(Liberty Counsel) As Virginia residents are casting their ballots in the state’s early voting window for the 2026 midterm election, the legal challenge in Bansley v. Nardo asks the state’s appeals court to declare the pro-abortion amendment on those ballots invalid.

In the challenge, Liberty Counsel filed the opening brief in the Court of Appeals of Virginia on behalf of Charla Bansley, District 3 Supervisor for the Bedford County Board of Supervisors, who argues that Virginia officials failed to follow the constitutionally required process for placing House Joint Resolution 1 (HJR 1) on the ballot. 

While HJR 1 will stay on the ballot through the election process, the courts could still rule the measure unconstitutional no matter the results of the vote. 

In the lawsuit, Bansley claims the ballot initiative is invalid after discovering Virginia’s House of Delegates missed several key procedural steps mandated by the Virginia Constitution before the amendment can go before the voters. These steps include distributing the amendment to all circuit court clerks statewide and posting it for public inspection three months prior to the 2025 House of Delegates election, in which the Virginia’s House of Delegates failed to do.

In July 2026, Campbell County Circuit Court John T. Cook dismissed the challenge. Judge Cook ruled that Bansley did not have standing as a state official or a voter herself to bring the case. The judge also determined that the procedural rules in the constitutional amendment process were not actually mandatory and the legislature’s retroactive repeal of those rules after the fact cured any procedural deficiencies.  

In the appeal, Liberty Counsel argues the circuit court erred in three respects.

First, the court ignored the 120 years of legal precedent in Virginia where voters have had standing to challenge flawed constitutional amendment procedures. The brief states that Virginia’s Supreme Court precedents establish that Bansley has standing from her fundamental right to vote and from her county of residency in which she is a voter that has been affected by the constitutional violations. 

Abortion Doctors Share How The Most Common Abortion Procedures Take Place

Next, Virginia case law requires strict compliance with procedures governing constitutional amendments.

“The Supreme Court of Virginia has long held that the procedures to pass a constitutional amendment must be meticulously followed or the amendment will fail,” reads the brief.

Finally, Virginia case law also disfavors retroactive repeals which do not erase or “cure” past violations of the law. The legislature’s retroactive repeal violates due process because it deprives citizens of their right to challenge government failure to follow constitutional requirements and attempts to validate conduct that was unlawful at the time it occurred, reads the brief. 

The only remedy available is to declare HJR 1 “null and void,” concluded Liberty Counsel.

In May 2026, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled a congressional redistricting referendum was invalid due to similar constitutional deficiencies. 

Liberty Counsel’s Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said:

“This case will likely go to the Virginia Supreme Court after appellate review is completed. Virginia’s House Joint Resolution 1 is invalid because the General Assembly advanced it to a second legislative vote without completing the constitutionally mandated notice and posting requirements that must occur after its first passage. The Virginia Supreme Court in 2026 has already declared invalid a different proposed amendment for failing to follow proper constitutional amendment procedures. Voters deserve certainty on a state constitutional amendment before an election, not after.”

(Liberty Counsel) As Virginia residents are casting their ballots in the state’s early voting window for the 2026 midterm election, the legal challenge in Bansley v. Nardo asks the state’s appeals court to declare the pro-abortion amendment on those ballots invalid.

In the challenge, Liberty Counsel filed the opening brief in the Court of Appeals of Virginia on behalf of Charla Bansley, District 3 Supervisor for the Bedford County Board of Supervisors, who argues that Virginia officials failed to follow the constitutionally required process for placing House Joint Resolution 1 (HJR 1) on the ballot. 

While HJR 1 will stay on the ballot through the election process, the courts could still rule the measure unconstitutional no matter the results of the vote. 

In the lawsuit, Bansley claims the ballot initiative is invalid after discovering Virginia’s House of Delegates missed several key procedural steps mandated by the Virginia Constitution before the amendment can go before the voters. These steps include distributing the amendment to all circuit court clerks statewide and posting it for public inspection three months prior to the 2025 House of Delegates election, in which the Virginia’s House of Delegates failed to do.

In July 2026, Campbell County Circuit Court John T. Cook dismissed the challenge. Judge Cook ruled that Bansley did not have standing as a state official or a voter herself to bring the case. The judge also determined that the procedural rules in the constitutional amendment process were not actually mandatory and the legislature’s retroactive repeal of those rules after the fact cured any procedural deficiencies.  

In the appeal, Liberty Counsel argues the circuit court erred in three respects.

First, the court ignored the 120 years of legal precedent in Virginia where voters have had standing to challenge flawed constitutional amendment procedures. The brief states that Virginia’s Supreme Court precedents establish that Bansley has standing from her fundamental right to vote and from her county of residency in which she is a voter that has been affected by the constitutional violations. 

Abortion Doctors Share How The Most Common Abortion Procedures Take Place

Next, Virginia case law requires strict compliance with procedures governing constitutional amendments.

“The Supreme Court of Virginia has long held that the procedures to pass a constitutional amendment must be meticulously followed or the amendment will fail,” reads the brief.

Finally, Virginia case law also disfavors retroactive repeals which do not erase or “cure” past violations of the law. The legislature’s retroactive repeal violates due process because it deprives citizens of their right to challenge government failure to follow constitutional requirements and attempts to validate conduct that was unlawful at the time it occurred, reads the brief. 

The only remedy available is to declare HJR 1 “null and void,” concluded Liberty Counsel.

In May 2026, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled a congressional redistricting referendum was invalid due to similar constitutional deficiencies. 

Liberty Counsel’s Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said:

“This case will likely go to the Virginia Supreme Court after appellate review is completed. Virginia’s House Joint Resolution 1 is invalid because the General Assembly advanced it to a second legislative vote without completing the constitutionally mandated notice and posting requirements that must occur after its first passage. The Virginia Supreme Court in 2026 has already declared invalid a different proposed amendment for failing to follow proper constitutional amendment procedures. Voters deserve certainty on a state constitutional amendment before an election, not after.”