All 13 named candidates, three constitutional amendments and five bond questions for November 3, 2026.
Guide to the November 3, 2026 general and special election. Ballot checked October 15; candidate sources checked October 15, 2026. Official election information and results.
Every deadline below belongs to the November 3, 2026 election. After that election, use this as a historical guide and follow the official office for results and future dates.
Plan your vote.
Early in-person voting: September 18 through October 31, 2026. Check each location’s hours.
Regular registration deadline: October 23. Same-day registration starts October 24; follow the official provisional-ballot instructions.
Request a mail ballot by 5 p.m. October 23. A request deadline is different from the ballot-return deadline; use the official return instructions below.
Election Day: November 3, 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., at your assigned polling place. All times are Eastern.
All 13 named candidates on the official sample ballot appear below, grouped by office and listed in ballot order. Every office also allows a write-in. Federal party labels follow the ballot; the absence of a local party label does not establish that a candidate has no party affiliation.
Profiles summarize candidates’ own published positions with equal presentation. They are not endorsements, fact-checks of every campaign claim or a complete legislative record. A proposal is not an enacted policy, a verified result or a cost estimate. Open a profile to read the details.
Senators make federal laws, approve federal spending and confirm presidential appointments. They do not set Arlington’s local tax rate.
Mark R. WarnerDemocratic
Warner’s campaign emphasizes housing costs, health coverage, jobs and Virginia’s role in technology and manufacturing.
Housing: proposes incentives to rehabilitate older homes, faster permitting and mortgage help for first-time buyers.
Health care: supports universal basic health care and continuing Affordable Care Act premium tax credits.
Jobs and technology: supports semiconductor manufacturing and worker preparation for artificial intelligence; says large technology companies should cover the energy costs they create.
Rights and public safety: supports all three Virginia constitutional amendments on this ballot, expanded gun background checks and an assault-weapons ban.
Government and security: presents investment in domestic manufacturing and technology as both an economic and national-security priority.
Campaign statements describe proposals and priorities. This guide does not independently verify every claim, establish costs or funding, or treat proposals as enacted policy.
Mizusawa’s issue page focuses on federal spending, taxes, veterans, health care and energy.
Federal spending: calls for a balanced budget and greater discipline in federal finances.
Taxes and housing: supports reducing tax burdens on families and on people selling homes.
Veterans: prioritizes access to earned benefits and health care, linking these concerns to his military background.
Government ethics: supports prohibiting members of Congress from trading individual stocks.
Health care: calls for greater insurance-company accountability and support for rural hospitals.
Energy: backs nuclear power as a source of reliable electricity.
Campaign statements describe proposals and priorities. This guide does not independently verify every claim, establish costs or funding, or treat proposals as enacted policy.
Representatives make federal laws and approve federal spending. All four named candidates on the official ballot appear below.
Donald S. Beyer, Jr.Democratic
Beyer’s campaign emphasizes housing, health coverage, federal employees and clean energy.
Economy and housing: opposes broad tariffs and supports expanding the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and affordable housing supply.
Health care: supports universal coverage, including Choose Medicare and Medicare for All proposals.
Federal employees: supports workforce protections and restoring jobs for workers he says were improperly dismissed.
Energy: supports clean energy, fusion research and grid improvements, with attention to household energy costs.
Rights and public safety: supports federal abortion protections, paid family leave, stronger gun background checks and an assault-weapons ban.
Campaign statements describe proposals and priorities. This guide does not independently verify every claim, establish costs or funding, or treat proposals as enacted policy.
Sabio organizes his campaign around five proposed policy pillars for energy, work, small business, safety and health care.
Energy: supports domestic production and nuclear power; says large electricity users should pay the costs they impose.
Jobs: emphasizes domestic manufacturing, skilled trades and apprenticeships.
Small business: proposes reducing regulatory burdens and barriers to starting and growing a business.
Public safety: prioritizes border security and support for law enforcement.
Health care: proposes portable, individually owned coverage, interstate competition and expanded health savings accounts. His plan also describes hardship help, high-risk reinsurance and prescription-price transparency.
Campaign statements describe proposals and priorities. This guide does not independently verify every claim, establish costs or funding, or treat proposals as enacted policy.
