BEDFORD, VA – Liberty Counsel filed a series of briefs in the Circuit Court of Bedford County, Virginia in Bansley v. Nardo, a case that challenges Virginia’s pro-abortion amendment for the upcoming 2026 ballot. 

In Bansley v. Nardo, Liberty Counsel represents Charla Bansley, District 3 Supervisor for the Bedford County Board of Supervisors, who is challenging House Joint Resolution 1 (HJR 1). HJR 1 aims to establish a “fundamental right to reproductive freedom” in the Virginia Constitution. However, Bansley claims the ballot initiative is invalid after discovering Virginia’s House of Delegates missed several key procedural steps mandated by the Virginia Constitution before the amendment can go before the voters, such as distributing the amendment to all circuit court clerks statewide and posting it for public inspection three months prior to the 2025 House of Delegates election. The lawsuit names as defendants Clerk of the Virginia House of Delegates G. Paul Nardo; Commissioner of Elections Steven Koski; and other Virgina election offices and officials. Bansley is asking the court to block election officials from printing 2026 ballots with HJR 1 and to order its amendment process be restarted for the 2027-2028 legislative and election cycles.

Together, the four filed briefs support Bansley’s legal challenge and rebut different opposing motions to outright dismiss the case, or transfer the case to the Richmond Circuit Court, and to allow abortion promotors to intervene.

Brief Opposing Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss (Repeal of procedural steps)

Primarily, the defendants argue to dismiss the case since the violated procedural steps have been recently repealed so those violations are “retroactively cured.” However, Liberty Counsel argues that a retroactive repeal cannot erase past unlawful conduct or a make a defective process valid. 

Legal precedent gives the defendants’ “self-serving repeal” no legal standing in this case, but  rather gives Bansley standing to bring her claims and obtain a legal remedy to the violations of the law that was “unquestionably in place” at the time those violations occurred, wrote Liberty Counsel.

Brief Opposing Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss (Sovereign Immunity)

The defendants also argue they are protected by sovereign immunity from this lawsuit. However, both Virginia Law and state supreme court precedent do not recognize sovereign immunity regarding claims involving the state’s constitutional amendment process, and they give the state’s judiciary the authority to review those claims, wrote Liberty Counsel.

Brief Opposing Defendants’ Motion To Transfer Venue 

In February 2026, the Virginia legislature enacted House Bill 1384, also known as the “Special Venue Law.” The law requires that all cases about constitutional amendments be adjudicated only in the Richmond Circuit Court. Liberty Counsel argues this law is unconstitutional because the Virginia Constitution ban’s discriminatory “special laws.”

“While the General Assembly is certainly empowered to enact statutes regulating venue of civil actions, it does not have carte blanche to establish venue anywhere it arbitrarily selects for some special purpose, the convenience of a defense, or as an exercise of legislative forum shopping,” the brief reads. “The Special Venue Law creates two classes of cases and two classes of plaintiffs for challenges to proposed constitutional amendments, and arbitrarily and unreasonably discriminates against all who reside in one of the jurisdictions of the 132 Circuit Courts outside of Richmond.”

Citing the Virginia Constitution, Liberty Counsel noted that it explicitly prohibits changing court venues because of “any local, special, or private law.” Bedford County Circuit Court should retain jurisdiction in the case, wrote Liberty Counsel. 

Brief Opposing Motion To Intervene by Abortion Promotors

Virginians for Reproductive Freedom, a pro-abortion “syndicate of companies,” is requesting to intervene in the case out of concern for its outcome. Liberty Counsel argues this case is about the constitutional amendment process, and third parties with no role, authority, or entitlement in the amendment process, election procedures, or ballot placement have no legal right to be involved.

This case is about whether the government followed the proper legal process for constitutional amendments. All amendments need to follow the same standards, and the companies’ abortion-related interests are “not germane” to the defendants’ procedural violations in the constitutional amendment process, and the motion should be denied, wrote Liberty Counsel.

Liberty Counsel’s Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “Virginia’s House Joint Resolution 1 cannot legally appear on the ballot. This measure is invalid because the General Assembly advanced it to a second legislative vote without completing the constitutionally mandated notice and posting requirements that must occur after its first passage. Repealing the legal requirements after the fact, claiming sovereign immunity, requesting an unconstitutional venue transfer, and requesting involvement from irrelevant third parties are all meritless attempts to stop this case and allow an improper amendment to go on the ballot. Virginia citizens have the right to a transparent, orderly constitutional change, and any misstep undermines the integrity of the amendment process and can interfere with the will of the voters.”

For media interviews, please email [email protected].