Amendments to the Virginia Constitution

Drafted during the colonies’ bid for independence from Great Britain, Virginia’s first constitution predated both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Virginia’s Declaration of Rights inspired the Declaration of Independence, while the U.S. Constitution borrowed from, and built upon, state constitutions including Virginia’s. In total, Virginia has adopted five constitutions (1776, 1851, 1864, 1870, 1902) and made significant revisions to those constitutions three times (1830, 1928, 1971).*

Before adoption of the 1870 Constitution, there was no formal method of constitutional amendment or revision. Nonetheless, the legislature devised methods of updating the constitution through conventions, legislation, and referendums. Since 1870, the Virginia Constitution has provided two mechanisms for constitutional change: legislatively referred amendments and constitutional conventions. Legislatively referred amendments must be passed at two legislative sessions, separated by a general election, and then approved by a majority of Virginians voting on the amendment. The method for calling a constitutional convention has changed multiple times since 1870, but the current process requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of the legislature and majority voter approval of any proposals adopted by the convention.

* Although Virginia is frequently said to have seven constitutions, two of the documents included in that count (1830 and 1928) were presented to voters as an amendment (and in the case of the 1928 amendments, as two separate amendments) to an earlier constitution rather than as a new constitution.
 

Mid-Decade Redistricting

Virginia’s 2021 district maps, like the maps adopted in other states following the 2020 census, were set to remain in place until after the 2030 census. However, in 2025, President Donald Trump urged Texas Republicans to redraw the state’s congressional map ahead of the 2026 midterm elections to make it more favorable to Republican candidates. Texas Governor Greg Abbott called the legislature into a special session to address a number of issues, including mid-decade redistricting.

Spurred on by Texas, other states, including Virginia, considered whether to enact retaliatory maps. However, the 2020 redistricting amendment meant that the Virginia legislature could not simply adopt new maps. Accordingly, the General Assembly proposed a constitutional amendment that would give the legislature temporary authority to adopt new congressional maps until 2030 and passed a provisional congressional map that would take effect upon approval of the amendment.

Virginians approved the amendment in April 2026. However, the Virginia Supreme Court overturned the amendment, holding that the legislature’s process violated the constitution’s requirements. The Virginia Constitution requires that the legislature pass a proposed amendment twice, separated by a general election, which is designed to allow voters to intervene in the amendment process by supporting or defeating legislators based on their votes on the proposed amendment. Because the first passage of the resolution proposing the amendment did not occur until after voting had already started in Virginia’s 2025 election, the supreme court determined that early voters had been unconstitutionally deprived of the opportunity to participate in the process, which “incurably taint[ed] the resulting referendum vote and nullifie[d] its legal efficacy.”

Bipartisan Redistricting Commission

In 2020, Virginians amended the constitution to create a bipartisan Virginia Redistricting Commission comprised of eight legislators (four from each major political party) and eight citizens (four selected from lists provided by each of the two major political parties). Prior to the amendment, the legislature was solely responsible for redrawing legislative districts, subject to the governor’s veto power.

Under the 2020 amendment, the commission submits two plans to the legislature: one for congressional districts and one with both state legislative maps. Then, the General Assembly can adopt or reject the plans. If rejected, the commission must submit a new plan or plans. Following a second rejection by the legislature, the power to draw district lines shifts to the state supreme court. The amendment also added a requirement that districts “provide, where practicable, opportunities for racial and ethnic communities to elect candidates of their choice.”

Although the amendment was heralded as an “anti-gerrymandering amendment” that would help “put[] the voices of citizens above politicians and political parties,” the commission’s first attempt at drawing the state’s electoral maps was mired in partisanship and ended in a deadlock. As a result, the Virginia Supreme Court took up the task of adopting redistricting maps with the assistance of two special masters, one selected by Republicans and one selected by Democrats. Although the bipartisan commission process failed to produce new legislative districts, some have argued that the amendment is, nonetheless, ultimately a success because the maps selected by the supreme court did not show partisan or incumbent bias and the maps initially proposed by commissioners were also “free of [the] extreme partisan bias” that characterized the previous cycle’s maps.

Rejected “Right-to-Work” Amendment

In 2016, voters rejected an amendment to constitutionalize Virginia’s existing “right-to-work” law, which prohibited mandatory union membership as a condition of employment. Proponents sought to put this right on equal footing with fundamental rights like the right to life and liberty and to insulate the provision from future alteration by the General Assembly without voter approval. Opponents argued that it was unnecessary to constitutionalize a law that had existed for over 70 years and that it was prudent to retain the ability to amend the provision without the need to go through the constitutional amendment process. Voters rejected the proposed amendment with 2,015,475 votes against and 1,743,255 votes for adoption of the amendment.

Limits on Eminent Domain

In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the government could use eminent domain powers to take private property that would be transferred to a private owner if doing so served a public purpose that the government “believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community.” Virginia initially responded by adopting a bill limiting the power of eminent domain to cases where “the public interest dominates the private gain and the primary purpose is not private financial gain, private benefit, an increase in tax base or revenues, or an increase in employment.” The law allowed limited transfer to a private corporation in cases where the private corporation signed a contract to “provid[e] for the use of the facility by the public.” The amendment adopted in 2012 is an extension of this 2007 law, constitutionalizing many of its limitations while defining just compensation as “no less than the value of the property taken, lost profits and lost access, and damages” to any remaining property.

Opponents of the amendment argued that the amendment’s definition of just compensation could bar otherwise legitimate and necessary takings by making acquisition of the property prohibitively expensive, depending on how lost profits and access are calculated. Ultimately, voters approved the amendment by a vote of 2,663,453 to 914,041.

Same-Sex Marriage

In 1975, the General Assembly enacted a statute prohibiting marriage between persons of the same sex. Then in 2006, it proposed, and voters approved, an amendment to the Virginia Constitution denying recognition of same-sex marriages and prohibiting state and local governments from recognizing civil unions or conferring the rights and benefits of marriage on unmarried couples. Governor Tim Kaine refused to sign the bill that put this amendment on the ballot. However, because the governor has no formal role in the constitutional amendment process, this refusal was purely symbolic. Even though the provision remains in the text Virginia Constitution, it ceased having any legal effect in 2014 following a federal court ruling that the provision (and the earlier statute) violated the federal constitution’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.

