Women candidates pack Virginia's House of Delegates elections, tee up historic governor's race
Clockwise from top left: 41st House District Democratic candidate Lily Franklin, 82nd District Democratic candidate Kimberly Pope Adams, Del. Kim Taylor, R-Petersburg and District 71 Democratic candidate Jessica Anderson. These are four of the roughly 80 women running for Virginia's House of Delegates in the November 2025 election. (Photos courtesy of campaigns)
With Virginia poised to elect its first woman governor later this year, the future of its state legislature is also female.
About 80 House of Delegates candidates are women, representing Democrats, Republicans and third party contenders. They are incumbents and challengers in primary or general elections vying for a role in the House, where all 100 seats are up for election. Of the 86 non-incumbents running statewide, 41 of those are women, according to the Virginia Public Access Project.
Those numbers could fluctuate over the next month or so as several districts have multi-person primaries and additional independent candidates have until June 17 to get on the ballot for November's general elections.
With Republican Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle Sears and former congresswoman Abigail Spanberger battling for the governor's mansion, the women seeking seats in the House can help boost their gubernatorial campaigns, too.
Virginia elections draw national scrutiny and lots of attention from political pundits, since its state elections follow close on the heels of presidential contests.
A year after President Donald Trump's first election, Virginia's 2017 House races ushered in a 'Blue Wave' and laid the groundwork for a Democratic trifecta. Similarly, Virginia's 2021 elections — a year after Democrat Joe Biden was sent to the White House — ignited a red takeover with Gov. Glenn Youngkin's election and Republicans winning control in the House of Delegates for a term.
While presidential or congressional midterm elections nationwide typically see higher turnouts than other election years, Virginia's unique timing of its state elections offers insight to pundits. But it also showcases which issues motivate Virginians specifically.
'These off-off year elections have lower turnout so it matters which side is motivated,' said political analyst Jessica Taylor with Cook Political Report.
Though most of the past two decades have seen Virginia elect a governor of the opposite party that won the White House the year before — and thus also benefit that party in House races — both Virginia's gubernatorial candidates have top-down benefits to draw from.
'Earle-Sears' biggest asset has been that Youngkin has remained popular and that the Virginia economy is doing well,' Taylor said.
She cautioned, however, that Trump's policies could end up hurting her down the line while benefiting Spanberger. Sweeping federal job cuts stemming from the president and advisor Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency have made a big impact in Virginia and could have lingering effects, she said.
A government shutdown in Washington D.C. in 2013 shortly before that year's statehouse elections may have played a role in Democratic former Gov. Terry McAuliffe's win, despite former President Barack Obama, a Democrat, winning the year before.
Although the DOGE cuts are unfolding earlier in the year, Taylor suspects they could still influence voters by November.
'Losing your job is more permanent than a furlough and a shutdown,' she said.
Another factor, particularly as so many women are running up and down the ticket this year, could be reproductive laws.
Virginia's status as the least restrictive Southern state when it comes to abortion access is one that Democrats are working to keep — and permanently protect.
The amendment needed to enshrine abortion access in the state constitution has only advanced on partisan lines, with Republican women lawmakers opposing it. Following the outcome of this year's House elections, it will need to pass again before it can appear on statewide ballots for voters to weigh in.
'These are things that directly impact us, our daughters and our granddaughters,' said House District 71 Democratic nominee Jessica Anderson. 'I think (women) absolutely need to be in the room when these decisions are being made.'
All Republican delegates and senators opposed the amendment, but their party first tried to tweak it. They'd sought to insert existing state code requiring parental consent for minors seeking abortions.
While Republican women incumbents opposed the measure, they said they had their reasons.
Del. Carrie Coyner, R-Chesterfield grew tearful while describing the Democratic version of the bill as 'extreme' and said that it would 'strip away' parental rights.
'How can we place such a heavy burden on young women across the commonwealth?' she asked her colleagues in January. 'I cannot imagine my 15-year-old daughter having to face this decision without me.'
Republicans had sought to insert existing state and federal protections for newborns into the abortion amendment, as well. Democrats rejected the insertions and advanced the proposed constitutional amendment as they'd written it.
Coyner has sided with Democrats on some issues — like their constitutional amendment to restore voting rights to ex-felons who've served their time — but aligned with her party on the reproductive rights amendment. Three Democratic challengers — two men and a woman — will face off in a primary this June, and the victor will challenge Coyner in November.
Del. Kim Taylor clinched her last re-election by just 53 votes; her rematch with challenger Kimberly Pope Adams is among the most competitive districts for both parties this year.
