Virginia’s 2026 Constitutional Amendments Explained: Abortion, Marriage & Voting Rights

Jack Moore: More to consider, Jack and Charles. It is election day, November 3, year of our Lord, 2026. And we're doing this show, which we're going to post later, but we're going to discuss something that's going on today with the election in the Commonwealth of Virginia. And I spoke to a friend in another state. Interestingly enough, they had some proposed constitutional amendments going on too. And what I found bizarre about this other state, and sort of also what's going on in ours is. Is it appears to me, it looks like they're throwing a lot of language out, a lot of different parts of a particular subject. And then you got to say yes or no. So, like, what if it, you know, one part of it, you're like, I'm not so opposed to that. Well, I'm totally opposed to that, but it all comes in a question of it's take it or leave it, take it all of it. So for the listeners, real quick, official ballot question one that was on the ballot today in Virginia. By the time you hear me say this, this election will long since be over, but this was a ballot question for potential constitutional amendment to the Virginia Constitution. Question one Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to first part, protect the freedom to make personal decisions about prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control. Abortion, miscarriage management, and fertility care. Second part, protect doctors, nurses, and patients from being punished for these decisions. And three, allow for restrictions on access to abortion during the third trimester of pregnancy, except when the patient's health is at risk or the pregnancy cannot survive. A yes vote approves this amendment, a no rejects the amendment. So when I saw first read this, I'm like, you could have certain feelings about prenatal care, childbirth, the postpartum care part. You could have definitely different views on abortion versus birth control. you could have all kinds of different views, but it's all wrapped up in language. And of course, I got explanations from poll workers. on the Democrat side and the Republican side has as have they how they felt about it. Charles, what's your initial view on this whole question? Do you think it's kind of convoluted? Do you think that they're mixing a lot of things in together into one question and they give you a yes or no response is your own avail is that's all that's available is this yes or no. Does it seem like a lot

Charles: Yes,

Jack Moore: of things mixed in? Yeah.

Charles: it it it is, but when I read it today before I went to go vote, it seemed like a lot of it it's essentially are we gonna put abortion in the constitution? The right to quote unquote right

Jack Moore: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

Charles: to abortion. That's all it was.

Jack Moore: Yeah, that's right.

Charles: No, that that's it. And I think that was pretty obvious that that was the case, but i was it confusing? Kinda sorta. Kinda sorta it was, but I don't think enough to get people who are for abortion to all of a sudden vote against it and vice versa.

Jack Moore: So Wood goes on further in this explanation, which I think it has an axe to grind, says the present law, currently the Virginia constitution does not explicitly provide to its citizens a right to reproductive freedom. And I gotta say, hats off on that.

Charles: There you go.

Jack Moore: Hats off on that. I've been around long enough to remember when Roe versus Wade became the law. And I was young and it really, but as as the 70s went on and we reached the 80s, it became a hot button issue, the whole abortion issue and what did what just happened with Roe versus Wade. But

Charles: Mm-hmm.

Jack Moore: I will say, whoever writes some of the language, the talking point language, if you're talking about abortion, somebody's like, hey, I got it, I got what? Reproductive freedom.

Charles: You're right.

Jack Moore: that strikes a lot better, doesn't it? Right. Like, you know.

Charles: Yes.

Jack Moore: If you yeah, instead of really getting into what abortion actually is, in whatever whatever point

Charles: Mm.

Jack Moore: of the the term of pregnancy, it just you know it sounds this currently Virginia constitution

Charles: Sounds great.

Jack Moore: does not explicitly provide to its citizens a right to reproductive freedom, nor does it explicitly protect or prohibit certain kinds of healthcare procedures, procedures or decisions. So They're also looking out for, hey, we got to look out for the doctors here that might be doing some things across certain lines, et cetera, et cetera.

Charles: Right.