Other Amendments

The other two amendments to the Virginia Constitution adopted in 2006 received less coverage. Voters also approved the removal of a prohibition against incorporation of churches, bringing the constitution into conformity with an earlier court ruling holding that the provision violated the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. Voters also approved an amendment allowing local governments to provide partial exemptions from property taxes of real estate with substantial new improvements or “new structures and improvements in conservation, redevelopment, or rehabilitation areas.”

Actual Innocence Claims

In 1987, a jury convicted a defendant for the first time based on DNA evidence. In the years that followed, the admissibility of DNA test results was litigated in both state and federal courts, which generally concluded that the results of DNA testing are “reliable and accepted.” Developments in DNA testing technology also opened up the possibility of using post-conviction DNA testing to prove the innocence of individuals who had been falsely convicted.

However, this new evidence could not be used to overturn convictions in Virginia because of a “21 Day Rule” that only gave defendants 21 days from their conviction to present new evidence, even if that evidence was discovered after the 21-day period. As a result, the rule barred newly-discovered evidence from being admitted in subsequent proceedings in the case.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court upholding the validity of a similar rule in Texas and the execution of a Virginia man who was denied the opportunity to present new evidence of his innocence, advocates began pushing for an exception to or elimination of the 21 Day Rule. This movement culminated in a 2002 amendment to the constitution giving the state supreme court the authority to “consider claims of actual innocence.” This created an exception to the 21 Day Rule for new evidence of innocence and provided a separate pathway for individuals to challenge their convictions. Petitioners with biological evidence (such as new DNA testing results) of innocence may directly petition the state supreme court. For new non-biological evidence (such as recanted testimony or a new witness), the petition is first considered by the Virginia Court of Appeals, subject to appeal up to the state supreme court.

Right to Hunt and Fish

In 2000, Virginia became the fourth state to adopt a constitutional provision relating to hunting and fishing. The amendment created a constitutional right to hunt, fish, and harvest game subject to regulation and restrictions prescribed by the General Assembly. While the amendment was being drafted by the General Assembly, some legislators attempted to include other rights, such as food and shelter, or to allow local governments to regulate hunting, but all additions failed to pass.

Lottery Proceeds Fund

Voters also approved an amendment to establish a Lottery Proceeds Fund and require all state lottery funds be disbursed to localities for the purpose of funding public education. Only in the case of a four-fifths majority in both houses of the legislature could the funds be diverted to other purposes. The legislature had previously failed to pass the amendment and send it to the people in 1995, despite a majority of the then-sitting legislature having previously sponsored legislation to return lottery revenues to localities. By 1999, the legislature had successfully passed legislation to distribute lottery proceeds to localities to fund public education. The 2000 amendment made this practice a constitutional requirement.

Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission 

The 1971 revised constitution created the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission with the “the power to investigate charges which would be the basis for retirement, censure, or removal of a judge.” If the commission determines that a charge is substantiated, it then files a complaint with the Virginia Supreme Court, which has the power to conduct a public hearing and determine whether the complaint merits retiring or disciplining the judge.

As initially adopted, the provision kept commission investigations confidential unless the commission filed a formal complaint with the Virginia Supreme Court. (Attempts by the legislature to impose criminal penalties on the disclosure of information by reporters or complainants were subject to First Amendment challenges—with the U.S. Supreme Court holding that a newspaper could not be subject to criminal prosecution for accurately reporting that a judge was being investigated by the commission.) In 1998, Virginians adopted an amendment allowing the legislature to determine the confidentiality (and disclosure) requirements of commission proceedings.

Under the amended provision, the General Assembly required limited disclosures when the commission discovered misconduct in a judge’s private practice of law or when the General Assembly was considering the re-election of the judge.

Victims’ Rights

In 1996, nine states, including Virginia, amended their constitutions to provide rights to victims of crimes. In addition to affirming that, during a criminal prosecution, “victim[s] shall be accorded fairness, dignity and respect by the officers, employees and agents of the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions and officers of the courts,” the new provision also authorized the General Assembly to define and provide additional rights and protections to victims of crimes. Proponents hoped that additional rights would “allow[] victims to have a more participatory role in the prosecution and sentencing” process.

Retroactive Extension of Statute of Limitations

In 1991, the Virginia General Assembly attempted to temporarily suspend and extend, both prospectively and retroactively, the statute of limitations for civil suits involving the sexual abuse of minors. This was in response to developments in the treatment and study of the effects of childhood abuse in adults. The bill extended the statute of limitations for bringing a civil suit from two to ten years from when the child turns 18 and suspended the statute of limitations for one year from when the law went into effect. This temporary suspension allowed anyone who had suffered sexual abuse as a child to bring a civil suit, regardless of when the abuse occurred, in the year following the statute’s enactment. However, the Virginia Supreme Court held that retroactive application of the extension to, and suspension of, the statute of limitations in cases where it had already expired violated the constitution’s due process guarantees.

In response, the legislature proposed, and voters approved, an amendment to the constitution that would allow the legislature to retroactively extend the statute of limitations for torts committed against minors.

Voter Registration

In response to adoption of the federal National Voter Registration Act of 1993, the legislature proposed an amendment to allow voters to register for federal, state, and local elections in the same manner and avoid having two separate sets of voter registration records, one conforming to the new requirements for federal elections and one following state constitutional requirements for non-federal elections. Voters approved the amendment which eliminated both the requirement to register in person, thus allowing for mail-in voter registration, and the requirement that a voter’s registration be cancelled if they had not voted in four years.

Gubernatorial Amendments & Vetoes

Voters also approved an amendment to the constitution to give the legislature more flexibility regarding amendments offered by the governor to bills passed by the General Assembly. Prior to this amendment, the governor could suggest amendments to a bill instead of vetoing it, but the legislature was required to accept or reject all the amendments to the bill. This 1994 constitutional amendment required the governor to submit any proposed changes to a bill as severable amendments that would allow the legislature to accept and reject each change on an amendment-by-amendment basis without jeopardizing the coherence or function of the rest of the bill. The amendment also limited the governor to one round of amendments, meaning the governor may only choose to sign or veto the bill after the legislature acts on the recommendations.

Constitutional Rainy Day Fund

The 1990 Virginia appropriations bill directed the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission to study the executive budget process. This included the budget forecasting process undertaken by the governor’s office to support its constitutional duty to submit a balanced budget. The commission found that there were years when Virginia experienced significant budget shortfalls as well as years with surpluses. It recommended creating a constitutional Revenue Stabilization Fund, or “rainy day” fund, to take advantage of years with surpluses to prepare the state for future shortfalls.