Parental rights at center of reproductive health debate
Taylor attempted to stake out a nuanced stance on reproductive health this year. Her House Bill 2562 would have shored up protections for abortions or abortion-like procedures as treatment for 'nonviable' pregnancies, which lack a standard definition and are handled on a case-by-case basis by physicians.
A nonviable pregnancy is one that 'cannot result in a live-born infant, including an ectopic pregnancy or failed intrauterine pregnancy,' as defined in Taylor's bill.
'We hear so often from the other side that this is a health care crisis, and that women are dying because there is an unclear standard of care,' she told The Mercury at the time. 'Miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies are nonviable pregnancies, and therefore cannot be confused with elective abortion procedures. This would have put any doubt about the law to rest.'
But the bill was never brought up for a vote, so it failed this legislative session by default.
Democrats, on the other hand, argue their amendment will best protect people's reproductive needs and choices. Each Democratic woman challenger The Mercury spoke with for this story stressed their desire to help it advance.
From red to blue to purple, Democrats are running candidates in nearly all 100 House of Delegates districts this year compared to Republicans, who are pitching candidates across 66 districts. Each challenger has their own reasons to take on the incumbents they're hoping to unseat, but they're also hoping to drive party turnout to the polls.
'One of my jobs is to be a point guard to up-ballot candidates,' said House District 48 Democratic candidate Melody Ann Cartwright.
She's 'not delusional' about how hard she will have to work campaigning in the Martinsville-anchored district that the Virginia Public Access Project labels 'Strong Republican,' but she knows her campaign can help keep her party inspired.
Though 2024 was a tough year for Democrats as Trump won the presidency, former Vice President Kamala Harris carried 59 of Virginia's 100 House districts and secured the state's 13 Electoral College votes.
While Democrats have a 51-49 majority, they hope to hold and expand it. Taking back the House could help Republicans balance the Democrats' control of the Senate, which is not up for election this year.
Some districts are highly competitive and offer each party a unique chance to claw back power around the state.
In the New River Valley within Southwest Virginia, Democrat Lily Franklin nearly defeated Del. Chris Obenshain, R-Montgomery, in 2023 and she's hoping for victory in their rematch this year. Taylor and Pope Adams will go head-to-head again to represent their Petersburg-anchored district. First-time candidate May Nivar — who still must win a Democratic primary — hopes to take on Del. David Owen, R-Henrico. Anderson, from District 71, hopes that this time she can topple Del. Amanda Batten, R-James City County.
Anderson lost by one percentage point in 2023, and this time has more investment from party organizers, she said.
Countering this, Batten helped form an informal 'purple caucus' to support fellow GOP candidates in competitive districts.
'If any of us find some best practices or have some good ideas that we think would be useful, then we try to share those and collaborate with each other,' she recently told The Mercury.
Republican groups are also boosting their male and female candidates in competitive districts where Democrats are vulnerable. A new series of advertisements from the Republican State Leadership Committee and Virginia House Republican Campaign Committee target delegates Michael Feggans, D-Virginia Beach, Josh Cole, D- Fredericksburg, Nadarius Clark, D-Suffolk, and Josh Thomas, D-Prince William.
Across all of 2023's elections, just 975 votes ultimately determined which party landed the majority in the House — underscoring how each ballot cast could prove decisive this year.
As excitement builds within Virginia, Jessica Taylor with Cook Political Report said she's watching how national groups pour money into the gubernatorial election, which can help down-ballot candidates.
Anderson said she thinks it's 'really cool' that there are so many women stepping up to lead Virginia's government, especially the gubernatorial candidates, whom she acknowledged both have a momentous role to play, whatever the election's outcome.
