Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) has vetoed legislation from numerous Democratic Fairfax County legislators relating to a marijuana retail market, class action lawsuits and other issues.
Yesterday, Spanberger rejected the General Assembly-passed versions of HB 642 and SB 542, which would have set up a retail market for recreational marijuana on Jan. 1, 2027 — more than five years after Virginia became the first state in the South to legalize possession of the drug by adults.
The vetoes came after the General Assembly did not accept a substitute from Spanberger that would’ve delayed the start date to July 1, 2027, added new or stricter penalties for marijuana offenses, increased the tax rate on cannabis, and eliminated provisions specifying how the tax revenue should be allocated.
In a veto explanation, Spanberger said she supports creating legal marijuana sales in Virginia to replace the illicit market. However, the system should prioritize “children’s health and safety, public safety, product integrity, and accountability,” the governor said, adding that she wants to continue working with the General Assembly to get it right next session.
“As Virginia pursues a legal retail market, it is critical that we incorporate lessons learned by other states and ensure that our regulatory framework is fully prepared to provide strong oversight from day one,” Spanberger said in the statement. “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.”
Bill sponsors Del. Paul Krizek (D-16) and state Sen. Lashrecse Aird (D-13) issued a joint statement criticizing the delay of the legal market. After facing vetoes under former Gov. Glenn Youngkin, supporters had hoped for a breakthrough with Spanberger’s election last year.
“The Governor’s veto ignores the reality that cannabis is already sold everyday across Virginia,” Krizek and Aird said. “The only question is whether we as leaders will finally ensure those sales occur within a legal, regulated market or continue turning a blind eye to a booming illicit market while pretending to be outraged by its existence.”
SB 83 sponsored by state Sen. Saddam Azlan Salim would’ve required statewide security screening exemptions for attorneys at courthouses and standardized electronic device policies at courthouses. That bill and Del. Karen Keys-Gamarra (D-7)’s companion HB 1392 received vetoes.
“Without additional study or a clear public safety benefit, I do not support mandating new statewide security screening exemptions for attorneys at courthouses,” Spanberger said in the veto explanation. “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.”
In a joint statement with Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell (D-34), Salim and Keys-Gamarra said the governor’s safety concern with waiving security for attorneys appeared to stem from a misunderstanding of what the bill does.
“Attorneys are licensed professionals who have passed character-and-fitness review and remain under the continuing disciplinary authority of the Virginia State Bar,” the legislators said. “They are officers of the court, bound by enforceable duties of candor and obedience to court rules. The vetoed legislation backed those duties with real teeth: both a mandatory disciplinary referral to the Bar, jeopardizing the license on which an attorney’s livelihood depends, and criminal prosecution, with display of an invalid bar card carrying Class 1 misdemeanor penalties.”
The lawmakers noted that Virginia lets police officers bypass security screenings at courthouses “with no identification check whatsoever,” and some courthouses allow regular visitors to bring in cellphones and other electronic devices.
“We respect the Governor’s constitutional prerogative, but we do not accept the premise on which this veto rests,” Surovell, Salim and Keys-Gamarra said. “We intend to bring this legislation back next session and to continue working with practitioners, the judiciary, and the Bar until Virginia’s courts have the uniform, published policies they deserve.”
Spanberger also vetoed Surovell’s SB 229 and Del. Marcus Simon (D-13)’s HB 449 to create a new class action process in Virginia. The General Assembly did not accept the governor’s substitute with changes.
“I support the General Assembly’s goal of providing a class action mechanism that can be used by plaintiffs in Virginia courts,” the veto explanation stated. “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.”
My statement on the Governors veto of legislation to allow Class Actions in Virginia.
— Marcus Simon (@marcussimon.com) May 19, 2026 at 5:14 PM
Simon, whose district includes Fairfax County from Pimmit Hills down to Lake Barcroft as well as the City of Falls Church, lamented that Virginia will, for now, remain the only state other than Mississippi without an option for class action lawsuits.
“This legislation was about leveling the playing field between Virginia consumers and large corporations when widespread harm occurrs but no single individual has the resources to fight back alone,” he said in a statement, adding that he has “complete faith in the ability of Virginia’s Circuit Court judges to responsibly manage class actions” that are already permitted in 48 other states.
Simon indicated that he plans to reintroduce the bill in 2027, expressing hope that legislators and the governor will use the coming months to work “collaboratively and earlier in the process to address concerns.”
Another vetoed bill was Krizek’s HB 639, which would eliminate a ban on funds, property, or services election officials can accept from individuals and nongovernmental entities for voter education and outreach programs, voter registration programs and other election expenses.
Spanberger took issue with the lack of a specific time limit for the $1,000 cap on the funds, services or properties that election officials can accept.
“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,” the governor’s veto explanation said. “However, the General Assembly rejected [my] amendments which would have ensured additional clarity and guardrails on the use of private funds in election administration and voter registration programs.”
Del. Vivian Watts (D-14)’s HB 246 and state Sen. Jennifer Boysko (D-38)’s SB 335 sought to allow defense for assault on a police officer for people with autism, mental illness, or developmental disabilities.
“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,” Spanberger said when explaining her veto. “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.”
Spanberger vetoed Del. Kathy Tran (D-18)’s HB 1173 and state Sen. Stella Pekarsky (D-36)’s SB 258, which relate to accommodations and preventing discrimination in the workplace for women facing menopause or perimenopause.
“Menopause and perimenopause are natural stages of life that millions of women experience while continuing to work, care for their families, and contribute to their communities,” Tran and Pekarsky said in a joint statement. “These bills would have strengthened protections against discrimination and ensure employees could seek reasonable accommodations without fear of retaliation.”
Spanberger said the Virginia Human Rights Act provides protection for workplace discrimination based on age and gender. The governor wanted further study on the impacts of adding menopause and perimenopause as a specified protected category.
The governor also vetoed Salim’s legislation restricting immigration-related arrests this morning and nixed Surovell and Tran’s collective bargaining legislation last week.
Image via Add Weed/Unsplash