The General Assembly adopted the commission’s proposal and sent an amendment creating the fund to voters. Virginians voted against a backdrop of several “painful” years of revenue shortfalls that required significant budget cuts and depletion of the state’s statutory rainy day fund. Proponents characterized the amendment as practical and common sense, with one newspaper writing that “[s]aving for a rainy day is prudent for everyone.” Voters agreed, ratifying the amendment by a vote of 1,568,958 to 591,385.

The fund requires the legislature to deposit revenue in the fund when that year’s growth in tax revenue exceeds the average growth over the previous six years. Then, in years where there is a significant revenue shortfall, the legislature may use the fund to make up for part of the difference between the appropriations made during the budget process and the actual revenue collected by the state to fund those appropriations. The Revenue Stabilization Fund provision was amended once in 2010 to increase the limit on the size of the fund and continues to operate today.

Property Tax Exemptions for the Elderly and Disabled

The 1971 revised constitution included a new provision allowing the legislature to authorize local governments to exempt real estate owned and occupied by individuals 65 and older, who had been determined to “be bearing an extraordinary tax burden on said real estate in relation to their income and financial worth,” from local property taxes. Then in 1976, voters approved an amendment expanding the eligible population to include “persons permanently and totally disabled as established by general law.”

In 1990, voters were asked whether to expand the potential property tax exemptions for this population to include personal property. Although some raised concerns that the amendment would do more harm than good by offering exemptions that failed to offer tax relief to the most in need and shrinking sources of tax revenue when the state faced increasing financial obligations, voters approved the amendment.

Redirecting Proceeds from Forfeiture Sales

Voters also approved an amendment allowing proceeds from the sale of property forfeited to the state for drug-related offense to go towards the promotion of law enforcement. Prior to this amendment, the constitution required that proceeds from all forfeited property be placed in the state’s Literary Fund, which served as the state’s school fund. Proponents argued that the amendment would result in only a slight diversion of revenue away from the Literary Fund and that “[p]romoting law enforcement is something that every honest voter can justify.” State law enforcement supported the amendment, arguing that it was only “appropriate” to “us[e] the assets of convicted drug dealers to convict other dealers.” Adoption of this amendment coincided with the issuance of the first federal National Drug Control Strategy in 1989, which was a part of the national “War on Drugs” that began in the 1970s. 

Balanced Budget Requirement

Although the constitution’s balanced budget amendment was not adopted until 1984, or effective until 1986, the Viriginia legislature and governor had already long employed a balanced budget procedure. The amendment constitutionalized existing practice by requiring the governor to submit a budget with expenditures not exceeding “total revenues on hand and anticipated during a period not to exceed the two years and six months period” following. Virginia is one of 45 states with a balanced-budget requirement.

In 1980, voters approved an amendment allowing the legislature to meet in a special three-day session to address gubernatorial vetoes issued after the legislature had adjourned. The legislature could also vote to extend the special session by up to seven days. Prior to the amendment, the General Assembly did not have the opportunity to override the governor’s veto or make changes as recommended by the governor if the governor acted after the close of legislative sessions. The amendment also reduced the amount of time legislative leaders had to sign an enrolled bill following adjournment of the legislature, thus shortening the time between end of the legislative session and gubernatorial action on bills.

Voter Eligibility & Officeholding

In 1976, Virginians approved several amendments affecting voter eligibility and officeholding. The amendments eliminated the residency length requirements, extended the time a voter may vote in their former precinct after moving to a new precinct within the state, allowed individuals working outside of the country and their families to vote absentee, and clarified that the one-year residency requirement for those seeking office applies to the year preceding the election. Another amendment permitted judges to fill vacancies in local elected offices by appointment for up to sixty days.

Higher Education Non-Profit Grant Amendment

In 1972, the Virginia General Assembly passed two laws creating a tuition-assistance grant and loan program for Virginia residents attending an undergraduate program within the state. The first established a loan program for Virginia residents attending private, non-profit institutions of higher learning in the state. The second established a grant and loan program for Virginia residents attending public or private non-sectarian universities and colleges. Both programs allowed loans to be repaid with academic progress instead of money. The Virginia Supreme Court determined that loans repaid with academic progress constituted a conditional gift, which overstepped the state’s constitutional authority to extend loans (but not grants) to students attending non-public institutions of higher learning.

The legislature attempted to address the court’s ruling in two ways. First, it began the process to amend the constitution to allow the legislature to make grants to students attending private universities. Second, it passed a new law in an attempt to revive the grant and loan program invalidated by the Virginia Supreme Court. The new law provided five methods for repaying loans aside from monetary repayment. However, the court invalidated all but a single method as it applied to students attending private universities—private university students could repay their loans through employment with the state or a political subdivision.

The next year, the legislature readopted the proposed constitutional amendment, sending it to voters for their approval. Although some expressed concern that the amendment would violate the federal Establishment Clause by allowing grants to go to students attending private sectarian institutions, voters adopted the amendment, which remains in effect today.

Updating the Constitution to Meet the Times

In 1968, Governor Mills E. Godwin, Jr. suggested that the General Assembly create a commission to study the constitution and propose amendments to meet the needs of a rapidly changing state. In an address to the legislature, Governor Godwin laid out the myriad financial obligations the state faced to provide services and build infrastructure for a growing population. His proposed budget and expenditures hinged on the constitution being amended in 1970 to increase the state’s borrowing and taxing authority as he had already “tapped every source available to [the state] in this biennium” to “finance the Commonwealth during the coming two years.”

Although the state’s revenue problems were the dedicated reason for constitutional revision, the commission was not restricted to studying only those parts of the constitution related to state finance. As the governor noted, the “Constitution ha[d] not had a thorough review in more than four decades. Federal court decrees, Federal law, and the inexorable passage of time all call[ed] [the state] to that task.” Accordingly, the governor urged the legislature to allow the commission “free rein in approaching the sensitive areas” of the constitution, including voting rights and the workings of the legislature.

The commission completed its report in 1969 after months of reviewing public comments, consulting experts, and conducting research. The commission made substantive recommendations—such as removing obsolete language contrary to court rulings on Jim Crow era practices and proposing an article on the conservation and development of natural resources—and non-substantive recommendations—such as ensuring that terms had consistent meanings and usage across the constitution. The commission also sought to delete details that “ought to be left to statute law” so that the constitution “more concise[ly]” “embodie[d] fundamental law.”

