Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed a bill adding the Commonwealth to the National Popular Vote Compact, an interstate agreement that would strip Virginia's 13 electoral votes from the state's own voters and award them instead to whichever presidential candidate wins the nationwide popular vote. The Virginia Republican Party responded by calling the move "an unconstitutional assault on our democracy."

The compact does not take effect until states representing at least 270 electoral votes, enough to decide a presidential election, join the agreement. With Virginia's addition, the compact now stands at 222 electoral votes, still 48 short of the trigger. But the direction is clear, and critics in Richmond say the law lays the groundwork for a future in which Virginia's choice for president no longer matters.

Spanberger signed the bill as part of a sweeping Monday session in which she approved hundreds of measures passed by the majority-Democratic legislature. She also vetoed a handful of bills, including ones related to unregulated skill-gaming machines and a proposed Fairfax County casino, and sent dozens of others back with proposed amendments. Among the bills she signaled support for through amendments: new restrictions on gun ownership, including a ban on so-called "assault weapons," and legislation restricting law enforcement from assisting with immigration enforcement.

Her office did not respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment on the compact bill.

What the compact actually does

The National Popular Vote Compact is an interstate agreement under which participating states pledge to award the entirety of their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of how their own residents voted. Until the 270-vote threshold is met, the law has no practical effect, and member states continue to award electors based on their own internal results.

Supporters frame the compact as a modernization of presidential elections. Christina Harvey, executive director of the progressive voting-rights group Stand Up America, praised Spanberger's signature:

"Virginia has set another powerful example for other states of how to stand up for representative democracy even as they come under increasing pressure from the Trump administration."

Harvey also argued that the presidency "should be won by the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide, not just the right combination of battleground states." She called the signing "an important step forward for representative democracy" and said it brings the country "one step closer to a system where Americans' votes for President and Vice President count equally, no matter where they live."

Patrick Rosenstiel, a spokesperson for National Popular Vote, told Fox News Digital he was "grateful" to Spanberger and the Virginia Legislature. He framed the effort as popular, claiming it would "give 63 percent of American voters what they want, a national popular vote for President."

Rosenstiel acknowledged the compact is not yet active. Similar bills have been introduced in Wisconsin, Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Nevada, he said. "We'll continue our state-by-state work until the candidate who wins the most popular votes is elected president and every voter is treated equally in every presidential election."

Virginia Republicans call the move unconstitutional

The Virginia Republican Party did not mince words. In a post on X, the party wrote that "fake Moderate Spanberger just signed a bill to render Virginians' vote for president NULL AND VOID!" The party added that under the compact, "all of Virginia's Electoral College votes will go to the winner of the national popular vote, no matter who wins the popular vote in our Commonwealth."

The GOP labeled the law "an unconstitutional assault on our democracy." That phrase, unconstitutional, carries legal weight beyond rhetoric. The compact's critics have long argued that it effectively amends the Constitution's method of selecting a president without going through the Article V amendment process. Proponents counter that the Constitution gives state legislatures the power to determine how their electors are appointed. That legal question has never been resolved by the courts.

The practical concern is simpler. If the compact activates, a Virginia voter who helps deliver a majority for one candidate inside the Commonwealth could watch all 13 of the state's electoral votes go to the other candidate, because voters in California, New York, and Texas outnumbered them nationally. For critics, that is not "equality." It is the erasure of a state's sovereign voice in a federal election. Concerns about election integrity and voter protections are not new, but the compact raises the stakes by tying Virginia's outcome to the honesty and accuracy of vote counts in every other state.

A pattern of aggressive moves

The compact signing did not happen in a vacuum. Spanberger, a former CIA officer who built her political brand as a moderate, has moved sharply to the left since taking the governor's mansion. She was recently selected to deliver the Democratic response to President Donald Trump's State of the Union, a role typically reserved for a party's rising stars or its most reliable messengers.

Former Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin has accused Spanberger of "illegal and unconstitutional" gerrymandering through a redistricting referendum set for an April 21 vote. Youngkin said the referendum "would give Democrats 10 of the state's 11 congressional seats." A Virginia judge recently blocked a separate Democratic redistricting plan, underscoring the legal and political battles over how the state draws its maps.

Meanwhile, state Democratic lawmakers have introduced more than 50 new tax or tax-increase proposals covering everything from dog walking to deliveries to dry cleaning. Spanberger's proposed amendments also included restricting law enforcement from assisting with immigration enforcement, a move that aligns her administration with sanctuary-style policies at odds with federal immigration law.

The combination of the popular-vote compact, the redistricting fight, the gun restrictions, and the immigration enforcement limits paints a picture of a governor who ran as a centrist and now governs from the progressive wing. Questions about election oversight in blue-governed states have drawn increased attention from Republicans nationally, and Virginia's recent moves will only add fuel.

The 48-vote gap

For now, the compact remains dormant. The 222-vote total means it still needs states worth 48 more electoral votes to sign on before it activates. That is a significant gap, but it is smaller than it was a year ago. If battleground states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Arizona join, states where similar bills have been introduced, the compact could reach its threshold before the next presidential cycle.

The stakes of that scenario are worth spelling out. Under the current system, each state's voters choose their president through the Electoral College, a structure the Founders designed to balance the interests of large and small states. The compact would effectively nullify that balance without a constitutional amendment, without a national referendum, and without the consent of the states that choose not to join. Voters in non-compact states would have no say in a change that reshapes how every presidential election is decided.

Defenders of the compact insist it is perfectly legal and simply exercises each state legislature's constitutional authority over its own electors. But the difference between "legal" and "wise" is vast. A state legislature can do many things within its authority that voters would never approve if asked directly. The compact has never appeared on a statewide ballot. Concerns about the integrity of individual votes being properly counted and legally cast only grow more serious when a single state's electoral outcome depends on vote totals compiled across all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Silence from the governor's office

Spanberger's office offered no public comment on the compact bill when Fox News Digital reached out. That silence is itself telling. A governor confident in the merits of a major election-law change would presumably welcome the chance to explain it. A governor who knows the policy is unpopular with a large share of her own constituents might prefer to let the signature speak quietly while progressive advocacy groups handle the public defense.

Stand Up America and National Popular Vote were happy to fill the void. Harvey praised Spanberger for standing up to "increasing pressure from the Trump administration." Rosenstiel pledged to continue the "state-by-state work." The framing from both groups treated the compact as an act of democratic courage. But awarding a state's electoral votes to a candidate its own voters rejected is a strange definition of democracy.

The broader Democratic political landscape heading into the midterms adds context. With the party facing structural disadvantages in fundraising and messaging, moves like the compact look less like principled reform and more like an attempt to change the rules of a game Democrats keep losing under the current system.

What comes next

Virginians will head to the polls on April 21 to vote on Spanberger's redistricting referendum, another flashpoint in the fight over who controls the state's political future. Whether the popular-vote compact ever activates depends on legislatures in a handful of other states. But the precedent Spanberger set this week is already established: Virginia's governor is willing to sign away her state's independent voice in presidential elections on the theory that a national head count is fairer than the constitutional system that has governed the republic for more than two centuries.

When politicians tell you the system is broken, check whether they mean "broken" or "inconvenient for my side." The answer usually explains the reform.