Jack Moore: Now, do I think, it's certainly been argued. My argument all along with Roe versus Wade was hey, it's a state issue. So that leaves with it, and it was, there's no question about it, it wasn't for the federal court to write legislation and write these trimesters. And, that is legislative what they did. But that that being said. If you're going to accept that the states can then do what they will, yeah. Whatever amendment process they have to the Constitution, if they want to write in, if the state has, if there's a political will to put into the state constitution, you can have abortions up till birth. if you don't like it, leave the state, I guess. that's where it what it leaves it up to. So official ballot question number two. Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to First part, remove the ban on same sex marriage. Two, affirm that two adults may marry regardless of sex, gender, or race, and three, require all legally valid marriages to be treated equally under the law. Now it says present law. Marriages, civil unions, and other legal relationships with the same rights, benefits, and effects of marriage between persons of the same sex or gender are prohibited under Virginia's constitution. This prohibition is no longer enforceable as a result of the United States Supreme Court decision and Ogilfeld or Obergfell? Yeah, versus Hodges in twenty fifteen.

Charles: Overfeld. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

Jack Moore: Ogbergfell, yeah. Okay. But the prohibition on marriages between persons of the same sex or gender remains in the state's constitution. If the Supreme Court were to overturn its previous decision, the prohibition would be enforceable again.

Charles: So I'm going to say how I voted on this one and why.

Jack Moore: Mm-hmm.

Charles: I voted to remove the prohibition. And the reason being is the state shouldn't have anything to do with it in the first place. There you go.

Jack Moore: All right, so so you voted yes. Okay, gotcha. All right, so y

Charles: A state has no business in marriage, period.

Jack Moore: Well, that's another whole thing I thought about. Yeah, I thought I did think about that. and since the beginning of time, the state has taken certain positions as it related to marriage because of children. and division of property and that that property and rearing the kids have always been an aspect of that's really been the major aspect of the interest the state has in having anything to do with marriage. Because, you know, who's it who's the child that inherits this by law and you know what Does the wife get and who takes care of the child and the incentive to have the father have some interest in the rearing of his children that he produces? So all this, all along, as far as a legal standpoint, has been the kids. What's going to happen with the kids? So, but but right, there there is that aspect of marriage that one could say if two people decide to shack up together and they say, I don't care what the state says, I recognize this as a bond. That the state has nothing to do with, I get that too. But there's always a legal consequence. there there's gonna be a legal consequence at some point. All right. Question three: right to vote. Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended? One, to provide for the fundamental right to vote in the Commonwealth. That's an interesting turn of phrase there. The fundamental

Charles: Yeah.

Jack Moore: right to vote in the Commonwealth. Two.

Charles: Mm-hmm.

Jack Moore: To revise the qualifications of voters so that a person convicted of a felony is not entitled to vote during his period of incarceration, but is automatically invested with the right to vote upon release from incarceration. And three, to update the existing prohibition on voting by persons found to be mentally incompetent to instead apply to persons who have been found. To lack the capacity to understand the act of voting. Now let me just real Yeah.

Charles: Yeah, and who who's going to rule on that? That is just the craziest thing.

Jack Moore: Well, that's yeah, and this is the thing here that I wanted to say. The present law, Virginia Constitution currently provides that a person who is convicted of any felony loses the right to vote for the rest of their life unless the governor of Virginia takes administrative action to restore that specific person's right to vote. This is the only means of getting back the right to vote after a felony conviction. The current constitutional provision also imposes a broad restriction while being up to By while using updated terminology on voting by persons found to be incapacitated. A person who's determined by a court to be incapacitated, regardless of the kind of incapacity, loses the right to vote, and only a court can restore the person's right to vote. So I did think about this, this language at the end. One's lack of capacity to understand the act of voting.

Charles: That's crazy, isn't it?

Jack Moore: Yeah, like you say, who's going to determine that? Well, and now, of course, when I was out today, I listened to and looked at the ballots, you know, that were out there that the Democrats put out, what the Republicans put out, and of course, I'll just say straight up, the suggested idea or the suggested way to go with the vote, they're on the exact same sample ballot. Republicans were say no to all, the Democrats were say yes to all. And probably not surprising. because I think that

Charles: yeah, I agree.