The commission suggested combining most of their recommendations into a revision to be voted on as a single ballot measure and separating out only those questions “of such major importance that they . . . require separate treatment.” The General Assembly concurred with this recommendation and sent four ballot measures to voters: one general revision to the constitution, which more than halved the length of the constitution, and three separate amendments on revenue, debt, and lotteries.

Following the commission’s submission of its report to the General Assembly, the commission’s executive director, A.E. Dick Howard, toured the state to advocate for the proposed changes. Leading into the November election, “a broad spectrum of politicians” had expressed their support for the amendments. Only the amendment authorizing the legislature to permit lotteries received any significant opposition. Ultimately, voters approved all four proposals, and the newly revised constitution took effect on July 1, 1971.

Preparing for a Nuclear Attack

Virginia’s proximity to Washington, D.C. and the major military installations located within the state made it a likely target in the event of a nuclear attack. In addition to federal, state, and local emergency response plans for surviving a nuclear attack, there was also the question of governance during and after a potential attack. State and local leadership worried that without amending the constitution, “it would be impossible to carry on the ordinary governmental working of the state” if “the central state government at Richmond through some national disaster or act of war be suddenly destroyed or any sizable portion of the governmental machinery or personnel be put out of action.” In response, the legislature proposed an amendment to allow the General Assembly to enact temporary legislation by a vote of less than a majority of members if the governor issues a proclamation of a nuclear emergency. The election took place less than a month after the Cuban Missile Crisis, the events of which served to “emphasize the importance of the proposed amendment” to “provide continuation or prompt re-establishment of normal government functions and services in or following an attack.” Virginians overwhelmingly voted in favor of the amendment, which was approved by a vote of 317,087 to 60,869.

Voter Registration Forms

Between 1956 and 1962, voter registrars only provided prospective voters a blank piece of paper on which the applicant was required to handwrite the information required to register—including the place, down to the precinct, where the applicant last voted—from memory in front of the registrar and without assistance or reference to any notes. The application could be disqualified for any number of technical errors, including providing the correct information in the wrong order, and was subject to the discretionary evaluation of the voter registrar. This practice disproportionately disenfranchised African American voters and discouraged otherwise qualified citizens from registering and voting. In 1962, voters approved an amendment to the voter registration provision of the constitution to replace the blank sheet of paper with a form. However, the amendment did not change the requirement that the voter provide all the requested information in handwriting by memory. 

Freeholder Restriction for Voting on Bond Referendums

Voters rejected the third amendment on the ballot, which would have restricted participation in bond issue referendum elections to freeholders. Proponents on the referendum argued that voters who did not own real property, and therefore did not pay property taxes, should be excluded from voting on bond issues since the increased tax burden fell primarily on property owners. Renters, proponents reasoned, were transient and, therefore, had no legitimate interest in or right to impose long-term debt obligations on communities of which they are only temporary members. The “considerable opposition” won the day. They contended that the amendment would unfairly disenfranchise renters who still paid other taxes and indirectly paid property tax through rent. Voters rejected the amendment by a vote of about 53% to 47%.

Limited Convention to Address School Desegregation

Opposition to school desegregation following the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education led the legislature to propose a limited constitutional convention during a special session. This followed the 1955 report of the Virginia Commission on Public Education, which was formed by Governor Thomas B. Stanley to craft recommendations for how the state could circumvent federal court orders to desegregate public schools. The limited convention adopted the commission’s recommendation to amend the constitution to allow the appropriation of public funds to enable students to attend private non-sectarian schools without integrated student bodies. This amendment went into effect without voter approval.

In addition to the amendment permitting the creation of school voucher programs, state leadership also fought school integration by attempting to withhold funds from, and force the closure of, any public schools that integrated and making it more difficult for Black students to attend white schools by allowing the Pupil Placement Board to subjectively apply enrollment criteria to prevent desegregation. Although Virginia Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional for the state to selectively withhold funds and force schools to close based on the school’s decision to integrate, voluntary closures were constitutional. As a result, desegregation proceeded slowly, with both Black and white students experiencing disruptions to their educations. These formal methods of preventing integration only ended in 1968 with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that held that school boards have an “affirmative duty to take whatever steps might be necessary to” create a system in which “racial discrimination would be eliminated root and branch.”

Poll Tax

Following World War II, Democrats reversed their historical support for the poll tax by advancing amendments for its elimination. Opponents of the amendment warned that it would lead to even more disenfranchisement as the amendment also gave the legislature free rein to enact other voting qualifications and closed voter registration four months before elections. Voters rejected the amendment, and the poll tax remained in effect until 1966 when the U.S. Supreme Court held that poll taxes in all elections, including state elections, violate the equal protection clause. Previously, the 24th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1964, had prohibited the use of poll taxes in federal elections.

Limited Convention to Address Servicemember Voting

In 1944, the Virginia legislature passed a law establishing an “armed service poll tax fund” to pay poll taxes for members of the military. The law also allowed members of the military to temporarily register to vote by application to an army or navy officer. The Virginia Supreme Court declared this law constitutionally invalid. First, the court held that military members whose poll tax obligations were met by the fund failed to pay the poll tax “personally” as required by the constitution. Second, the court overturned the registration provision because the constitution did not provide for “temporary” voter registration, military officers were not “registrars of election,” and the process for inquiry into applicants’ voter qualifications was insufficient. 

The General Assembly wanted to ensure members of the military could vote in the upcoming 1945 elections. However, legislatively referred amendments must be passed by two successive legislative sessions with an intervening election. Instead, the General Assembly called for a limited constitutional convention restricted to proposing amendments to exempt active servicemembers from the constitution’s poll tax and registration requirements. When asked to determine the validity of a call for a limited convention, the Virginia Supreme Court held that, should voters approve of the call, the convention’s authority would be legally limited to passing revisions and amendments consistent with the confines outlined by the legislature.

The convention met for just three days in April and May of 1945. It amended the constitution, without voter approval (as the requirement for voter approval applied only to legislatively referred amendments), by creating a new article exempting active-duty service members from the poll tax and voter registration requirements during times of war.

Corrected Text of the Constitution

In 1940, the Virginia Supreme Court determined that the operational text of the constitution is that which was submitted to and approved by the voters—even when it differs from the text passed by the legislature.

