A new wave of elected Democrats in Virginia is showing how much of a difference one election can make.

In Virginia’s 2025 midterm elections, Democrats managed to sweep the state, claiming three high-ranking political positions: governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general. It didn’t take long for the shift in power to translate into policy action. Governor Abigail Spanberger was sworn in on January 17, 2026, and almost immediately, a flurry of new legislation emerged from the Democratic-controlled General Assembly.

Some of the early proposals included gun-related measures that critics argued targeted Second Amendment rights, such as expanded restrictions or heavy taxes on firearms and ammunition. However, scrutiny has intensified across the board as Democrats continue to push broader priorities that stir controversy and appear to diverge sharply from campaign promises.

One high-profile example is House Bill 863, sponsored by Democratic Delegate Rae Cousins. The bill seeks to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for a range of serious crimes, including manslaughter, rape, possession and distribution of child pornography, assaulting law enforcement officers, certain repeat violent felonies, and even the mandatory five-day jail sentence for some first-time DUI offenders. According to The Post Millennial, “many left-wing activists have criticized mandatory minimum sentencing, labelling the practice as racist.”

Supporters have described it as a “common-sense proposal” that removes “one-size-fits-all” requirements. “This change would give the experienced judges in our communities more discretion to make decisions based on the unique facts of each case,” Cousins said. Proponents also argue it promotes fairer, more individualized sentencing and addresses long-standing criticisms of mandatory minimums as overly rigid or disproportionately harmful. Critics, however, are sounding the alarm.

Law enforcement advocates and former Republican Attorney General Jason Miyares, for example, warn that removing these required prison terms could lead to lighter punishments for dangerous offenders, potentially undermining accountability, endangering public safety, and increasing risks of re-offending. One expert, Josh Ederheimer of the University of Virginia’s Center for Public Safety and Justice, explained to Fox News that “from a law enforcement standpoint, I think police generally want offenders to be held accountable, and frustration among law enforcement officers grows when individuals are released quickly and subsequently re-offend — and even more so if it involved a violent felony.”

Considering how this would affect victims and their families, he added, “I think that the police and public alike have expectations that convicted criminals will be held accountable, and that full sentences should be served. Mandatory minimums assure victims — and the community — that a convicted person will serve their sentence. It is the circumstance when convicted felons are released early that victims may feel a sense of betrayal or that justice was not served. That’s the dilemma.” Notably, HB 863 is only one part of a larger Democratic push on criminal justice reform in the 2025-2026 session.

But for some Virginians, the concerns expand beyond gun rights and criminal justice. For instance, shortly after Democrats consolidated power, a separate set of tax proposals were introduced — mirroring (if not surpassing) some of California’s rates.

Only months after campaigning on affordability and vowing lower costs for families, Virginia Democrats set forth legislation that would create new higher-income tax brackets, including an increase to 8% on income over $600,000 and 10% on income over $1 million. They also added measures like a 3.8% net investment income tax on higher earners, which could lower after-tax returns on investments and discourage saving and investing. Combined, some say these could push Virginia’s top effective income tax rate to around 13.8%, which would potentially surpass California’s current top rate, the highest in the nation.

Even so, supporters frame the changes as a “Fair Share” approach, arguing that millionaires and high earners should contribute more to fund education, housing, public services, and affordability initiatives. Groups like The Commonwealth Institute, a left-wing policy group backing the tax plan, estimate such reforms could generate over $1 billion annually for these priorities. Meanwhile, critics are accusing Democrats of breaking campaign promises.

During her 2025 run, Spanberger emphasized an “Affordable Virginia Plan” to lower health care, housing, and energy costs, with pledges to deliver savings in 2026. Opponents, including House Minority Leader Terry Kilgore (R) and the Republican Party of Virginia, call the tax hikes a betrayal that could drive jobs, investment, and residents away — following what they describe as the “failed paths” of high-tax states like California and New York. National figures like Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform have labeled the timing “particularly foolish” amid competitive pressures from neighboring states lowering taxes.

Family Research Council’s Matt Carpenter, director of FRC Action, addressed the apparent shift in priorities with The Washington Stand. “When [Spanberger] was representing the people of Virginia’s 7th congressional district,” he said, “she was an informal member of the ‘mod squad’ of allegedly moderate House Democrats who wanted to work with their Republican counterparts on issues of mutual interest, like agriculture, veterans’ affairs, and fentanyl. She may have done some work on these issues with moderate Republicans, but the reality is Spanberger’s vote history in Congress shows her to be committed to the left-wing cultural revolution playbook.”

As he went on to explain, “She was a reliable vote when taxpayer funded abortion, gender transitions on minors, special rights for adults’ ‘sexual orientation and gender identity,’ and more, came up. And yet, during the 2025 election, she was adept at stepping around controversial topics like men participating in women’s sports throughout the campaign, maintaining her carefully curated moderate brand.”

These early moves, from gun laws to criminal justice to taxes, illustrate how dramatically one election cycle can reshape a state’s direction. With Democrats holding trifecta control for the first time in years, the 2026 legislative session is already advancing these and other priorities at a rapid pace. And yet, Carpenter concluded, it’s not surprising. Rather, he said, “It’s safe to assume [Spanberger] will do as governor just as she did while in Congress: campaign as a centrist and govern as a bona fide leftist.”

AUTHOR

Sarah Holliday

Sarah Holliday is a reporter at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.