Jack Moore: well, they were written with angles that you could tell, kinda you kind of knew

Charles: Of course.

Jack Moore: the pull the the political angle. But but there were some parts like I believe that what was explained to me by a person I discussed this with out in front of the v the polling booth is made it seem more like today the felony person can pay all restitution, serve all time, do all the conditions of a probationary period. or, parole and and they whatever their conditions are relative to what the charge was and what the conviction was, they can get their votes reinstated. I I think that's right. I mean, I think if a person served their time and they've otherwise, but what this is saying is more of a unilateral, or not unilateral, I'm sorry, a universal that, you know, your felony time is up, you know, get it rec regardless if you paid restitution and other things. But I do

Charles: Mm-hmm.

Jack Moore: think as a as a general sense, I I am always in support of when people have served time and they've met their burden, they fulfill their obligations relative to the punishment, then restore them.

Charles: I understand where you're coming from. Excuse me, I have this thing that I personally believe there's too many people voting. I know it's gonna sound terrible, but man.

Jack Moore: Mm. No, that brings up another whole thing. Yeah, that that yeah, yeah. And and you know, and it's been argued though, this is really throwing a grenade in the room too, that you know, that that idea that you might have had generations ago, that you had to own land or something like that. But it it was kind of based upon why would you let somebody who doesn't have the same stake in the outcome of things because they don't have ownership in anything, be allowed to vote a greater share from someone who does.

Charles: I've heard it argued a different way and I wrote a paper on this many moons ago.

Jack Moore: Mm-hmm.

Charles: There was a case in Phil Pennsylvania

Jack Moore: Right.

Charles: whereas people were trying to make the point that it was too difficult to vote in a specific district in Pennsylvania.

Jack Moore: Right.

Charles: And they made the argument is no, voting shouldn't be easy in the first place. You should have to put

Jack Moore: Okay.

Charles: forth some effort into it for the fact that you you have to understand what the ramifications of voting could be. It shouldn't be easy. It should be difficult because we're it's kind of like that sweat equity thing. Most

Jack Moore: Uh-huh.

Charles: people don't appreciate anything until you put some sweat equity into it. And voting had pretty much has become that. It's it's so simple now that people take almost take it for granted. I'm not gonna say that a hundred percent, but they almost take it for granted that's a problem. That's a huge problem. And making it easier to vote, I'm

Jack Moore: What did they mean by

Charles: sorry.

Jack Moore: well, what did what did it mean by difficulty? because they had to get up, get dressed and drive to a polling station or something? Really?

Charles: Yeah, the whole voting by mail, all that stuff came came about in this in this in this case. And they're like, No, it should be hard. You should have to put forth effort to vote because then you will appreciate it more. And that's just human nature, man. We don't appreciate things

Jack Moore: Yeah.

Charles: that that come easy. We d we don't. So

Jack Moore: Yeah.

Charles: having more people vote, I I don't think it's a good thing. I think that we all should do it. I'm gonna you and I've talked about this before. Always thought that every ballot should come with a civics exam on it. And if you fail the civics exam,

Jack Moore: Yeah, well that's been argued.

Charles: then your your ballot doesn't count. Period. Sorry. Doesn't count. Cause you you haven't been paying attention and or you haven't done enough research. And I I will say this. I know people when it comes to this election, and it actually made me smile. When a friend of mine told me, she's like, Well, I'm not gonna go vote until I do research on each one of these candidates and each one of these issues. And she then took it a step further and said, Well, I've been a little lazy. And I'm only gonna vote on the issues that I actually did do the research on, or the candidates I did do the research on. Other than that, I'm just gonna leave leave it blank. Good for you. Good for you.