This holding arose out of a dispute over whether the City of Danville could rely on a provision of its 1890 city charter that gave the city council the authority to approve or reject deputy appointments made by the Commissioner of Revenue. (The city had attempted to assert this authority for the first time in 30 years.) The trial court initially held that the charter provision was no longer valid in light of the 1928 revision of the constitution, which contained a provision amending all city and town charters to bring them into conformity with the revised constitution, including a section that was thought to include the phrase “The duties and compensation of such officers shall be prescribed by general law.” However, upon further inspection, the Virginia Supreme Court determined that although this reflected the resolution passed by the legislature, the engrossed version of the provision and the version sent to voters excluded the word “general.” Because amendments to the constitution are valid only with approval of the voters, the correct version of the provision did not include “general” and, therefore, it did not repeal the charter provision at issue. Nonetheless, the court held that the charter provision had already been repealed by an earlier act of the General Assembly.

Constitutional Revision

After his election to office in 1925, Governor Harry Byrd advocated for the “transform[ation]” of state government “into the analogue of a smoothly running giant corporation.” Voters had rejected a call for a constitutional convention in 1922 (and a convention would have cost the state approximately $1,000,000), so Byrd sought to achieve his desired constitutional reforms through the constitutional amendment process instead. To support the governor’s efforts, the General Assembly authorized the governor to create the Citizens’ Committee on Consolidation and Simplification in State and Local Governments. It also approved hiring the New York Bureau of Municipal Research, an organization that promoted government modernization and efficiency, to study Virginia’s government and offer recommendations for reform. The work of the Committee and the Bureau resulted in a series of recommendations “for the reorganization of [the] State and county governments, to the end that greater efficiency will prevail.”

The General Assembly implemented those recommendations that could be achieved without constitutional amendments, while the remainder were sent to the Commission to Suggest Amendments to the Constitution, which was comprised of seven members who had all been appointed by the governor. Based on the suggestions from the Commission, the legislature sent five amendments to the voters.

The primary amendment generally revised the constitution by tightening limitations on state borrowing, imposing a strict cap on the state’s debt, abolishing and consolidating 80 executive departments, boards, and commissions in the executive branch into 12 departments, and converting key offices, such as the Secretary of the Commonwealth, from elected to gubernatorially appointed offices. Although Governor Byrd highlighted that the reorganization of the executive branch would result in him losing the power to appoint 60 board members and heads of departments, the changes to the executive branch had the ultimate effect of centralizing executive authority in the governor. Voters ratified the revision by a vote of 74,109 to 60,531.

A second amendment overhauled taxes in the state by prohibiting the state from levying taxes on real estate or tangible personal property. Property taxes became the sole purview of localities. The remaining amendments authorized the governor to appoint the Commissioner of Agriculture and Immigration, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the State Treasurer for a single term, after which the legislature could establish a different method of selection by statute. (The primary amendment also provided that the governor could appoint the Secretary of the Commonwealth for at least the first full term following the amendment’s adoption, after which the legislature could either establish a different method of selection or abolish the office altogether.) The legislature ultimately declined to change the method of selection for these offices. As a result, these positions remained subject to gubernatorial appointment.

Women’s Right to Vote

The United States Congress passed the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1919. It prohibited sex-based discrimination in voting and was ratified in August of 1920 after approval by thirty-six states. Virginia was not one of these states, as it withheld ratification in 1919 before ultimately voting against ratification in 1920. Nonetheless, women in Virginia gained the right to vote upon the official adoption of the federal amendment. Eight years later, voters approved a revision to the constitution that included removing the obsolete gender requirement for voter eligibility. Likewise, Virginia did ultimately ratify the 19th amendment in 1952, over three decades after women had already gained the right to vote.

Successive Terms for County & City Officials and Resubmission of Amendments

In 1910, the General Assembly proposed four constitutional amendments, but voters only approved one amendment allowing county commissioners and treasurers to serve consecutive terms. Voters rejected amendments extending legislative sessions, altering legislative procedure, and allowing successive terms for city officials.

The following legislative session, the General Assembly passed a joint resolution to resubmit the amendment regarding successive terms for city officials at the 1912 election. A voter sought to prevent the measure from appearing on the ballot, arguing that the General Assembly must follow the constitutional process for proposing new amendments by repassing the amendment at two successive legislative sessions. However, the Virginia Supreme Court declined to determine the constitutionality of the truncated amendment proposal process prior to the election. Voters ultimately approved the amendment and the Virginia Supreme Court never reheard the question of the amendment’s validity.

1901-1902 Constitutional Convention

Although the 1901 Constitutional Convention ended up largely focused on rolling back the political (and therefore economic and social) rights of Black Virginians, support for the convention was not restricted to critics of the 1870 Underwood Convention.

In the years prior, the re-empowered legislative Democrats passed legislation to disenfranchise Black and poor white voters under the banner of rooting out political corruption. Although accusations of corruption centered around conservative Democrats, efforts to eliminate corruption disproportionately excluded African Americans, whom lawmakers portrayed as less virtuous and capable than white men. This culminated with the 1894 Walton Act, which eliminated the use of party ballots in favor of standardized secret ballots. Although the act did not formally disenfranchise voters who could not read or write, strict rules and the political appointment of special constables to assist illiterate voters led the act to be called “one of the most outrageous measures ever enacted by any state for the disenfranchisement of the colored man” as “[i]t is within [the special constable’s] power to disqualify or neutralize the votes of as many [illiterate voters] as he may see fit.”

Despite the diverse political motives of those who supported a constitutional convention, 88 of the 100 delegates were Democrats, and all were white. Convention President John Goode called the issue of suffrage “a subject of transcendent interest and importance” that the convention must address to right the “grievous wrong” and “crime against civilization and Christianity” of universal Black male suffrage.

Although the delegates were constrained by the 14th Amendment (guaranteeing equal protection under the law) and the 15th Amendment (guaranteeing Black suffrage), the convention designed facially neutral requirements that disproportionately impacted Black voters. The proposed constitution included a poll tax that needed to be paid six months before any election (and for all elections in the three years prior) and a temporary “understanding clause.” 

The understanding clause would apply to elections in 1902 and 1903, and it permitted registrars to “test” any potential voters on their knowledge of the constitution, enabling them to disenfranchise illiterate citizens and those whom the registrars deemed incapable of understanding the constitution. Even though these provisions were textually race-neutral, delegates did not intend for them to be enforced impartially. To ensure that these provisions disenfranchised Black men, the convention resolved to choose, for themselves, the registrars who would enforce the clause, while also excluding from testing Civil War veterans, their sons, and property owners. Those who registered to vote under these temporary provisions would remain eligible to vote unless they moved out of the state or were otherwise disqualified. Beginning in 1904, anyone not already registered to vote was required to submit an application and answer questions from the registrar in writing.

