What is the full text of Virginia House Bill 863 and how has it changed through committee amendments?

1. What HB863 says and where to read the full text

The official bill text for HB863 is hosted on the Virginia Legislative Information System, which contains the enacted language and any subsequent versions; interested readers should consult that LIS page for the authoritative, line‑by‑line text ^[3]. Multiple tracking services and policy groups summarize the bill’s objective as eliminating mandatory minimum terms of confinement for certain crimes, language reflected in bill summaries on FastDemocracy and PolicyEngage and in advocacy materials from Justice Forward Virginia ^{[1] [2] [5]}. Journalistic accounts likewise characterize HB863 as reducing or eliminating mandatory jail requirements so judges can tailor sentences to case facts ^{[6] [7]}.

2. How proponents frame the change: discretion and “one‑size‑fits‑all” sentencing

Supporters, including the bill’s sponsor Delegate Rae Cousins in news coverage, present HB863 as a common‑sense reform to remove rigid mandatory minima and restore individualized judicial sentencing discretion, an argument echoed by advocacy organizations that listed repeal of mandatory minimums as a 2026 priority ^{[6] [5]}. Reporting summarizes the bill’s immediate legal effect in plain terms: it would “eliminate the mandatory jail aspect” of certain offenses and thereby allow judges greater leeway to impose non‑custodial sanctions or shorter confinement where appropriate ^{[6] [2]}.

3. How opponents and the political reaction frame the bill

Opponents have raised alarm that rolling back mandatory minimums could lead to lighter penalties for serious offenders; some national and international outlets amplified headlines suggesting the bill would permit reduced prison time for defendants convicted of severe crimes such as sexual assault or manslaughter, producing political pushback against Democrats in Virginia ^[8]. Local reporting notes that criminal‑justice bills often draw heightened scrutiny and that HB863 could be a flashpoint in debates over public safety versus sentencing reform ^[7].

4. Committee process and amendments — what has changed (and what remains unknown)

HB863 was formally referred to the House Courts of Justice Committee at the start of session activity, which is the ordinary gateway for amendments or tabling; the committee structure and amendment authority are described in General Assembly process guides ^{[1] [9]}. However, the sources available do not include any specific committee amendment text or a recorded committee report showing changes to HB863, so it cannot be stated from these reports which clauses, if any, were altered in committee or how the bill’s statutory language has been revised since introduction ^{[3] [4]}. Historical examples illustrate that committee amendments are common in Virginia and that amended text is typically marked in legislative documents, but applying that procedural norm to identify exact edits to HB863 requires consulting the LIS amendment history or committee files not present in the reporting here ^{[10] [11]}.

5. Bottom line and how to verify the current wording

The bill’s intent—to eliminate certain mandatory minimum confinement requirements and increase judicial discretion—is consistently reported across legislative trackers, advocacy briefs, and news outlets ^{[1] [2] [6] [7]}. For the authoritative full text and any committee or floor amendments, the LIS bill page is the primary source and LegiScan/FastDemocracy provide parallel tracking and version history; because the available snippets and articles do not reproduce or annotate the full amended language, readers seeking precise statutory wording and a history of edits should consult the LIS bill‑text and committee documents directly ^{[3] [4] [1]}.