[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6355525,"mediaKeyId","2218239-f178a11e6f9bb323c0cdd9feedd5469e","parentId",2218239,"title","Votes at a glance: Selected outcomes from the Feb. 3 Virginia Senate session","audioSeconds",124,"startMs",2517000,"endMs",2641000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2218239-f178a11e6f9bb323c0cdd9feedd5469e&start=2517&end=2641","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2218239-f178a11e6f9bb323c0cdd9feedd5469e/thumbnail_2517000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6355525/Virginia/Votes-at-a-glance-Selected-outcomes-from-the-Feb-3-Virginia-Senate-session","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6355525-de8884b59bc9ca6b0c066fda0a5bbdb2/orig.mp4?Expires=1774972287&Signature=VyWT0Q171pRqh6rdhKFpEimgHMPUJGSHJEflYBQ9kf14-X~t-4p-Y5B4~J3s-Rc8k6JT~EYSEn27EywFudNic3KJYeGtgKd~Wx2yTJ2jUF51ztvlQl0mqYNCl8QGzal-TXQ71kIrtRKPYL~ayu4Z7IUcArMgqA6Cfjifmwe0qTPIkCVXt-KzSxLgEavC4vvYllnHUa227xH1oxcb4dqiAydmekgWoP7wb~dpjgICEHLYG8Y~bmCTPcZ7dtPSD4Gfw9y8vJcoqUGiy0l96fj-rTGB~wrhcHf2b1Dtmx5kUKB2tvWPCeLre4Q~pyg1pznTW1qiYZ4NPpuJE22ljQ1n6w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Virginia Legislature","date","2025-02-03T00:00:00Z","article","The Virginia Senate debated and voted on many measures on Feb. 3, 2025. Below are selected bills addressed on the floor that had recorded outcomes or otherwise-noted results in the transcript.

- SB 12‑52 (financial institutions, loans and legal rate of interest): Passed, recorded vote 34‑6.
- SB 8‑38 (DBHDS recovery residences certification/work group): Passed, recorded vote 40‑0.
- SB 8‑75 (State Pharmacy Benefits Manager / Save Local Pharmacies Act): Passed, recorded vote 40‑0.
- SB 8‑82 (board of medicine licensure of anesthesiologist assistants): Passed, recorded vote 37‑3.
- SB 9‑03 (pet shop procurement/sources transparency): Passed, recorded voice/roll call announced 14‑0 (per transcript).
- SB 9‑19 (private companies providing public transportation — parity of wages/benefits): Passed, recorded vote 21‑19.
- SB 9‑39 (mail theft penalties): Passed, recorded vote 39‑1.
- SB 9‑63 (discovery in criminal cases): Passed, recorded vote 33‑6.
- SB 9‑99 (appeals: security, fees and discretionary oral argument): Passed, recorded vote 32‑8.
- SB 10‑09 (ranked‑choice voting pilot expansions): Passed, recorded vote 21‑19.
- SB 10‑21 (electric utilities integrated resource plans and planning changes): Passed, recorded vote 21‑19.
- SB 10‑29 (FOIA requests charges and posting notice of rights): Passed, recorded vote 38‑2.
- SB 10‑60 (tobacco/vapor/minors enforcement changes): Passed, recorded vote 39‑1.
- SB 10‑93 (erosion and stormwater management right of entry fix): Passed, recorded vote 22‑18.

Many other bills were adopted on the uncontested calendar and moved forward; the Senate also placed several bills \"by for the day\" for later consideration. For full roll‑call tallies and bill text, consult the official Senate journal and the legislative information system.

Ending: This list is a snapshot of recorded outcomes during the Feb. 3 session. Several debated bills were covered in more detail in separate reports.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","February 3, 2025 - Regular Session - 12:00 m.","oneSentenceSummary","The Senate considered dozens of measures on Feb. 3, 2025. This summary lists selected bills that received recorded votes on the floor and their outcomes.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature VA, Virginia","taxId",77687,"location","Virginia","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6355529,"Senate narrows felony‑homicide change tied to drug deaths; committee substitute approved 21‑19",1912,10680000,12592000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2218239-f178a11e6f9bb323c0cdd9feedd5469e&start=10680&end=12592","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2218239-f178a11e6f9bb323c0cdd9feedd5469e/thumbnail_10680000.jpg","/articles/6355529/Virginia/Senate-narrows-felonyhomicide-change-tied-to-drug-deaths-committee-substitute-approved-2119","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6355529-cda51fdd61c24daabcdfef99091b473b/orig.mp4?Expires=1774972287&Signature=XiczD08zOTDbzuCC4r7zEsugRnKEERyC8ZQNlkonIDXGDS96wzghd0bFi6SQcCBGWTRrRc7AKkb92zR51mJKi~sO1cXDB6igcz~2XPz10XMes9rwRYCxoqTQdV5cNE32CvOOTIcgJOAw~xZWBL9uCrQ-dfLk9vJoUnvBPyhlh9ZMqlKpEBCW7oIejuKwrIDMiU4arLQvmIavs7a3SVDtqQ-3Xge4RUXuHYcPtUHreXqnAEMKV~OdzeGeqfgXU-NSpCSiAMkWlLGr-5avPaLjS7r0edHdCxHf9S9XJYfU6FEC74oWwJ7h20lkWE6uCtPGImVFGj55EnIo8qijBsh8qg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Virginia Senate on Feb. 3, 2025, approved a committee substitute to a bill addressing felony‑homicide liability in drug‑related deaths. The recorded vote on the committee substitute was 21 in favor and 19 opposed.