The convention voted against submitting the new constitution for ratification by the voters, which was not required by the 1870 constitution, out of concern that voters would not be willing to disenfranchise themselves. The new constitution became law on July 10, 1902, by a vote of the convention and had its intended effect of drastically reducing the number of eligible voters: “The number of eligible African American voters fell from about 147,000 in 1901 to about 10,000 by 1905.” 

Readjuster Party Reforms and Backlash

In the late 1870s, a new political party emerged over the issue of debt repayment: the Readjuster Party. As the name suggests, the Readjuster Party sought to readjust (reduce the principal or interest rate of) Virginia’s debt, which had been acquired before and after the Civil War to fund infrastructure projects. The party consisted of a coalition of African Americans, anti-elite Democrats, Republicans, and poor white farmers and working men. The Readjusters viewed state debt as an obstacle to adequately funding public schools and an unjust tax burden on regular Virginians. Wealthy Virginians, who could pay for private schooling, were indifferent or openly hostile to public education, with one state senator declaring that it would be “better to burn the schools” than to readjust any of the state debt. Working- and middle-class Virginians united under the Readjuster Party to protect the state’s system of public schooling.

The natural supporters of the Readjuster Party had been disenfranchised by the poll tax enacted in 1876. Accordingly, the Readjuster Party’s platform grew to include repealing the poll tax (as well as other civil rights issues such requiring equal pay for African American and white teachers, abolishing the whipping post as punishment for crimes, and allowing African Americans to serve on juries). This bi-racial, populist platform led the Readjusters to electoral success in 1881. Subsequently, in 1882, the Readjuster Party were able to achieve several of their policy goals, including the passage and approval of a constitutional amendment to repeal the poll tax. However, the Readjuster Party’s time in power was short-lived, with the opposition retaking control of the legislature in the 1883 election. The backlash to the Readjusters’ civil rights reforms led to the development of the policies that would later become part of Jim Crow.

Restrictions on the Right to Vote

To curtail progress on African American enfranchisement, the General Assembly proposed an amendment to restrict the eligibility to vote. The amendment introduced a poll tax as well as a provision disenfranchising anyone convicted of petit larceny. The latter addition was included with the understanding that it would disproportionately affect prospective African American voters. Voters approved the amendment by a vote of nearly 57% to 43%.

Readmission to the Union

In the aftermath of the Civil War, the federal Reconstruction Act of March 1867 set the conditions for readmission to the Union. It required every former Confederate state, except Tennessee, to write a new constitution, receive voter approval of the new constitution by an electorate including African Americans, and ratify the 14th Amendment. Although Virginia was now entirely governed by the Unionist Restored Government, it did not meet the requirements for readmission because the 1864 Constitution did not provide for black suffrage and the legislature had rejected the 14th Amendment. (Tennessee had amended its constitution to reject secession and ratified the 14th Amendment in 1866, exempting it from the Reconstruction Act of 1867.) 

Under martial law, Black Virginians had the right to vote and participated in their first election in 1867, with 105,832 registering and 93,145 voting in the October election to approve and elect delegates to a state constitutional convention. Of the 105 delegates, 24 were Black men and these delegates became the first Black men to hold elected public office in the state.

From December 3, 1867, to April 17, 1868, the delegates met and debated under the leadership of convention president John C. Underwood. The resulting “Underwood Constitution” reformed local government to more closely mirror township models seen in New England, granted the governor the veto power and provided a formal method for constitutional amendment without a constitutional convention (as opposed to the ad hoc process used by the legislature in 1865). This new constitution also required the General Assembly to establish a statewide system of free public schools; however, an amendment to prohibit school segregation failed. The proposed state constitution also enfranchised Black men, prohibited slavery (except for as punishment for a crime), and declared that all citizens of the state possess equal civil and political rights and public privileges. A section was also added to the Virginia Bill of Rights (formerly known as the “Declaration of Rights”) renouncing the right to secession and proclaiming the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land. 

The most contested issue at the convention was whether or not to include clauses that would (1) disenfranchise men who had held civil or military office prior to the Civil War and “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” and (2) require anyone taking office to affirm they had not “voluntarily given [] aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility thereto,” “sought nor accepted nor attempted to exercise the functions of any office whatever under any authority or pretended authority in hostility to the United States,” or “yielded a voluntary support to any pretended government, authority, power, or constitution within the United States hostile or inimical thereto.” These provisions were designed to bar members of the Confederacy from participating in elections as voters and candidates. They were submitted to a separate vote from the rest of the constitution. Voters rejected inclusion of the two clauses, resulting in their ultimate omission while the remainder of the constitution was ratified by a vote of 210,585 to 9,136. 

Following the voters’ ratification of the new constitution and the General Assembly’s ratification of the 14th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, Virginia was readmitted to the Union on January 26, 1870. 

The 1864 Restored Government’s Constitution

Following the creation of West Virginia, the seat of the Restored Government moved from Wheeling to Alexandria. Upon the request of Governor Francis H. Pierpont, the Restored Government’s General Assembly called a constitutional convention to redraw legislative and judicial districts to account for the loss of West Virginia’s territory and address the question of slavery.

Because President Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves held in Confederate states, slavery remained legal in Virginia under the Restored Government. Governor Pierpont was concerned about enforcing warrants for the return of enslaved people seeking freedom in Union territory. The reality was that Union-controlled Virginia was under martial law despite the Restored Government’s claim to authority over the entirety of the state. As such, any enforcement of these arrest warrants would have conflicted with Union military policy. The convention voted 15 to 1 to abolish slavery but did not extend suffrage to African Americans. Instead, it voted to reduce the residency requirements on white men’s right to vote. Additionally, the convention abolished viva voce voting (a method of voting where all voters publicly called out the names of their preferred candidates) in favor of casting ballots, instituted a tax to fund primary schools, reverted the power to select judges back to the legislature, and recognized West Virginia as a separate state.

