I am opposed to any all bill that make it easier to cheat in elections like these bills being presented. I am opposed to any and all bills that make same sex marriage acceptable. I am opposed to any and all bills that allow full term abortion and allow minors to have abortions with out the parents knowledge. I am opposed to any and all bills that would allow minors to undergo transgender surgery . I am opposed to any and all bills that will raise taxes while the politicians are trying to give themselves a 150% increase no that is not acceptable.

Vote NO on HB640. The history of a voter's right to challenge another voter's eligibility directly at the polling place in the United States reflects a longstanding commitment to safeguarding election integrity in a decentralized system. Mechanisms like in-person challenges help protect the votes of legitimate citizens—particularly amid concerns over lax verification in some jurisdictions, such as no strict proof-of-citizenship requirements for registration in many states and the absence of photo ID in others (e.g., Virginia allows non-photo alternatives or affidavits in certain cases. The proven approach in state laws permitted qualified electors, party challengers, or poll watchers to object on-site if they believed a voter was ineligible (e.g., due to non-residency, non-citizenship, or other disqualifications), often leading to immediate resolution via oaths, provisional ballots, or precinct official decisions—bypassing the need for court action in routine cases. This approach prevents dilution of valid votes. The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized the legitimacy of such safeguards. In Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (553 U.S. 181, 2008; full opinion at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/553/181/), the Court upheld Indiana's photo ID requirement, noting that states have a compelling interest in preventing voter fraud, including impersonation, which "dilutes" legitimate votes. Justice Stevens' plurality opinion affirmed that reasonable preventive measures do not unduly burden voting rights when balanced against integrity concerns. Similarly, in Purcell v. Gonzalez (549 U.S. 1, 2006), the Court addressed Arizona's Proposition 200 (requiring proof of citizenship for registration), staying lower-court injunctions partly due to the state's interest in verifying eligibility amid fraud risks. Concerns persist about vulnerabilities where states lack strong citizenship checks or photo ID mandates. Federal law (e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 611) prohibits non-citizens from voting in federal elections, yet many states rely on self-attestation during registration without routine documentary proof, raising risks—especially with high immigration levels. Audits in states like Georgia (2022 referral of 1,600 potential non-citizen registrations at https://sos.ga.gov/news/secretary-raffensperger-refers-1600-noncitizen-registrants-local-das-gbi-state-election-board) and others have flagged issues. Today, most states (over 40) permit some form of on-site or pre-election challenges by citizens, poll watchers, or party representatives, often triggering provisional ballots (counted later if verified). This preserves localized integrity checks without overburdening courts. In balance, while voting rights must be protected—ensuring no undue burdens—the ability to challenge at the polling place serves a vital role in deterring and addressing fraud, upholding the principle that every legitimate citizen's vote deserves safeguards against dilution. Vote NO on HB640.

I support HB640. Elections offices are best situated with the information necessary to identify the qualification status of individual voters. That qualification is established when voter registration is accepted and the individual is placed on the voter rolls. The ability to vote is confirmed by the poll book status of the individual voter. The existing process is self proving and eliminates any reason for others to challenge the ability of a voter to exercise their constitutionally protected rights. This Bill best places any such challenge before the court and protects voters from frivolous challenges (e.g. a court may choose to sanction frivolous filings). This Bill further works to disarm elections observers from disruption and interference with the continuity of the election.

I request that you vote AGAINST HB640. HB640 requires challenges to be filed in the Court and not with the Registrar (at the polling place). This imposes an inequitable burden on voters who could challenge another voter in person, but who lack the resources to challenge in Court. The principle of challenging in-person at the polls is a common-sense and long-held right of the voter. HB640 reduces voter rights. In conclusion, please vote NO on HB640.

The League of Women Voters of Virginia respectfully submits statements with respect to four of the bills before the Voting Rights Subcommittee of the House Privileges and Elections Committee. The bills are: HB 493 - Oppose HB 640 - Support HB 1014 - Support HB 1244 - Support The full statements are found in the attachment.