Arnoldi’s campaign describes her as a Navy veteran and engineer and emphasizes individual liberty, schools and government accountability.
Education: supports parental involvement and a stronger focus on academic fundamentals.
Economy: favors tax and regulatory reductions, particularly for small businesses.
Data centers: says operators should bear the energy and water costs associated with their facilities.
Government: supports term limits and clearer public information about budgets and spending.
Public safety: expresses support for first responders.
Campaign statements describe proposals and priorities. This guide does not independently verify every claim, establish costs or funding, or treat proposals as enacted policy.
Sharman presents an independent platform centered on affordability, functioning government and adapting to technological change.
Affordability: proposes a voluntary, privately financed American Opportunity Fund with a federal charter to support housing, childcare and skills.
Government: pledges to oppose shutdowns and emphasizes more efficient services and simpler regulation.
AI and energy: supports worker transition assistance; says data centers should bear their costs and local communities should retain a voice.
Health care: seeks universal access without new taxes and discusses a possible civilian U.S. Health Service alongside private care. These are exploratory ideas, not a settled funding plan.
Abortion: supports early-pregnancy choice and discusses a roughly 16-week state limit with serious medical exceptions.
Campaign statements describe proposals and priorities. This guide does not independently verify every claim, establish costs or funding, or treat proposals as enacted policy.
One seat; unexpired term ending December 31, 2027. Vote for one.
The Treasurer collects, safeguards and invests public money. The County Board sets local tax rates; a Treasurer’s platform is not a County Board budget.
Kim M. RuckerNo party label on the local ballot
Rucker’s campaign focuses on continuity in treasury operations, customer service and careful handling of public funds.
Service: proposes making it easier to get help and resolve tax and payment questions.
Digital access: supports additional online and self-service payment options.
Collections: calls for firm, fair collection of amounts owed while treating taxpayers respectfully.
Investment: emphasizes safety first, ready access to funds when needed and then investment return.
Campaign statements describe proposals and priorities. This guide does not independently verify every claim, establish costs or funding, or treat proposals as enacted policy.
Rawoot proposes adding ethical criteria and greater public accountability to the Treasurer’s investment decisions.
Investment: wants public investments to avoid fossil-fuel interests, weapons-related investments and banks he characterizes as predatory.
Financial safeguards: says ethical criteria should sit alongside the existing priorities of safety, liquidity and yield.
Operations: says routine tax collection and payment services should continue.
Transparency: seeks clearer information and democratic accountability around where public money is invested.
Public participation: presents the contested election as a way for residents to consider the values guiding treasury decisions.
Campaign statements describe proposals and priorities. This guide does not independently verify every claim, establish costs or funding, or treat proposals as enacted policy.
The School Board governs APS policy, school operations and its budget. County funding is one part of the school system’s finances.
Bethany Zecher SuttonNo party label on the local ballot
Sutton’s priorities combine academic instruction, student support, staff retention and maintaining school buildings.
Academics: supports strong reading and math instruction, homework, advanced classes and dual enrollment, while addressing achievement gaps.
Student support: emphasizes mental health, behavior support, bullying prevention and barriers related to food and housing.
Learning environment: supports limits on devices and phones and protections for LGBTQ students.
Staff: emphasizes pay, planning time, training and collective bargaining while reducing unnecessary burdens on educators.
Facilities: prioritizes roofs, heating and cooling, reliable work orders, school safety and transportation.
Campaign statements describe proposals and priorities. This guide does not independently verify every claim, establish costs or funding, or treat proposals as enacted policy.
James Vell Rives IVNo party label on the local ballot
Rives’s live campaign issue page emphasizes academic expectations, student well-being and spending priorities.
Academics: supports clearer performance expectations, homework and equal opportunity to succeed.
Student health: supports counselors, mental-health screening, less screen time, outdoor activity and early substance-use intervention, including naloxone.
Technology: favors limited device use and expects students to do their own work when AI is available.
Safety and facilities: supports school resource officers with diversion options; favors sex-specific spaces for girls alongside accommodations and anti-bullying protections.
Spending and staff: favors repairing older buildings before costly new construction, streamlining administration and supporting frontline pay and working conditions.
