RICHMOND, Va. — A batch of bills recently passed by the General Assembly were vetoed by Gov. Abigail Spanberger after state lawmakers rejected her proposed changes to them.
Many of the bills vetoed by Spanberger had actually passed the state legislature twice. The first time they were sent to her desk, she returned them with proposed amendments. State lawmakers then voted to reject these changes and passed the bills again in their original form.
Watch previous coverage: Governor Spanberger vetoes collective bargaining bill, drawing sharp reactions from Virginia workers
These bills faced a May 23 deadline, which meant that Spanberger had to either sign or veto them by this date. If no action was taken, they would automatically become law.
Spanberger gave explanations as to why she vetoed the following bills:
- HB61 — Department of Small Business and Supplier Diversity; Small SWaM Business Procurement Enhancement Program established.
Spanberger's explanation for veto: "House Bill 61 would fundamentally change the SWaM program by altering the definition to limit participation to small SWaM businesses. These changes would limit state contract opportunities for nearly 800 women-owned and minority-owned businesses that currently participate in the program and would reduce Virginia’s current SWaM spending by at least $340 million dollars. Excluding previously-eligible businesses from participation, as the enrolled bill does, would fundamentally change the trajectory and purpose of the SWaM program."
- HB246 — Mental illness, neurocognitive disorder, etc.; affirmative defense or reduced penalty.
Spanberger's explanation for veto: "This bill would effectively create a new legal standard applicable to just one criminal charge for a specific group of people, risking increased confusion and inconsistencies in the Commonwealth’s legal system. I appreciate the challenge this bill is trying to address and recognize the difficult situations that individuals with mental illnesses, neurocognitive disorders, and intellectual or developmental disabilities — and their families — face in our justice system. And as such, my amendments to this legislation sought to uphold fairness and discretion in our criminal justice system while maintaining the bill’s intended purpose."
- HB650 — Prohibiting certain acts in furtherance of federal immigration enforcement in certain protected areas; exceptions; penalties.
Spanberger's explanation for veto: "As a former law enforcement officer, I share many Virginians' concerns regarding the dangerous and unchecked federal immigration enforcement actions we have seen across the country. I take seriously how these actions have eroded years of trust built by law enforcement officers within the communities they serve.
I appreciate the goal and intended purpose of this bill, but in practice, this legislation would not achieve the intended goals. It would effectively require security guards and, in some cases, local law enforcement be placed in the untenable position of choosing between violating state law or federal law, rendering this proposal unworkable."
- HB111 — Voter registration; cancellation of registration, sources of data.
Spanberger's explanation for veto: "I support the intent of this legislation, which is to protect the integrity of our voter rolls by ensuring that voters are not inappropriately or unduly removed. My amendments to this bill would have provided additional time to work on this legislation to ensure it achieves its purpose without risking unintended consequences, such as placing administrative burdens on grieving family members."
Watch previous coverage: Virginia lawmakers react to Spanberger's amendments on major legislation
- HB449 — Civil actions filed on behalf of multiple persons; class actions.
Spanberger's explanation for veto: "I support the General Assembly’s goal of providing a class action mechanism that can be used by plaintiffs in Virginia courts. I offered amendments to ensure that when Virginia adopts its first-ever class action procedure, we do so in a tailored and judicious way — building on longstanding, federal precedent while providing regional circuit courts an opportunity to develop expertise. The General Assembly did not accept these amendments."
- HB483 — Prescription Drug Affordability Board; established.
Spanberger's explanation for veto: "I offered amendments to the General Assembly that would have directed the Prescription Drug Affordability Advisory Panel to study a reference-based pricing system before the state spends millions of dollars on implementation. My amendments also would have required greater drug pricing transparency for consumers and policymakers, providing new data to give insight into drivers of out-of-pocket costs in Virginia. Lastly, my amendments would have expanded the Attorney General’s investigatory and enforcement authority to crack down on anticompetitive behavior between pharmaceutical manufacturers and insurance carriers."
- HB639 — Elections; administration, acceptance of certain gifts and funding, approval required.
