As part of the ongoing series looking at Post-Session activities of the Virginia General Assembly, today’s article will look at significant recommendations made by the Governor and how the legislative bodies responded. As shown in the chart below, the Governor made 180 amendments to legislation from the 2026 Session. Of these amendments, 137 were accepted.
| Governor | Bills sent to the Governor | Initial Vetoes | Governor Recommendations | Post Reconvene Vetoes | Total Vetoes |
| Youngkin | 840 | 26 | 116 | 7 | 33 |
| Spanberger | 1,156 | 8 | 180 | 23 | 31 |
HB5/SB199(Conrvirs-Fowler/Favola): Paid Sick Leave
This legislation creates a paid sick leave mandate for employers in Virginia. Employees under this plan earn at least 1 hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours they work. This is capped at 40 hours that may be accrued in a year. This bill allows these requests to be made in several ways, including orally. Additionally, the bill provides prescriptive remedies to employees if this section is violated including twice the amount of any uncompensated sick leave, (ii) twice the amount of any actual damages suffered as the result of an employer’s violation, (iii) injunctive relief as appropriate to restrain continued violation, (iv) reinstatement of the employee to the same position held before the retaliatory action or to an equivalent position; and (v) compensation for any lost wages, benefits, and other remuneration, together with interest thereon and reasonable attorney fees and costs. Lastly, the bill establishes a two-year statute of limitations for when an employee may bring a civil action.
The Governor’s amendments reined in many of the bills’ provisions.
- Requires at least 1 week’s notice for taking leave.
- Requires that paid sick leave be used in 4-hour chunks.
- States that requests must be in writing.
- Limits damages to actual damages.
- 1 year statute of limitations.
The Governor’s recommendations were not accepted, and the original bill was ultimately signed into law.
HB449/SB229 (Simon/Surovell): Civil Action Lawsuits
The legislation permitted class action lawsuits in the Commonwealth. The Governor made several amendments to the legislation, including regional limits on filings in the circuit courts of Richmond, Roanoke, Fairfax County, and Norfolk. Additionally, the Governors’ amendments added language permitting great authority to judges for the dismissal of cases:
Lines 96-98 of the substitute: B. The provisions of subsection A of § 8.01-420 shall not apply to any class action. A motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of any claim in a class action may be sustained when based in whole or in part upon any discovery depositions under Rule 4:5 of the Rules of the Supreme Court.
The Governor’s recommendations were not accepted, and the bill was vetoed.
Summary of Governor’s Explanation: In her explanation, the Governor stated she supports the goal of allowing class action lawsuits but wants to ensure that federal precedent is followed for implementation and thatregional circuit courts be able to develop expertise with these types of cases.
HB642/SB542 (Krizek/Aird) Cannabis Retail Market
The cannabis legislation is a massive, over 100-page bill that contains numerous carefully crafted compromises from years of legislative work. In a Joint statement from the patrons, they detailed many of the changes made in the Governor’s Substitute. Their concerns with the amendments are described below:
- Retail Sales would begin 6 months later in July 1, 2027
- Possession limit reduced from 2.5 to 2 ounces.
- Maintains a 6% state cannabis tax, increasing the tax to 8% beginning July 1, 2029; local tax authority of 1-3.5% remains and existing retail sales and use taxes.
- Retail stores were reduced from 350 to 200 before January 1, 2029
- Eliminates dedicated statutory allocations for cannabis tax revenues (previously 40% of cannabis tax revenues directed to early childhood care and education, and 30% to support the Cannabis Equity Reinvestment Fund)
- Eliminates detailed statutory licensing framework, shifting key decisions to regulatory action, creating confusion and a lack of clarity for prospective businesses.
- Eliminates statutory support for the Cannabis Impact Business Support Team, helping small businesses receive the support they need entering the marketplace.
- Extends intoxicating products until November 2026
- Criminal Penalties:
- Illegal processing now includes several new escalated penalties based on plant count and adds a provision for conspiracy.
