(Liberty Counsel) Liberty Counsel filed a motion to the Appeals Court of Virginia in Bansley v. Nardo to certify an appeal to go directly to the state’s supreme court regarding a dismissed legal challenge to the state’s pro-abortion amendment for the upcoming 2026 ballot. 

The case is about whether the Virginia government followed the proper legal process to place a House Joint Resolution 1 (HJR 1) on the ballot. HJR 1 aims to establish a “fundamental right to reproductive freedom” in the Virginia Constitution.

In July 2026, Campbell County Circuit Court John T. Cook signed an order dismissing the challenge citing the unfollowed procedural rules in the constitutional amendment process were not actually mandatory and have since been repealed.

Liberty Counsel represents Charla Bansley, District 3 Supervisor for the Bedford County Board of Supervisors, who argues that the case raises issues of exceptional public importance regarding the validity of the proposed “Reproductive Freedom Amendment.”

Bansley requests the appellate court send the case directly to the Virginia Supreme Court without appellate review to prevent the amendment, which might be declared null and void on appeal, from becoming part of the state constitution after the November 2026 vote but before a final judicial decision is rendered.

“There could be no greater question of public importance than whether the Commonwealth lived up to its bargain with its citizens and followed the process necessary to change its fundamental charter,” reads the motion. “The process is critical so that voters have the requisite information to make informed choices in an election.”

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, such as 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.

The lawsuit names as defendants Clerk of the Virginia House of Delegates G. Paul Nardo; Commissioner of Elections Steven Koski; and other Virginia election offices and officials. Bansley is asking the court to block election officials from printing 2026 ballots with HJR 1 and to order its amendment process be restarted for the 2027-2028 legislative and election cycles.

In the lower trial court, Liberty Counsel objected in the dismissal order arguing that the amendment procedures were binding, required, and in effect under state law at the time the failures in the amendment process took place. Before the dismissal, Liberty Counsel had argued that a retroactive repeal cannot erase past unlawful conduct or make a defective process valid. 

Liberty Counsel’s Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “Direct Virginia Supreme Court review can promptly decide this case before Virginians cast their ballots in November containing an invalid ballot measure. 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 before, not after, an election on a state constitutional amendment.”

(Liberty Counsel) Liberty Counsel filed a motion to the Appeals Court of Virginia in Bansley v. Nardo to certify an appeal to go directly to the state’s supreme court regarding a dismissed legal challenge to the state’s pro-abortion amendment for the upcoming 2026 ballot. 

The case is about whether the Virginia government followed the proper legal process to place a House Joint Resolution 1 (HJR 1) on the ballot. HJR 1 aims to establish a “fundamental right to reproductive freedom” in the Virginia Constitution.

In July 2026, Campbell County Circuit Court John T. Cook signed an order dismissing the challenge citing the unfollowed procedural rules in the constitutional amendment process were not actually mandatory and have since been repealed.

Liberty Counsel represents Charla Bansley, District 3 Supervisor for the Bedford County Board of Supervisors, who argues that the case raises issues of exceptional public importance regarding the validity of the proposed “Reproductive Freedom Amendment.”

Bansley requests the appellate court send the case directly to the Virginia Supreme Court without appellate review to prevent the amendment, which might be declared null and void on appeal, from becoming part of the state constitution after the November 2026 vote but before a final judicial decision is rendered.

“There could be no greater question of public importance than whether the Commonwealth lived up to its bargain with its citizens and followed the process necessary to change its fundamental charter,” reads the motion. “The process is critical so that voters have the requisite information to make informed choices in an election.”

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, such as 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.

The lawsuit names as defendants Clerk of the Virginia House of Delegates G. Paul Nardo; Commissioner of Elections Steven Koski; and other Virginia election offices and officials. Bansley is asking the court to block election officials from printing 2026 ballots with HJR 1 and to order its amendment process be restarted for the 2027-2028 legislative and election cycles.

In the lower trial court, Liberty Counsel objected in the dismissal order arguing that the amendment procedures were binding, required, and in effect under state law at the time the failures in the amendment process took place. Before the dismissal, Liberty Counsel had argued that a retroactive repeal cannot erase past unlawful conduct or make a defective process valid. 

Liberty Counsel’s Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “Direct Virginia Supreme Court review can promptly decide this case before Virginians cast their ballots in November containing an invalid ballot measure. 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 before, not after, an election on a state constitutional amendment.”