Spanberger's explanation for veto: "House Bill 639 seeks to address some of the unintended consequences of the 2022 law, particularly concerns that the law prohibits election administrators from accepting certain low-price items, like a free coffee on Election Day, or resources to assist with voter outreach. I agree with the intent of this bill, and I offered several amendments to ensure appropriate guardrails are in place for the acceptance of private funds and services. The enrolled bill includes a $1,000 cap, but does not specify whether the cap is weekly, monthly, annually, or all-time. My amendments would clarify that the $1,000 limit is on an annual basis, require recipients to disclose any money, grants, property, or services provided by a private individual or nongovernmental entity to ELECT, and require ELECT to establish guidelines for acceptable uses of funds for general registrars and local election officials."
- HB642 — Cannabis control; establishes framework for creation of retail marijuana market, penalties, report.
Spanberger's explanation for veto: "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. That includes clear enforcement authority and sufficient resources for compliance, testing, and inspections, and robust tools to crack down on bad actors who continue to profit from the illicit market."
Watch previous coverage: Virginia lawmakers won't take up Spanberger's proposed changes to marijuana law
- HB1173 — Virginia Human Rights Act; reasonable accommodation for known limitations related to menopause.
Spanberger's explanation for veto: "Under the Virginia Human Rights Act, women experiencing menopause or perimenopause are protected from workplace discrimination based on existing protections for age and gender. As we consider whether to explicitly add menopause and perimenopause to the list of named, protected categories, my amendments to this bill would have required a study to better understand the potential impacts of doing so."
- HB1222 — Social services, local departments of; child abuse and neglect, recorded interviews.
Spanberger's explanation for veto: "In 2002, Virginia’s Child Protective Services introduced the Differential Response System to create a more flexible, family-centered system with response options for valid reports of abuse or neglect. Under this system, cases are assigned either to a traditional investigation track or to a family assessment track, which focuses on identifying strengths and needs to best deliver services to families. While interviews are generally recorded on the traditional investigation track, they are not typically recorded during the family assessment track.
House Bill 1222 would change this approach. While I agree with the general purpose of the legislation, I offered amendments which would ensure the ability to record all interviews, while also providing discretion within social services when such a recording is unnecessary or not to the benefit of the child. However, the General Assembly rejected these amendments."
Watch related coverage: Spanberger signed two gun ban bills this week. Here’s what they mean for you.
- HB1385 — Higher educational institutions, public; membership of governing boards.
Spanberger's explanation for veto: "I offered amendments that would remove certain provisions that could further politicize our institutions of higher education and undermine the current efforts of my Administration and Boards to stabilize governance of the Commonwealth’s universities. I also removed provisions that had no clear connection to addressing the challenges our boards have experienced in recent years. My amendments also would have clarified various timelines and processes for appointments to affirm the General Assembly’s role and responsibility in confirming appointments."
- HB1392 — Correctional facilities, local and regional, and courthouse security; powers & duties for operation.
Spanberger's explanation for veto: "Without additional study or a clear public safety benefit, I do not support mandating new statewide security screening exemptions for attorneys at courthouses. Any such statewide changes to security protocols should be based on clear evidence that such changes would have no impact on — or ideally, improve — public safety."
- SB218 — Inmates; Director of Dept. of Corrections shall continue to accept applications for confinement.
Spanberger's explanation for veto: "Since taking office, my administration has worked diligently on reforms within the Department of Corrections, and I look forward to working with the patrons of Senate Bill 218 and other members of the General Assembly to further address the serious challenges in Virginia’s maximum-security prisons. But restricting the placement of high-security inmates transferring to Virginia from out-of-state prisons does not further reforms or improve conditions, and could in fact risk heightening unsafe conditions in Virginia’s correctional system."
- HB1263 — Public employees; repeals existing prohibition on collective bargaining, etc.
Spanberger's explanation for veto: "I put forth amendments which would have required the state to setup a system allowing state employees, home care workers, and higher education service employees to enter into collective bargaining agreements first, in order to demonstrate the efficacy of this new system, with public employees in localities following closely after. While preserving the enrolled bill's focus on allowing public employees to achieve collective bargaining, my amendments would have also provided additional flexibility for public employers to take into account existing local budget timelines and processes. However, the General Assembly rejected these amendments."
Click here to see how we use AI at WTKR News 3.