Jack Moore: Yeah, fair enough. But there's so much language though that I hear in every election season, there's always someone. Maybe they're a little bit sort of disgruntled with the average voter not demanding more, like your vote should come with it some level of reward. Like, you know, let that let those politicians know, like, what's in it for you kind of thing. So then I'm like. Is that really what voting should be about? Voting should be about trying to figure out. No, I d I do understand though to some degree, it would it's only human nature and it makes logical sense that you would want to vote for candidates that you felt like would act in your best interest. that's fair, yeah. But

Charles: Right. No, I agree with that.

Jack Moore: yeah, yeah, yeah, because if if if somebody was out there and they were saying, you were in business, you and I owned a grocery store. and we're looking in the paper and they're looking they're trying to gouge local businesses. this is at the local level. They're trying to raise taxes. They're gonna try to make our what we're what we're doing, and okay, okay, this has come up a lot where people have been employers, small businesses, and all these things get imposed by government. Like, damn, I'm gonna have to let Billy and Susie and Jimmy go because I can't afford to keep them around or I gotta make them go part time. So then acts of government are starting to create a drag on employment because you put all these impediments into being profitable to the business, the small business owner, because you put all these restrictions or things that they have to cover, and next thing makes business stuff. I could see voting against that. Yeah.

Charles: In my city, they had a a provision to vote for or again not provision, a measure on the ballot to vote for or or against a one percent increase in the sales tax.

Jack Moore: Mm-hmm.

Charles: You must have fallen and bumped your head if you think I'm gonna vote for an increase in the sales tax. It's not gonna happen. But I should say, but in listen to remember I told you I listened to the podcast earlier of the woman from Wyoming. As she's talking about real estate taxes, you know, I'm I'm my blood is starting to boil because it's making perfect sense. And she she tells a story of a woman in Wyoming who's 93 years old and she has to she has to still work because her house that she purchased in the 1960s for like $22,000, because

Jack Moore: Right.

Charles: of the the buildup around the area that she lives in, is now worth over a million dollars. And she's having to pay taxes. As a matter of fact, her t her her real estate taxes is $20,000 a year. But she's only bringing in with her retirement or social security, whatever it is, mostly social security, she's only bringing in like $14,000. So she's having to go work. And

Jack Moore: Mm-hmm.

Charles: this this real estate taxes, man, the more you really think about it, this is an absolute scam because the it gives these the cities. The authority pretty much obviously depends on the state, to do whatever they want with that money. But the thing is, I haven't actually received any of the benefits of these of this increase in value yet. Why are you taxing me on it? I don't I don't understand that. It doesn't make any sense. It is absolutely a scam. And I'm just thinking, wow, why is it why is it okay to tax people on real estate in that manner? Based off of something that's arbitrary. And if you remember with about 25 years ago, Virginia Beach got caught, the the city assessor office, the supervisor was telling their assessors how much they wanted the the properties to be assessed for before they even went out to go look at them.

Jack Moore: Yeah. I think I do remember something about that.

Charles: Okay. Do that's a problem, man. That is a huge problem. Anyway, I know I'm going off on a tangentier.

Jack Moore: Well, this is a form. This well, this is a form too. I remember, I think it was John Kennedy in the Senate, not John Kennedy from the sixties, or president John Kennedy, the John Kennedy today, yes, Louisiana.

Charles: More from Louisiana? Mm-hmm.

Jack Moore: And he had young man on and he said, Are you willing to start doing this tax on unrealized gains and everything? And the guy's kind of like, Yeah, we could really do a lot of revenue on this. So they were talking about, you know, you've heard this. It's like I got some stock that's gone from fifty dollars to a hundred dollars. And I haven't sold a stock, so I haven't realized this fifty dollar gain, but they're gonna go in there go into people's portfolios. It's another way to get money out of people. And he's like, Well, you realize the tank, the the stock of tank the next day, it's not it's not real that this increase in value. I know, but we could go, Well, now that you say this about a woman like this, that's the same thing. She gets into a house for twenty two thousand, she probably paid that mortgage off fifty years ago, and so She's been out from under the mortgage or probably 40 years ago. But anyway, she's in a house free and clear. She has a lot of equity, that's for sure. But

Charles: Yeah.