The delegates decided against popular ratification of the constitution and enacted the constitution by a vote of the convention. The constitution’s authority was initially recognized only in the areas of the state under Union control but became effective across the entire state with the fall of the Confederacy in 1865. In December 1865, the voters approved an amendment restoring voting rights to supporters of the Confederacy who either took an amnesty oath or received a pardon from the president. The act proposing the amendment included a separate provision, not submitted to voters for approval, stating that “[t]he general assembly retains to itself the power to alter or amend all the other provisions of the said third article” of the constitution concerning the qualification of voters.

The Wheeling Conventions & the Creation of West Virginia

After the Secession Convention adopted the Ordinance of Secession, 429 delegates representing 27 counties in northwest Virginia convened in the city of Wheeling. The First Wheeling Convention met and agreed that, if Virginians approved the Ordinance of Secession, the western counties would elect delegates to a second convention to meet on June 11.

Following voter approval of the Ordinance of Secession, delegates representing 32 western Virginia counties met at the Second Wheeling Convention. They declared the secession ordinance void and formed the new Restored Government of Virginia, which was comprised of a legislative and an executive branch but had no judicial branch. The convention also selected new senators and representatives to serve in the United States Congress. Later that month, President Abraham Lincoln recognized the Restored Government as the legitimate governing authority in the Commonwealth of Virginia in a letter pledging troops for Virginia’s defense.

The convention reconvened in August 1861 and called for a popular referendum on the question of whether the northwestern counties should separate from Virginia and form a new state. Although voters approved the referendum, turnout was low—fewer than half the eligible voting population participated in the election. Nonetheless, a constitutional convention began meeting in November 1861 to draft the constitution for the proposed state, which was originally going to be named the State of Kanawha but was renamed to prevent confusion with Kanawha County. The convention set the state’s boundaries, created the structure of government, and resolved to assume a proportionate amount of Virginia’s antebellum debt. The status of slavery was the most contentious issue debated at the convention, with delegates reaching a compromise that sidestepped this matter entirely. The convention proposed prohibiting non-white persons, enslaved or free, from becoming residents of the new state.

Voters approved the constitution, and it was presented to Congress. As a condition of admission, the congressional enabling act required the state to amend the constitution by inserting a provision for the gradual abolition of slavery. The convention reconvened and replaced the provision prohibiting non-white residency with one providing for the gradual emancipation of slaves in the state at that time, prohibiting slaves from being brought into the state, and declaring that children of the enslaved born after July 4, 1863, would be accorded the status of free persons. West Virginia was admitted to the Union on June 20, 1863.

Secession Convention

In 1861, the Virginia General Assembly called a convention to consider whether Virginia should remain part of the Union. By that time, seven states had seceded from the Union. Voters elected 152 delegates who convened in February 1861 for what later became known as the Secession Convention.

The majority of the delegates to the 1861 Convention were Unionists, and, on April 4, 1861, the convention voted, 90 to 45, in favor of remaining in the Union. However, the delegates changed their views following the Battle of Fort Sumter. Confederate forces had fired at Fort Sumter to prevent supplies from reaching the Union soldiers stationed there, resulting in the Union surrendering the fort to the Confederacy. News of the battle led to “thousands of Virginians parading in the street with the new seven-starred, three-striped flag of the Confederacy at their head.” President Lincoln called for the remaining Union states to send 75,000 militia members to suppress the Confederate rebellion. Of these militia members, 3,500 were to come from Virginia. Although Unionist Governor John Letcher refused the order, “things were rapidly spinning beyond his control.”

Secessionists were “determined that regardless of what the convention voted to do, Virginia was going to join the Confederacy.” Led by former governor Henry Wise, the secessionist faction crafted a plan to pressure the convention to vote to secede. Assisted by several high-ranking officers who had resolved to treat him as the governor, Wise directed the Virginia militia to prepare to seize the federal arsenal at Harper’s Ferry and the navy yard at Portsmouth. Then, at the convention’s second vote on secession, Wise “dramatically produced a large horse pistol, the long-barreled type that are holstered on a saddle, and laid it on his desk.” He then proceeded to speak in favor of secession, a position bolstered by a (false) claim that the militia was already marching to take the federal armory and, thus, hostilities between the state and the Union were imminent and inevitable.

On April 17, 1861, the convention voted 88 to 55 to reverse its earlier decision and secede from the United States. Although voters did not approve the Ordinance of Secession until May 23, 1861, the convention had already voted to adopt the Confederate Constitution and form a military alliance with the Confederacy on April 25 and invited the Confederate government to relocate its capital to Richmond on April 27. (The Confederate Congress admitted Virginia into the Confederate States of America on May 7.) Voters eventually approved the decision to secede by a vote of 129,950 to 20,273.

The Rejected Virginia Confederate Constitution

After voters approved seceding from the Union (and a separate constitutional amendment to tax slaves at market value), the convention reconvened in November of 1861 to draft a new constitution or at least amend the 1851 Constitution to replace all references to the United States with the Confederate States of America. The resulting constitution would have allowed the legislature to elect the governor if no candidate received a majority vote in an election, reinstated annual legislative sessions, and returned the power of judicial selection to the legislature. The convention also proposed a separate amendment to limit future voting to tax-paying white men. However, voters considered these proposals during a large-scale Union military campaign in southeastern Virginia. Governor Letcher ordered all militias and their men to move in defense of the state, leaving few Virginians to vote in the March 1862 election on the convention’s proposals. These remaining voters rejected both the proposed constitution and amendment to limit the franchise. As a result, the 1851 Constitution remained in force despite its references to the United States and the U.S. Constitution.

1850-1851 Constitutional Convention

Like the original 1776 Constitution, the amended constitution produced by the 1829 Constitutional Convention was immediately beset by calls for reform. Virginians in the western counties remained dissatisfied with their political representation in the General Assembly. This dissatisfaction only intensified when the General Assembly failed to reapportion legislative representation in 1840 as required by the constitution. Eastern Virginians controlled the legislature and remained opposed to any changes that might affect their political dominance. It was only when the Whig Party suffered significant losses in the 1845 election that eastern Whig politicians, who feared becoming a permanent political minority, conceded on the issue of a constitutional convention. The General Assembly passed a bill to call a convention without support from western legislators. Despite long advocating for constitutional reform, western legislators refused to support a bill apportioning convention delegates on the basis of property taxes, which would once again favor eastern politicians.

The convention adopted, and voters approved,* a constitution that expanded the franchise to all white men, transferred the power to elect executive and judicial officials from the legislature to voters, directed the legislature to meet biennially instead of annually, limited the length of legislative sessions, and created a system of circuit and appellate courts.