Campaign statements describe proposals and priorities. This guide does not independently verify every claim, establish costs or funding, or treat proposals as enacted policy.
The live issue posts display May 27, 2022 dates, although their text includes newer references. AFP checked them October 15, 2026; they are not presented as newly published 2026 statements.
One seat; four-year term. Rank up to three different choices.
The County Board sets county spending, local tax rates, land-use policy and county services. It funds APS but does not govern school operations.
Matthew D. “Matt” de FerrantiNo party label on the local ballot
De Ferranti’s campaign emphasizes housing access, economic diversification, transportation and services for residents with lower incomes.
Housing: supports more housing types, affordable-housing investment, rental assistance and eviction prevention.
Economy: supports office conversions, a broader local economy and assistance for federal workers.
Services: prioritizes poverty reduction, schools, first-responder staffing and oversight, and Metro.
Environment: supports safer walking and cycling, Vision Zero and renewable electricity goals.
County government: his candidate questionnaire supports ending Flock camera use and a public process before future plate-reader use; he proposes three district seats, three at-large seats and an elected chair.
Campaign statements describe proposals and priorities. This guide does not independently verify every claim, establish costs or funding, or treat proposals as enacted policy.
Audrey R. ClementNo party label on the local ballot
Clement’s platform emphasizes spending restraint, tax levels, office vacancies and changing the county’s housing approach.
Budget and economy: advocates lower spending and taxes and recruitment of businesses to fill vacant offices.
Housing: opposes Missing Middle zoning and supports preserving and renovating affordable apartments, including tax incentives.
Environment: calls for stronger tree and Chesapeake Bay protection enforcement.
Public safety: supports restoring limited police cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
County government: favors district representation. Her candidate questionnaire calls for examining cases solved with Flock before deciding whether to end it.
Campaign statements describe proposals and priorities. This guide does not independently verify every claim, establish costs or funding, or treat proposals as enacted policy.
Sisson emphasizes a larger housing supply, economic growth and changes to public participation.
Housing: supports greater density near transit, accessory homes, mixed-use development, fewer parking mandates and faster permitting.
Economy: supports lower business taxes and regulatory barriers and a broader, more stable tax base.
Transportation and land use: links housing growth with transit access and more flexible development rules.
Surveillance: his candidate questionnaire favors a ban or strict limits, including short retention, warrant requirements and access controls.
County government: proposes varied meeting times and locations and an open primary advancing three candidates to ranked-choice voting; he opposes district-based representation.
Campaign statements describe proposals and priorities. This guide does not independently verify every claim, establish costs or funding, or treat proposals as enacted policy.
Rank up to three different candidates in order of preference for the one County Board seat. Rank each candidate only once and use each ranking column only once. You may rank fewer than three; a write-in is also available.
First choices are counted first. If no candidate reaches the winning threshold, the lowest candidate is eliminated and ballots transfer to their next eligible choice. This continues until a winner is determined. If all your ranked choices are eliminated, your ballot cannot transfer further. Additional rankings do not give you extra simultaneous votes.
For Senate, House, Treasurer and School Board, vote for one candidate in each contest. For each amendment and bond question, select Yes or No.
These are three separate statewide constitutional questions. The summaries below explain the change and the effect of each choice; read the official wording before marking your ballot.
Question 1 — Reproductive freedom
Would add a fundamental right to reproductive freedom to Virginia’s Constitution, covering prenatal and postpartum care, childbirth, contraception, abortion, miscarriage management and fertility care.
A Yes vote
Adds that right and limits government interference to the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling health interest. Third-trimester abortion regulation would remain possible, with physician-determined exceptions for life, physical or mental health, or a nonviable pregnancy. It also protects people exercising the right and voluntary helpers from penalties.
A No vote
Does not add this constitutional provision. Existing statutes and other applicable legal protections would remain subject to their current legal framework.
What to keep in mind
This question concerns constitutional protection; it is not a vote on a specific clinic, insurance plan or county appropriation.
Would replace Virginia’s existing constitutional restriction on marriage with an affirmative right for two adults to marry.
A Yes vote
Recognizes marriage between two adults regardless of sex, gender or race and requires equal legal treatment of lawful marriages.
