I oppose the 40 foot limit changed to 100 feet. jI am a precinct captain in an urban area. Most precincts in urban areas don't have 100 feet from the door to spare without pushing political party representatives to the street or into parking lots. At my precinct people actively seek out literature, information, conversations, etc. -- Both Parties. The change to 100 feet should not be implemented. I agree that curbside voting should be protected from political partisanship -- that can be handled at my parking lot by banning anyone from approaching where the cars are. Political free speech is important part of the fabric of elections.

Please support HB1938 (Delegate Reid). This proposed legislation would allow curbside voters to cast a ballot without fear of intimdation, harassment, or delay. This would afford them the same protections as voters who are able to come into the polling place to cast their ballot in person. Equal access and protections are needed. The Voter Registrars' Association of Virginia (VRAV) supports this bill. Please vote in support of this measure! Thank you.

Hello, I supported a bill similar to HB 1938 last year but Youngkin vetoed it. The current bill would help with the intimidating people with guns who stand just outside of the 40 foot limit and usually close to the absentee ballot box. I was harassed and followed by a man with a gun throughout the last two elections, including during early voting. Recently there was more than one person with a gun too close . This bill is a BIG mistake because it forces everyone, even political candidates to stand way back in the parking lot. I and other volunteers deserve the free speech right to hand out fliers to voters within a reasonable distance from the polls. The candidates for office deserve to meet and greet voters at a reasonable distance from the 40 foot line. I am very disappointed that this bill does not recognize the rights of law-abiding citizens and candidates for office to greet people outside of the 40 foot line. This bill needs to be amended! I saw that Dep. Graves withdrew a similar bill for similar reasons. Many of my neighbors complained to me and to the head of Elections about these guns and their close proximity. Please do the right thing and amend this bill. Thank you. Dr. Alice Twining, Clinical Psychologist

Against the Bill: Here's why one might oppose this amendment, particularly in light of existing laws and Supreme Court rulings: Supreme Court Precedent - Burson v. Freeman (1992): The U.S. Supreme Court in Burson v. Freeman upheld a 100-foot buffer zone around polling places in Tennessee as constitutional under strict scrutiny, but emphasized that such restrictions must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Extending this to 150 feet could be seen as exceeding what's necessary to achieve the state's interest in preventing voter intimidation and ensuring orderly elections. Inconsistency with Current Virginia Law: Virginia currently has a 40-foot buffer zone under § 24.2-604 of the Code of Virginia. This law already balances the state's interest in protecting voters with First Amendment rights. A significant increase to 150 feet would not only deviate from this established balance but might also suggest an overreach without clear justification. First Amendment Concerns: Such an extension could be viewed as an infringement on free speech rights more than necessary. The First Amendment protects political speech, and while buffer zones around polling places are justified, they must be carefully balanced to avoid overly restricting expression. Relevant Case Law: Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky (2018): This case reinforces the need for restrictions on speech near polling places to be content-neutral and narrowly tailored. A 150-foot zone might be seen as not meeting this standard. Practicality and Enforcement: Enforcing a 150-foot zone would be logistically challenging. It would require more resources for monitoring, additional signage, and could lead to confusion or inconsistent application, especially in urban areas or where space is limited around polling places. Voter Accessibility and Public Perception: Expanding the zone could inadvertently create a perception of voter suppression or intimidation by making the area around polls seem overly restrictive. This might discourage voters or create confusion about where political expression is permissible. Potential for Legal Challenges: Given the existing legal framework and the precedent set by the Supreme Court, this amendment could face immediate legal challenges for overbreadth, potentially leading to costly litigation and undermining public trust in the electoral process. Balance Between Security and Freedom: The current 40-foot zone already addresses the need to protect voters from intimidation while allowing for political expression in proximity to polling places. An expansion to 150 feet might tip this balance too far towards security at the expense of freedom, without clear evidence that the current zone is insufficient. Community Impact: In densely populated or urban areas, a 150-foot radius could significantly affect how communities engage during election times, potentially limiting the vibrancy of public discourse and community involvement in elections. In conclusion, while the intent to further safeguard the voting process is understandable, expanding the prohibited area to 150 feet could be seen as an unnecessary and potentially unconstitutional overreach, especially given the established legal standards and existing state law. This could lead to legal challenges, practical enforcement issues, and might not significantly enhance voter security in ways that justify such a drastic change.