On the issue of apportionment, the convention reached a compromise that allowed western voters to elect a majority of the members of the House of Delegates while eastern voters retained control over the majority of seats in the Senate. Under the new constitution, elections for the General Assembly would occur every two years beginning in 1851, commencing Virginia’s practice of off-year state elections that continues to this day.

While the convention yielded to western Virginians’ demands for universal white male suffrage and greater political representation, it insulated the interests of the slave owners of the east by prohibiting the state from emancipating any slaves or their descendants and permitting the legislature to impose restrictions on the power of slave-owners to emancipate their slaves. The new constitution also provided for the re-enslavement of former slaves that remained in the state for more than 12 months following their emancipation and limited the amount of taxes the legislature could impose on enslaved people as property.

* The vote total is commonly reported as 75,748 to 11,863 or 75,748 to 11,060; however, the governor’s proclamation regarding the adoption of the constitution, which included the aggregate vote total as required by the constitution’s schedule, reports a vote total of 67,562 to 9,933. Likewise, although some sources assert that the constitution went into effect on January 12, 1852, this is contrary to provisions in the constitution that required an effective date prior to January 12, 1852. For example, on November 17, 1851, the governor also called for elections to be conducted in December under the new constitution and its suffrage rules, and state officials, aside from legislators, took office on January 1, 1852. The date of January 12, 1852, appears only once in the new constitution as the date that the newly elected legislators would take office. 

Constitutional Convention to Revise the Constitution

The 1776 Constitution drew criticism almost immediately, especially from Thomas Jefferson, who expressed concern that the constitution failed to properly establish a true separation of powers. He criticized the creation of a system of “elective despotism,” which concentrated “all the powers of government, legislative, executive, and judiciary” in the General Assembly. While the constitution stated that the three branches of government “shall be separate and distinct,” the executive and judiciary’s dependence on the legislature meant the legislature could “assume[] executive and judiciary powers” without effective opposition.

This consolidation of power in the legislature exacerbated the effects of the 1776 Constitution’s limitations on suffrage and county-based districts. The 1776 Constitution limited suffrage to “freeholders”—“white men who owned a specified amount of land.” By contrast, Jefferson had proposed a lower property threshold and extending the suffrage to members of the militia. Compulsory militia service would have resulted in nearly universal suffrage for free white men in the state if Jefferson’s proposal had been adopted. Furthermore, every county elected two representatives to the House of Delegates regardless of population, and the counties were grouped to elect the 24 members of the Senate. This created a sharp imbalance in representation between the land-owning east and the more densely populated west. Thus, in 1781, counties home to just 39% of the state’s militia members elected a majority of the senate and nearly half of the house. 

Despite repeated appeals to the legislature to call a convention, the General Assembly did not pass a resolution to put the question of a constitutional convention to voters until 1827. A slight majority of freeholders favored calling a convention. However, the legislature “deadlocked over a scheme of organization” for the convention before ultimately settling on a plan based on senatorial districts, effectively replicating the imbalance of representation found in the legislature that reformers sought to address.

The convention incorporated the Declaration of Rights into the constitution and replaced the previously free-flowing text with seven distinct articles and sections. Other changes included extending the governor’s term from one year with a limit of three consecutive terms to three years with a prohibition on serving consecutive terms, incorporating the text of the 1786 Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, and shrinking the Council of State from 12 to three members.

However, on the issues of reapportionment and suffrage, the convention made few concessions to the reformers who pushed for the constitution’s revision. The amended constitution capped the membership in the House of Delegates at 134 (down from 214) and increased the number of senators from 24 to 32. However, political representation still favored the eastern part of the state. While the amended constitution directed the legislature to reapportion the state every ten years, it also created “great districts” that set the number of delegates and senators allotted to the eastern and western parts of the states and only allowed the legislature to redraw district lines within the confines of these larger “great districts.” This restricted the ability of the legislature to meaningfully alter the distribution of legislative representatives by requiring that a majority of delegates and senators still be elected by counties east of the Blue Ridge Mountain. Likewise, the amended constitution relaxed the property requirement for suffrage and allowed white male tax-paying housekeepers who were heads of families to vote, but this still left about one third of adult white males disenfranchised.

Nonetheless, the amended constitution was approved and adopted by a vote of 26,055 to 15,563 in April 1830. 

The Revolutionary Conventions

In 1774, Virginia’s royal governor dissolved the House of Burgesses, the lower house of the colony’s elected legislature. The following day, the former Burgesses met and issued an “association,” signed by 89 members. The association expressed the former Burgesses’ opposition to taxation without representation, support for a boycott of tea and other “products of East India . . . except saltpetre and spices,” and recommendation that the committee designated to communicate with other colonies propose the convening of a “general congress,” comprised of representatives of all British American colonies.

Following a circular published by committees in Philadelphia, Boston, and Annapolis calling on the colonies to suspend trade relations with Great Britain, 25 former members of the House met and called for reconvening the former House of Burgesses in August to consider ceasing imports from and exports to Great Britain. The August gathering was the first of five meetings that became known as the Virginia Revolutionary Conventions. The first convention banned trade with Great Britain and pledged supplies in support of Boston, which could not receive goods or wares due to the British barricade of Boston Harbor.

The remaining four Revolutionary Conventions met between the spring of 1775 and summer of 1776. Like the delegates at the first Continental Congress, delegates to the second Revolutionary Convention were split between those who thought reconciliation with Great Britain was still possible and those who, while stopping short of openly advocating for a declaration of independence, supported establishing a militia for the “security of a free government.” The latter sentiment won out, and the Convention eventually unanimously recommended that counties establish volunteer militias and collect money to purchase ammunition.

Shortly thereafter, the Battles of Lexington and Concord occurred, and sentiment across Virginia and the rest of the colonies converged upon armed resistance. The fifth and final Revolutionary Congress unanimously adopted a Declaration of Rights on June 12, 1776, and the first Viriginia Constitution on June 29, 1776. Unlike New Hampshire and South Carolina, the delegates opted for a permanent constitution and set of rights instead of adopting a provisional constitution.

The Virginia Declaration of Rights vested power in the people, provided for free elections, and guaranteed freedom of religion and the press. And the constitution outlined the three branches in the Commonwealth: legislative, executive, and judicial. The constitution gave the governor few powers, reflecting the new state’s suspicion of concentrated executive authority. Going into effect without voter approval, these documents governed the state without change for over half a century.