Joint subcommittee outlines constitutional, statutory hurdles and long timeline to shift Virginia elections to even years

A joint subcommittee convened in Richmond on June 1, 2025, elected its leadership, adopted an electronic meeting policy and heard three presentations on the legal, political and administrative implications of consolidating Virginia’s statewide and local elections into even-numbered years.

The subcommittee — created by statute to study consolidation and scheduling of general elections — heard a legal briefing from Brooks Braun of the Division of Legislative Services, a political and historical overview from Henry Chambers, a University of Richmond law professor, and turnout and political analysis from Robert (Bob) Holdsworth, formerly of Virginia Commonwealth University.

Braun, senior attorney at the Division of Legislative Services, told the panel the principal legal obstacle is the Virginia Constitution’s current term and timing language for a set of offices. "The Constitution does not require elections to be held in odd number of years per se," he said, but the way terms are specified means a one-time shortening or lengthening of terms for multiple offices would be necessary to move to an even-year schedule. He listed examples: house members’ two‑year terms would need a one‑time shift to three years (or one year) and four‑year offices such as governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general and state senators would need a one‑time change to three or five years. The clerk of court, with an eight‑year term, would require a one‑time change to seven or nine years.

Braun outlined two constitutional routes: a single‑year constitutional convention called by a two‑thirds vote of the General Assembly, which could be faster but harder to control, or the familiar two‑year resolution path that requires a second legislative approval and then voter ratification. He recommended appending a transitional schedule to the constitution that would set the one‑time term lengths and then allow ordinary terms to resume.

He said accompanying statutory and charter work is substantial but straightforward in principle: amend references to odd‑numbered start years in the Code of Virginia and adjust local charters where they explicitly control dates or staggered terms (Arlington was cited as an example of a charter that would require significant changes). Braun presented a speed‑run timeline the committee could pursue if it wanted the quickest shift that shortens terms rather than lengthens them: first legislative enactment and implementation work in 2026, first constitutional reference in 2027, second reference in 2028 and ratification in November 2028, followed by a staggered set of one‑time shortened terms so that the full consolidation would not be complete until the late 2030s (the presentation projected steps stretching to about 2038–2040 depending on office schedules).

Professor Henry Chambers put the question in political and historical context, noting that Virginia’s odd‑year pattern dates from Reconstruction and later choices, and that earlier constitutional conventions had opportunities to change the cycle and did not. Chambers emphasized a policy question the committee should weigh: "Why do you want to consolidate elections?" He said consolidation would combine electorates that currently behave differently and urged the panel to consider whether the state wants to pair federal and state contests or preserve separate electorates that allow voters to focus on state issues.

Robert Holdsworth summarized turnout and partisan implications based on recent cycles and warned of tradeoffs. He presented turnout benchmarks: presidential years in Virginia typically see roughly 70–75 percent turnout of registered voters, midterms and gubernatorial years are substantially lower (midterm gubernatorial cycles have been near 40–50 percent historically, with variation), and moving high‑stakes races into presidential years would produce higher participation. He also said consolidation would likely change fundraising dynamics and could "crowd" national and nationalized interest money into fewer cycles, with partisan consequences that depend on future political conditions.

Committee members asked detailed procedural and practical questions that Braun, Chambers and Holdsworth answered in large part as requests for further research. Topics covered in Q&A included special elections and how existing statutes that assume an annual November election would need revision; the timing and placement of bond referenda and whether they would be limited to even‑year November ballots absent a statutory provision for special referenda; impacts on local staggered terms such as city councils, boards of supervisors and school boards; how many local offices would be affected (Braun said there are more than 120 localities and "hundreds" of offices that could be affected); and the need for registrars and the State Board of Elections to produce cost analyses (the committee scheduled finance and registrar briefings for later meetings).

Votes at a glance

- Elect chair: Senator Schuyler Van Valkenburg — motion and second recorded; voice vote; outcome: approved (voice vote, no roll‑call tally recorded). - Elect vice chair: Delegate Dan Helmer — motion and second recorded; voice vote; outcome: approved (voice vote, no roll‑call tally recorded). - Adopt electronic meeting policy: Motion to adopt the joint subcommittee electronic meeting policy (permits limited virtual participation for personal/medical/family reasons, allows all‑virtual meetings up to twice a year, and permits in‑person and virtual public comment); motion seconded; voice vote; outcome: approved.

What the subcommittee directed next

The panel did not take any final policy votes on consolidation itself but set the work plan: it will hold additional informational sessions this summer and fall on campaign finance, election administration costs, and redistricting implications and is scheduled to produce recommendations in 2026. DLS and invited experts were asked to provide follow‑up materials, including: alternative timelines showing the effect of lengthening versus shortening terms, analysis of how other states schedule municipal versus state elections, a locality‑by‑locality inventory of staggered terms and charter conflicts, and a registrar‑led budget estimate of implementation costs and potential savings.

Why it matters

Braun and the experts told the committee that the legal fix itself — changing term lengths once to align cycles — is not technically complicated, but the political and administrative changes are extensive and will take years to complete. Any move would require coordinated constitutional amendments, enabling statutes, and numerous charter and administrative changes. The committee’s choices on whether to shorten or lengthen terms, which offices to pair with presidential or midterm years, and how to handle special elections, bonds and localized staggered schedules will determine how long the transition lasts and how voters, local governments and election administrators experience the change.

The subcommittee reconvened for further hearings on campaign finance and election law later in the week and will return to costs, implementation details and draft schedules in subsequent meetings planned for 2026 and beyond.