- Illegal cultivation, adds now includes several new escalated penalties based on plant count.
- Adds paraphernalia to underage sales provisions and mandatory license revocation
- Underage possession now subject to Class 1 misdemeanor and increased fines, community service, and automatic license revocation
- Public consumption increases from civil penalty to Class 4 misdemeanor.
- New offense established for marijuana transporting and punishable as a Class 2 felony-punishable by 20 years to life imprisonment and constitutes a separate and distinct felony from any other charged offense. Nothing comparable is in the Enrolled bill.
The Governor’s recommendations were not accepted, and the bill was vetoed.
Summary of the Governor’s Veto: The Governor stated she supports creating a legal cannabis market, but that there must be clear enforcement authority and sufficient resources for compliance, testing, and inspections.
HB1263/SB378 (Tran/Surovell) Collective Bargaining
This legislation permitted public-sector employees in Virginia to engage in collective bargaining. The details of the differences between the enrolled bill and that amended by the Governor are detailed in the summary of the Governor’s veto below.
The Governor’s recommendations were not accepted, and the bill was vetoed.
Summary of Governor’s Veto Explanation: States that she supports establishing collective bargaining rights for public sector employees.
In an effort to achieve these shared goals, I put forth amendments which would have required the state to set up 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.
HB1385/SB494 (L. Franklin/Deeds) Higher Education Governance
This legislation amends the membership and responsibilities of the governing boards of Virginia’s colleges and universities. This includes the process and timeline for when and how appointments must be approved. The enrolled version of the bill favors one six-year term over the current four-year two consecutive terms favored by the Governor. The legislation passed by the General Assembly is more direct in how the staggering and cycling out of current members will proceed.
Additionally, the original bill required each board of visitors to create a code of ethics for members and submit their code of ethics to the General Assembly in a report. This is not found in the Governor’s version of the bill.
Both versions have a work group that is tasked with reviewing the legal counsel processes of governing boards. The enrolled version sent to the Governor envisioned a greater role for the Attorney General. The Governor’s amendments added a second work group charged with developing a model shared governance policy relating to elected faculty governance bodies.
The General Assembly did not adopt the Governor’s amendments, and she vetoed the bill.
Summary of Governor’s Veto: The Governor explained that her amendments were intended to ensure that Virginia’s colleges and universities would not be politicized. Additionally, she detailed her amendments as clarifying the timeline and process for the appointment.
HB483/SB 271 (Delaney/Deeds) Prescription Drug Affordability Board
This legislation provides for a report to be generated regarding drugs whose prices increase by more than 10% or whose rebates decrease by 10% or more over a calendar year. The panel charged with collecting this information, developing policy recommendations, increasing price transparency, and identifying barriers to drug affordability consists of 6 total members; 5 of whom will be citizen members. The membership shall include a representative of local government. The final member is the Secretary of Health and Human Services, serving in an ex officio capacity. Each health plan shall inform the Board of how the cost savings are related to the maximum fair price.
Additionally, the legislation states that no manufacturer or wholesale distributor shall accept payment at an amount higher than the maximum fair price for the sale. Lastly, a manufacturer is prohibited from removing a drug from sale or distribution within the Commonwealth to avoid the impact of the rate limitations.
The Governor’s amendments to the panel membership include adding a 7th member, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Insurance or his designee. Most notably, her amendments included a reenactment clause, requiring the bill to be passed by the 2027 General Assembly for it to take effect. She also required an advisory panel to release a report before the end of 2026 that examines the legal implications and evidence of effectiveness.
Summary of the Governor’s Veto Explanation: The Governor stated that evidence from other states has shown PDABs do not achieve cost savings for consumers. She felt her amendments would better dealt with price transparency. Lastly, her amendments would have expanded the Attorney General’s investigatory and enforcement authority.
Leave a Reply