Article Text
Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger has vetoed legislation from several Democratic Fairfax County lawmakers, blocking proposals on recreational marijuana sales, class action lawsuits, courthouse security and workplace protections.
Among the rejected measures were HB 642 and SB 542, which would have established a regulated retail market for recreational cannabis on Jan. 1, 2027. Virginia legalized adult possession more than five years ago, becoming the first Southern state to do so, but legal retail sales remain unavailable.
Spanberger had proposed delaying sales until July 1, 2027, raising the cannabis tax rate, imposing new or tougher penalties for marijuana offenses and removing provisions directing how tax revenue would be distributed. The General Assembly declined to accept her substitute.
The governor said she supports replacing illicit cannabis sales with a legal market but believes the regulatory system must place children’s health, public safety, product integrity and accountability first.
“As Virginia pursues a legal retail market, it is critical that we incorporate lessons learned by other states and ensure that our regulatory framework is fully prepared to provide strong oversight from day one,” Spanberger said. She called for clear enforcement powers, adequate compliance and inspection resources, product testing and stronger tools against illicit sellers.
Del. Paul Krizek and state Sen. Lashrecse Aird, the bills’ sponsors, argued that another delay leaves Virginia’s existing marijuana market unregulated. Supporters had anticipated progress after repeated vetoes by former Gov. Glenn Youngkin and Spanberger’s election last year.
“The Governor’s veto ignores the reality that cannabis is already sold everyday across Virginia,” Krizek and Aird said. They argued that state leaders must choose between regulating those transactions and allowing the illicit market to continue.
Courthouse security proposal rejected
Spanberger also vetoed SB 83 from state Sen. Saddam Azlan Salim and its companion, HB 1392 from Del. Karen Keys-Gamarra. The measures would have established statewide courthouse policies for electronic devices and created security-screening exemptions for attorneys.
The governor said statewide exemptions should not be required without more study or evidence that they would preserve or improve public safety.
Salim, Keys-Gamarra and Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell said that objection reflected a misunderstanding of the safeguards in the legislation. They noted that attorneys undergo character-and-fitness reviews, remain subject to Virginia State Bar discipline and serve as officers of the court.
The lawmakers said misuse of the proposed exemption could have led to a mandatory Bar referral and criminal prosecution. Displaying an invalid bar card would have carried a Class 1 misdemeanor penalty.
They also pointed out that Virginia allows police officers to bypass courthouse screening without an identification check, while policies governing cellphones and other devices differ among courthouses.
The legislators said they plan to revive the proposal next session and continue consulting legal practitioners, judges and the Virginia State Bar in pursuit of uniform, publicly available courthouse rules.
Virginia class action bills fall short
SB 229 from Surovell and HB 449 from Del. Marcus Simon were also vetoed after lawmakers rejected Spanberger’s proposed changes. The legislation would have created a class action process in Virginia courts.
Spanberger said she supports giving Virginia plaintiffs access to class actions but wanted the state’s first such procedure to be more narrowly designed around established federal precedent. Her substitute also would have allowed regional circuit courts to develop specialized experience with the cases.
Simon said Virginia will remain one of only two states, along with Mississippi, without a class action option. His district stretches through parts of Fairfax County from Pimmit Hills to Lake Barcroft and includes the City of Falls Church.
He described the legislation as a way to help consumers challenge large corporations when many people suffer similar harm but no single person has enough resources to bring a case alone. Simon said he trusts Virginia Circuit Court judges to manage proceedings already permitted in 48 states.
He plans to reintroduce the bill in 2027 and urged legislators and the governor to begin working through their disagreements earlier.
Election funding and criminal defense measures vetoed
Spanberger rejected Krizek’s HB 639, which would have loosened restrictions on funds, property and services that election officials may receive from private individuals and nongovernmental organizations. Those resources could have supported voter education, outreach, registration and other election expenses.
The governor acknowledged that a 2022 law may prevent election administrators from accepting inexpensive items such as free coffee on Election Day or outside resources for voter outreach. However, she objected that HB 639 did not set a specific time period for its $1,000 limit on accepted money, services or property.
She said lawmakers rejected amendments that would have provided clearer rules and additional safeguards for private support of election administration and voter-registration programs.
HB 246 from Del. Vivian Watts and SB 335 from state Sen. Jennifer Boysko were vetoed as well. Those bills sought to create a defense to the charge of assaulting a police officer for certain people with autism, mental illness or developmental disabilities.
Spanberger said the proposal could create a separate legal standard for one criminal offense and a particular group of defendants, potentially producing confusion and inconsistent outcomes. She nevertheless recognized the difficulties that people with mental illnesses, neurocognitive conditions and intellectual or developmental disabilities—and their families—can face in the justice system.
Menopause workplace protections halted
The governor also vetoed HB 1173 from Del. Kathy Tran and SB 258 from state Sen. Stella Pekarsky. The bills addressed workplace discrimination and reasonable accommodations for employees experiencing menopause or perimenopause.
Tran and Pekarsky said the measures would have strengthened protections for women seeking accommodations without fear of retaliation while continuing to work, support their families and contribute to their communities.
Spanberger said workers already receive age- and gender-based discrimination protections under the Virginia Human Rights Act. She called for additional study of the consequences of explicitly adding menopause and perimenopause as protected categories.
The vetoes add to Spanberger’s rejection of Salim’s legislation restricting immigration-related arrests and collective bargaining measures sponsored by Surovell and Tran.