specific penalty for this conduct to the Code of Virginia. In practical terms, it gives law enforcement and prosecutors a clearer statutory basis to charge individuals who misuse the identity or authority of local elected officials for fraudulent or deceptive purposes.
Impact
HB1150 amends the Code of Virginia by adding § 18.2-174.2, expanding the state’s criminal impersonation laws to cover local, town, city, and county elected officials, including constitutional officers. It affects individuals who falsely claim or exercise the authority of those offices and subjects violators to a Class 3 misdemeanor, thereby creating a new enforcement tool for protecting local government integrity and preventing fraud or unauthorized access to information or services.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported throughout the legislative process. It advanced unanimously or near-unanimously at each recorded stage, including subcommittee, committee, floor votes in both chambers, and final House agreement to Senate amendments. The voting history suggests little opposition and a general consensus that the conduct targeted by the bill warranted a specific criminal penalty.
Contention
There is little evidence of substantive controversy in the available record, as no committee transcripts are provided and every recorded vote was unanimous or overwhelmingly favorable. The only notable legislative activity was procedural refinement through amendments and a substitute, indicating discussion focused more on drafting and scope than on whether the offense should exist. The main policy point embedded in the bill is the breadth of the covered officials, including constitutional officers, but no recorded opposition to that scope appears in the provided materials.