Senator McDougall, who introduced the measure in the form debated on the floor, said his original bill would have allowed felony‑homicide prosecution when a person sells or distributes controlled substances that are the proximate cause of another person’s death. He argued the change was intended to prevent drug dealers from continuing to sell dangerous mixes that lead to overdoses.

Members of the courts committee proposed a narrower substitute during committee work. The version the Senate adopted limits the elevated homicide exposure in several ways: it applies specifically to fentanyl when the drug sold or distributed is the sole and proximate cause of death and it focuses on deaths of minors (the committee language applies when the decedent is under a specified age). The substitute also retained or added an accommodation defense in some circumstances and included safe‑harbor language intended to encourage callers to report overdoses without fear of prosecution.

Supporters said the measure targets the exceptional lethality of fentanyl and gives prosecutors a tool when a dealer’s product directly caused a minor’s death. Opponents, including those with experience in criminal law, warned the statute raises proof challenges and could produce prosecutions based on difficult-to-prove links between a sale and a later death, especially when multiple substances may be involved.

The committee substitute passed on a recorded vote, 21‑19; senators then moved to engross the bill in advance to third reading.

Ending: Senators acknowledged further work is possible in conference or future sessions; for now the Senate approved the narrower committee substitute and sent the measure forward in the process.","After debate, the Senate approved a committee substitute that narrows proposed felony‑homicide changes to focus on fentanyl deaths involving minors; the committee substitute passed 21‑19.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6355535,"Senate rejects measure to create regional solar planning targets after hours of debate",4213,7393000,11606000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2218239-f178a11e6f9bb323c0cdd9feedd5469e&start=7393&end=11606","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2218239-f178a11e6f9bb323c0cdd9feedd5469e/thumbnail_7393000.jpg","/articles/6355535/Virginia/Senate-rejects-measure-to-create-regional-solar-planning-targets-after-hours-of-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6355535-57bcd44e8d4ead265215f8328dc890ac/orig.mp4?Expires=1774972287&Signature=VD7Pv4JSo8NkRjW5L~iVDop2Lqo~lMpTGHsq04hFeBiGkHC-h4RV~8OfgIlXZtuO-XJywgXAjOUBMeZYeurMLiXEAQ-Yw7vduCgt8a5hzg-pCul4Asrxe-9~WWs~mBv9wqDGdKSrffLJWuCp8P3YRxOhIlU10TMV2YCoVw3e9-HKP~tP155xVSPU8l3~a7qUOmRd2pWqJdp0g1t6vHdhYVSJjVnTlPeIH9~A7NuV~DQ7rXla13Ir0xKLejwZVnF07l~uDfc6IyJHjE5etI9RGqz23HUR1pT6dAcDGg50DRzfcSOlvZjWSBdkKF9gUn1ywc-JOpHzSIPPy6hIEFOc4Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Virginia Senate voted down SB 11‑90 on Feb. 3, 2025, after extended floor debate over local land‑use authority and how to meet the Commonwealth’s growing electricity demand. The final vote was 19 in favor and 20 opposed; the measure did not pass.

Senator Deeds (Charlottesville), the bill’s sponsor, described it as a planning package that would link local, regional and state decision‑making on energy siting. The bill would have created a Virginia Clean Energy Technical Assistance Center hosted by a public‑university consortium; required regional energy plans produced by planning district commissions; and asked localities to update comprehensive plans to reflect regional production and efficiency targets informed by the Virginia Energy Plan.

Backers said the measure provides technical assistance to small local governments that lack the planning staff and expertise to process large‑scale solar and storage applications. Senator Sarovail (Eastern Fairfax) said the bill “creates a board that gives localities the technical assistance so they can process the application,” and that it does not mandate zoning changes or direct placement of projects.

Opponents, including Senators McDougall (Hanover), Stewart (King George) and others, said the bill would shift the burden of meeting the Commonwealth’s renewable capacity to rural localities where land is cheaper and more available. They warned that regional targets could be used to overturn local denials and argued the approach could force farmland and forestland into utility‑scale solar development. Senator McDougall said local governments know their communities best and should not be subordinated to a state or regional planning board.

Supporters noted the growth in demand from data centers and other users and said coordinated planning is needed to avoid unnecessary transmission build‑out and disputes. “We have people over‑zoning for development, and we ask the legislature to pay for the road infrastructure,” the sponsor said; “when localities engage in that kind of behavior, the legislature starts to take interest in it.”