Jack Moore: some assessor keeps coming out and keeps appraising the value of that house if it were for sale for this astronomical figure. Then you plug in this number, and next thing she owes 20 grand a year to pay the taxes on the house.

Charles: Right.

Jack Moore: Now I know somebody out there would say, well, just sell the house.

Charles: No. Well

Jack Moore: It probably would it probably would be her best move if she could if she could move it for a million bucks. Take that money. Well, if she's I I didn't

Charles: But why? Why should you be forced to sell it? It's

Jack Moore: I I said being being careful here. I said being careful. But seriously, if she's in a neighborhood and the twenty two thousand dollar house became the million dollar house, she's probably in one of these neighborhoods. I'm just saying what probably be best for her is to get seven fifty to eight fifty or whatever, take that, go into another neighborhood. And drop a couple hundred thousand and then put the rest in the bank and live off that for the rest of her life. Rather than sit there and keep a job and try to fight to maintain the house, which I know is not a million dollars. It's not a million like it in our neighborhood, it may not be worth a million dollars. I saw that out in San Diego. I had a friend out, you know, in I was I was in Southern California, I'll just put it that way. And when I saw the home values And honestly, being in the Hampton Roads area, Virginia Beach, Norfolk type of thing, houses that you and I would look at and go, it's a half a million, four fifty, half million, maybe even seven fifty, it's four million there. It's

Charles: Right.

Jack Moore: not it's no it's four million. it's a twenty two hundred square foot place, three bedrooms, two baths, or whatever. It's four million. I'm not kidding. it's like four million bucks and you're like, wow, but it's where it is. and you take that, like I said, and there's and people listening to this, I was in a part of a state. That I would say is far more rural. And they're looking at places that I'm thinking are four, four fifty-ish, townhouses to smaller homes, whatever, that I think are somewhere under a half million. They're 150 grand in some other parts of states. You know what I mean? It's so it's all relative. But yeah, a lady that's found herself in the $22,000 house from 1963 that's now worth the million. Gotta be the places around. She's just in one of those areas. She's in some area. I I just think I think it's sad. But yeah, I agree with you if your response is why should she have to do all this just to maintain her residence? I don't disagree. But probably her best move would have been to try to sell it realize. But then of course she'd be paying tons in capital gains taxes too, I'm sure. Yeah. She's gonna she's gonna go through the

Charles: That's right. Right. And but really the people that are benefiting from this is the city and that's it. Nobody else really is benefiting from this.

Jack Moore: Do you remember the state that was?

Charles: Wyoming.

Jack Moore: Okay, Wyoming. Okay. Wyoming, kinda least populated state in the country.

Charles: how about this? Least populated state in the country, but the Jackson Hole area of Wyoming is the

Jack Moore: Yeah.

Charles: second most expensive place to live. That's crazy. Yeah.

Jack Moore: Right. Okay. No, the the fact that it's low in population doesn't mean that you won't have a crazy amount of of real estate value. Okay. Yeah, go ahead. Yes.

Charles: Well it's nothing but rich people that live there. That's it.

Jack Moore: That's good. That's that's a good point. That that's who would be there. That makes sense.

Charles: Yeah. Cause there's nothing around Jackson Hole, absolutely nothing but golf courses and ski resorts. That's it. So there's nothing but rich people that live in the area. Okay.

Jack Moore: Got it. All right, Jack and Charles, this has been more to consider. It is election day. So when you see this, we're gonna be going live. So we're getting ready to go live here on this same date. So this will be all be kind of outdated, but we've had this discussion about the amendment. And as tonight goes on, we're gonna be able to tell you during the live show, do these amendments pass? Because I know we're gonna be getting live updates on that. So more to consider, Jack and Charles, please like and subscribe. Please subscribe. Subscribe to all of our different shows or our different platforms. Do a subscription. Charles, anything else to add? All right, brother. See you on the other side.

Charles: Yes. I'm good, bruh. Okay. All right, bruh.