'I want Spanberger to be our history-maker,' she said. 'But, no matter where this goes, we're making history.'SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Intercept
35 minutes ago
- The Intercept
How Democratic Leaders Quietly Support Trump's March to War With Iran
Support Us © THE INTERCEPT ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Some Democrats are fighting to stop war with Iran, but party leaders are silently acquiescing or, worse, supporting an attack. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., conducts a news conference in the U.S. Capitol in Washington on May 20, 2025. Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images As President Donald Trump barrels toward a direct war with Iran, the most powerful Democrats in Congress are issuing statements that are at best tepid and confusing. At worst, they are cheering escalation. Even with some Democrats on Capitol Hill pushing for a War Powers Resolution and other legislation to stop Trump from attacking without congressional approval, the Democratic Party's most powerful politicians refuse to mount any meaningful opposition to a strike. Many outright favor direct U.S. involvement in yet another regime change war. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the most powerful Democrat in the Senate, where he is the minority leader, presents himself as a major opponent of Trump. As recently as June 15, for example, he boasted about his participation in the No Kings Day mass protest against Trump. Yet when it comes to the prospect of a direct war with Iran, Schumer is not only supporting Trump, but less than three weeks ago was goading the administration to be 'tough' on Iran and not make any 'side deals' without Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's approval. — Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) June 2, 2025 'The United States' commitment to Israel's security and defense must be ironclad as they prepare for Iran's response,' he said in a follow-up statement released on June 13, after Israel attacked Iran. 'The Iranian regime's stated policy has long been to destroy Israel and Jewish communities around the world.' Schumer did include a perfunctory nod to talks — 'a strong, unrelenting diplomatic effort backed by meaningful leverage.' The 'meaningful leverage' in question, however, is bombing Iran — something Schumer tacitly supports. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., the most powerful Democrat in the House, responded to Israel's attack with a toothless statement that was vaguely supportive of war and packed with every pro-Israel cliche in the book. 'Our commitment to Israel's security is ironclad,' he said. 'It is clear that the Iranian regime poses a grave threat to the entire free world. There is no circumstance where Iran can be permitted to become a nuclear power.' Jeffries, too, mentioned diplomacy, but with no urgency. 'As soon as is practical, it is imperative to find a rigorous diplomatic path forward and avoid any situation where U.S. troops are put in harm's way,' he said. As with Schumer, 'diplomacy' is a box to be checked, a vague normative preference, but not a demand — and certainly not a requirement. A host of powerful Democrats issued strikingly similar statements. They repeatedly reinforced every premise of Trump's pending bombing campaign, namely the alleged imminent danger posed by Iran. This premise is undermined by U.S. intelligence assessments and leaks to both the Wall Street Journal and CNN, which suggest Iran hadn't decided to make a bomb and would be three years away from producing one if it did. If all of the statements look similar, it's because, according to DropSite and the American Prospect, many members of Congress are simply copy and pasting approved language from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, the flagship pro-Israel lobby group. These outlets found that, in statements on congressional websites and social media, nearly 30 members of Congress used nearly identical language about how they 'stand with Israel' and another 35 gave their unequivocal support in similar terms but without the magic words. Among the influential Democrats pledging their unflinching support for Israel was Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Like many others, Meeks hauled out a talking point about how 'Israel has a right to defend itself' — meant to front-run any discussion of Israeli aggression by asserting the premise that any and all military action is inherently defensive. It's a dubious premise in most contexts, but especially Orwellian in this one since Israel preemptively attacked Iran based on claims of an 'imminent threat' in direct contradiction of US intelligence. Even if one thinks Israel has a 'right to defend itself' in the abstract, under no neutral reading of international law is Israel doing so by bombing another country without legal basis to do so. The decidedly unhelpful approaches by powerful Democrats don't end there. Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, D-Fla., and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-NH, influential members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, respectively, both issued mealy-mouthed statements trying to split the baby between 'diplomacy' rhetoric and reinforcing every pretense for U.S. involvement in Israel's bombing of Iran. These non-positions — or worse, positions in favor of unprovoked, almost certainly illegal war — are notable precisely because there are some lawmakers who are at least trying to do something to stop a direct, all-out conflict between the U.S. and Iran. According to the latest count by Prem Thakker, 37 members of Congress have thrown their weight behind some kind of effort to stop war. These fall into two camps. The first is a resolution in both the House and Senate that invokes the 1973 War Powers Act, which says that only Congress can declare war, a principle that has been routinely violated by U.S. presidents. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., is leading this push in the Senate, where few cosponsors have signed on. (Someone with knowledge of the effort told us that the organizers aren't accepting co-sponsors in a bid to gain bipartisan support first.) Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky. and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., are leading the sister effort in the House, and it has 28 supporters total, including Reps. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. D-N.Y. A total of 27, or 12.7 percent, of House Democrats have lent the bill their support. There is another effort afoot, too: the No War Against Iran Act that was already in motion before Israel attacked Iran on June 13, though it was introduced after the attacks began. The Senate bill, spearheaded by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., would prevent federal funds from being used for a war that's not approved by Congress. Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc., are among its eight Senate supporters. Democratic leaders, however, are leaving their colleagues out to dry. Schumer, for instance, declined to join Sanders's bill as a cosponsor — despite having cosponsored the same effort in 2020. This tacit and open support for Trump's war aren't limited to active leadership; the upper echelons of the party establishment have been noticeably silent. Democratic elites by and large agree with both Israel's unprovoked attacks on Iran and Trump's direct involvement. Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama haven't publicly opposed Trump's reckless threats and build-up to war with Iran. Obama, for example, has re-emerged into the spotlight — but made no mention of Iran or Trump's push for war during a public appearance this week. Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton — despite frequently criticizing Trump for his military parade, detainment of a U.S. senator, and anti-abortion policies — hasn't spoken in opposition to a US war with Iran. And, likewise, 2024 Democratic nominee Kamala Harris, who has been speaking out against Trump, has yet to publicly criticize Trump's build up to bombing Iran. Surveying these responses — somewhere between muted disinterest and consent — there's only one plausible conclusion: Democratic elites by and large agree with both Israel's unprovoked attacks on Iran and Trump's direct involvement in this potentially catastrophic regime change war. It's unlikely most Democratic hawks will come out in open support of an attack that carries such political risks; like with Iraq 20 years ago, things could quickly go off the rails. Yet, even as party leaders seek to burnish their credentials as the 'resistance' to Trump, they're tacitly, and sometimes openly, giving Trump a green light to lurch America into yet another open-ended war of choice. Join The Conversation
Axios
43 minutes ago
- Axios
Americans largely disapprove of U.S. involvement in Israel and Iran war: Poll
A majority of Americans don't want the U.S. to get involved in the escalating war between Israel and Iran, a poll released this week found. The big picture: President Trump is slated to make a decision"within two weeks" on whether to join Israel in its effort to eliminate the Iranian nuclear program, the White House said Thursday. He's leaving the door open to a diplomatic solution in the coming days that could avert a major escalation in the Middle East, Axios' Barak Ravid reports. Zoom in: 60% of Americans think the U.S. military should not get involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran, according to an Economist/YouGov poll released this week. Only 16% support U.S. military action, and 24% are unsure. That largely holds up across party lines, with 65% of Democrats, 61% of independents and 53% of Republicans opposing U.S. military intervention in Iran. About as many people see Iran's nuclear program as a threat as those who oppose military intervention in the Israel-Iran conflict: 61% of Americans view Iran's nuclear program as either an immediate and serious or a somewhat serious threat to the U.S. Similarly, most Americans think the U.S. should engage in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program — that's true across 58% of Democrats and 61% of Republicans. Zoom out: In a second poll, released Thursday by the Washington Post, 7 in 10 Americans believe Iran's nuclear program poses "an immediate and serious" or "somewhat serious" threat to the U.S. Republicans are more likely to say it is an immediate and serious threat than Democrats or independents, per the survey. The fine print: The Economist/YouGov poll was conducted among 1,512 U.S. adult citizens June 13–16, and the margin of error for the overall sample is approximately 3%. The Washington Post poll was conducted on June 18 among a random sample of 1,008 U.S. adults and has a margin of sampling error of ±3.6 percentage points.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Florida offers Trump ‘alligator Alcatraz' to detain illegal migrants
Illegal migrants could soon be held in a massive new immigration detention centre in Florida, which has been dubbed the 'Alligator Alcatraz.' The 39-square-mile plot of land — which is surrounded by alligators and pythons — was offered to the Trump administration by Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier. The 'virtually abandoned airport facility' would have the capacity to 'house as many as 1,000 criminal aliens,' Uthmeier said in a video sharing his offer with the White House. Advertisement He added that it could be up and running within as little as 30 to 60 days. 3 Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier offered 'alligator Alcatraz' for Trump to use as part of his mass deportation effort. @AGJamesUthmeier/X 'Florida's been leading on immigration enforcement, supporting the Trump administration and ICE's efforts to detain and deport criminal aliens,' the AG said. 'The government tasked state leaders to identify places for new temporary detention facilities.' Advertisement 'I think this is the best one. As I call it, alligator Alcatraz,' he added. 3 The plot of land is surrounded by swampland with alligators and pythons. @AGJamesUthmeier/X 3 The 39-square-mile site has a 10,500-foot runway and is surrounded by the Everglades. @AGJamesUthmeier/X Advertisement The massive plot of land offers an 'efficient, low-cost opportunity to build a temporary detention facility because you don't need to invest that much in the perimeter,' which has alligators and pythons 'waiting' for anyone who escapes, said Uthmeier. 'Alligator alcatraz, we're ready to go,' he declared. ICE migrant detention centers are currently filled to the brim, holding roughly 53,000 illegal migrants under the Trump administration's latest push, which is beyond what is funded by Congress. As a result, the agency is burning through its budget at a breakneck pace — with ICE already $1 billion over budget, Axios reported Monday. Advertisement Congress funded roughly 41,500 ICE detention beds at a cost of roughly $3.4 billion in fiscal year 2024, according to the American Immigration Lawyers Association. If Republicans' 'Big Beautiful Bill' passes the Senate, ICE will have $45 billion to expand its capacity to detain illegal migrants, according to the Economic Policy Institute. The White House has also upped ICE's daily arrest quota from 1,800 to 3,000, which ICE insiders told the Post is shifting the focus away from criminal migrants and tanking agency morale.