After the floor debate, the Senate recorded a final vote of 19‑20 and the bill failed to pass. Sponsors said further work and local engagement are likely to continue.

Ending: Advocates and critics signaled the debate would continue in future sessions; the bill’s defeat leaves current local authority intact while the state continues seeking ways to coordinate renewable siting.

","SB 11‑90, a bill to establish regional energy plans and a state technical assistance center for solar siting, failed in the Senate, 19‑20, after lengthy debate over local authority and rural impacts.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6355540,"Senate approves bill barring extradition of Virginia providers for care legal in state",2538,1165000,3703000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2218239-f178a11e6f9bb323c0cdd9feedd5469e&start=1165&end=3703","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2218239-f178a11e6f9bb323c0cdd9feedd5469e/thumbnail_1165000.jpg","/articles/6355540/Virginia/Senate-approves-bill-barring-extradition-of-Virginia-providers-for-care-legal-in-state","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6355540-c7ce5dc025dcb4a6f53e1adea6fa743d/orig.mp4?Expires=1774972287&Signature=EPtxHppi5q6UiFSu0Y3vrok9Y-QLCNkbScezGbt7CumRAaSWMukO3iH6zQpSuTx-sg1rzRAVAg07RKeXW4turGyt5xHQER40TvNurTlOf0bE14vsZoNO6x0CjxaA56HaCpv1gAPlW4oknPw-23dA0x-QMFVioAYl8I1-w~DtajOTNbsfn4xxHb73WfTEnCx5mg0SPcOUD~8beoBZTi~LgZV8jjNH08iWUYE8kzqUMHo-WF0aiwk6Hc6iVvucJjuJtRmVebfq1rXXUkxzqeTsC54GIVlSm93CLe~6kUX7MOXgzMj8BplQbY4if1NZ7WV89ZbW9ZUSTCMs6srD5RmLdg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Virginia Senate passed SB 10-98 on Feb. 3, 2025, a bill that bars the governor from signing extradition requests for people who engage in health-care activity that is lawful in Virginia, including care provided by licensed health-care providers physically present in the Commonwealth. The final, recorded vote on passage was 21 in favor and 19 opposed.

The bill’s sponsor, Senator Hashmi, said the substitute now before the chamber “simplifies” earlier language and affirms that health-care providers licensed in Virginia “are protected for any health-care activity that is permitted under the laws of the Commonwealth.” He said that protection includes care delivered by telehealth so long as the provider is authorized under Virginia law and is physically present in the Commonwealth while providing care.

Supporters told colleagues the measure was needed after examples around the country of providers facing out‑of‑state prosecution for care that was legal where it was provided. “We are in a position here in Virginia where our medical community is feeling the chilling effects of providing such care,” Hashmi told the Senate.

Opponents raised concerns about cross‑border practice and public‑safety questions. Senator Stanley (Franklin County) said the bill could allow Virginia practitioners to advertise telemedicine services to patients in states where those services would be illegal, and urged the Senate to decline the change and address the narrower issue of minors’ treatment in separate legislation. Senator Peake (Lynchburg) warned the bill could be read to shield a Virginia provider who treats a nonresident and then returns home from prosecution in the patient’s home state.

The Senate debated and rejected a committee substitute before agreeing to a floor substitute the sponsor described as narrower and simpler. The Senate later voted to suspend rules and dispense with constitutional third reading by a recorded vote of 38-0, then passed the bill on final passage, 21-19.

Votes at a glance: The Senate agreed to the floor substitute; it then engrossed the bill and the chamber voted 38-0 to dispense with the constitutional third reading. Final passage was recorded at 21-19 in favor.

The measure tasks state officials with refusing extradition when the alleged conduct consists of health‑care activity that is permitted by Virginia law and provided by a licensed health‑care provider physically present in Virginia. The bill’s language ties the protection to what is lawful in Virginia rather than creating new licensing rules.

Supporters said the measure is intended to reassure providers who may face prosecution in other states for care that Virginia permits. Opponents said it risked creating a safe harbor for conduct that other states deem criminal and urged further limits or different drafting to address cross‑jurisdictional concerns.

The bill now moves to the House of Delegates (or, depending on procedural posture, proceeds toward enrollment) for further steps required by law.

Ending: Sponsors and critics said additional drafting and future sessions may refine the measure further; for now the Senate adopted the floor substitute and passed SB 10‑98 on Feb. 3.","The Virginia Senate passed SB 10-98 on Feb. 3, 2025, to prohibit state extradition for health-care activity that is lawful in Virginia; the final vote was 21-19.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: Selected outcomes from the Feb. 3 Virginia Senate session

Senate narrows felony‑homicide change tied to drug deaths; committee substitute approved 21‑19

Senate rejects measure to create regional solar planning targets after hours of debate

Senate approves bill barring extradition of Virginia providers for care legal in state