A No vote
Leaves the existing state constitutional text in place. The official explanation says the restriction has been unenforceable since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell decision, but could be enforced again if that decision were overturned.
What to keep in mind
A No vote would not itself overturn the federal ruling. A Yes vote would replace the state constitutional restriction with the proposed marriage protection.
Would establish a fundamental right to vote for otherwise qualified U.S. citizens age 18 or older who meet residency and registration requirements.
A Yes vote
Limits felony-related loss of voting rights to incarceration and automatically restores political rights on release, including eligibility for jury service, public office and notary service. Replaces the broad mental-incapacity exclusion with a specific court determination that a person cannot understand the act of voting.
A No vote
Keeps the existing constitutional rules, including the current requirement for restoration of rights after a felony conviction.
What to keep in mind
The amendment would not remove age, citizenship, residence or registration requirements.
The five questions total $264,260,000 in proposed borrowing authority. Each has its own Yes/No vote. The calculator adds selected authorizations; it is not a ballot or voting recommendation.
Jamestown Elementary School Refresh ($29 million), Oakridge Elementary School Refresh ($31 million) and major building systems ($20 million).
A Yes vote authorizes debt for the stated purpose. A No vote withholds that authority from this question; it does not itself cancel a project or prohibit every other funding source. Approval does not immediately issue a bond, fix an interest rate or spend the full amount.
The amount on the ballot is principal, not principal plus interest and not a household tax bill. Buildings and services can also have ongoing operating costs. Timing, available grants, existing funds and future budgets affect delivery. The County Board may reallocate county project funding within the authorized purpose; school allocations are under the School Board.
Metro & Transportation — $69,745,000
Metro capital: $46.3 million
Paving: $15 million
Streetlights: $2.1 million
Traffic signals: $1.8 million
Other transportation projects: $4.6 million
Planned repayment source: County General Fund.
These allocations are rounded examples from the county’s explanation. They may not add to the exact ballot amount; projects can also use other available funds.
Local Parks & Recreation — $34,945,000
Gateway Park: $10.4 million
Boathouse: $9.5 million
Drew Park: $4.2 million
Land acquisition: $3 million
Trails: $2.7 million
Habitat restoration: $1.3 million
Other parks projects: $3.8 million
Planned repayment source: County General Fund.
These allocations are rounded examples from the county’s explanation. They may not add to the exact ballot amount; projects can also use other available funds.
Community Infrastructure — $58,825,000
Ballston garage: $10 million
Critical systems: $9.3 million
Building maintenance: $8.5 million
Central Library: $7.5 million
Technology: $7.2 million
Detention facility: $6.6 million
Neighborhoods Program: $2 million
Other infrastructure: $7.7 million
Planned repayment source: County General Fund.
These allocations are rounded examples from the county’s explanation. They may not add to the exact ballot amount; projects can also use other available funds.
Utilities — $20,745,000
Washington Aqueduct: $10.2 million
Water mains: $8 million
Water tanks: $1.5 million
Trades Center equipment and improvements: $1 million
Planned repayment source: Utility Enterprise Fund, supported by utility user fees.
These allocations are rounded examples from the county’s explanation. They may not add to the exact ballot amount; projects can also use other available funds.
Arlington Public Schools — $80,000,000
Jamestown Elementary refresh: $29 million
Oakridge Elementary refresh: $31 million
Major building systems: $20 million
Planned repayment source: School Debt Service Fund, supported by a General Fund transfer.
These allocations are rounded examples from the county’s explanation. They may not add to the exact ballot amount; projects can also use other available funds.
Arlington’s official history records two rejected parks bond questions on November 6, 1979. Every subsequent question in that history, through November 5, 2024, passed. That is the latest completed bond election covered here; November 2026 has no result in this guide.
Rejected Arlington bond questions — November 6, 1979
Question
Proposed amount
Yes
No
Local parks
$4,000,000
9,465
16,577
Regional parks
$1,705,000
9,780
16,200
A long approval streak tells us how earlier votes ended. It does not establish the value, cost or affordability of a new proposal. For each question, useful comparisons include the public benefit, borrowing and operating costs, timing, and alternative ways to fund or phase the work.
