(Additional Comments for LWV-VA) The League of Women Voters urges you to report SB 364. The bill offers much-needed protections to all the people who run Virginia’s elections, not just the officers of election on election day. The bill protects both current and former election officials against crimes, including doxxing and swatting, committed against them for simply serving the Commonwealth and its voters. It also extends the right to civil action for injuries from doing this essential work In other states, election officials have been subjected to lasting traumas for simply doing their jobs. Nationwide, nearly one in three has been harassed, abused, or threatened. One in five is worried about being physically assaulted on the job. Many experienced professionals have abandoned the field, putting effective election administration in jeopardy. Protecting our election officials is the least we can do for those who serve the Commonwealth and its citizens.

That. Virginia Electoral Board Association supports this and thanks the patron for including electoral board members in this bill.

On behalf of our 16,859 members and activists in The Commonwealth of Virginia, Public Citizen encourages the House Privileges and Elections Committee to advance SB 364 which provides protections for clerks, election officials, and election workers from harassment, threats, abuse, and assault in the performance of their official duties. These are necessary protections to protect the individuals at the heart of ensuring our democracy is alive and well.

I support SB364. Without trust in our elections, we can have no legitimate government. Elections require a lot of workers to ensure that every eligible voter's ballot counts. The last few years have not been good for the ranks of election workers. We need to assure everyone who is willing to be an election worker that they are safe.

Thank you for bringing this very important legislation back that did not survive Crossover last year. As a former election worker, I am very concerned that good fair and sane people fear, and not without cause, doing this important job for free or low pay for often more than a 12-hour work day. According to a Brennan Center survey of election workers from all Parties, one in six election workers have received threats due to their jobs, these include both inside and outside their polling places. Some 77% believe these threats have increased in recent years (“Poll of Local Election Officials Finds Safety Fears for Colleagues — and Themselves | Brennan Center for Justice,” March 10, 2022). Not all are as severe as the threats against the Georgia election workers Ruby Freeman and her daughter, who had to seek justice in the courts. But others have had to hire security or have quit long-held job. The new DoJ task force on election intimidation received 1000 threat reports in it’s first year, of which it found that five instances that went beyond being verbally abusive and racist to involve credible threats of violence. This harassment has resulted in increased turnover in election officials; 30% of the officials know of one or more election workers who have left at least in part because of fear for their safety, increased threats, or intimidation. High turnover rates make it harder to run fair elections. Shortages of election workers could cause long lines at the polls or the closure and consolidation of polling locations, making it harder to vote. Eleven states now have taken actions to protect their election workers as of the end of 2023. According to a National Conference of State Legislatures’ report: “With threats against election officials on the rise, a number of states enacted protections for them in 2023. ‘This year, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico and Oklahoma joined six states that had already made such enactments to provide protections in 2022,’” reported Wendy Underhill, NCSL’s director of elections and redistricting. She noted that the increase in threats has helped create a labor shortage. “Poll workers have always been a little tricky to find. There aren’t always people who are willing to serve that function, increasing the pay is one thing states can do to encourage people to participate, and Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana and Maryland all did that this year.” The 2024 election cycle does not bode well for a reduction in threats and rancor. The discord caused by false election claims impact those on the frontline who should be praised not threatened. We don’t need close calls like last year almost not have a working registrar and staff in Buckingham County. Move this bill on and implement it before the November elections.

The League of Women urges you to report SB 364. The bill offers much-needed protections to the people who run Virginia’s elections, before, during and after the elections. The bill extends the right to civil action as well as protection against crimes, including doxxing and swatting, to current and former officials alike. In other states, election officials have been subjected to lasting traumas for simply doing their jobs. Nationwide, nearly one in three has been harassed, abused, or threatened. One in five is worried about being physically assaulted on the job. Many experienced professionals have abandoned the field, putting effective election administration in jeopardy. Protecting our election officials is the least we can do for those who serve the Commonwealth and its citizens.

Please vote NO on SB 364. To expand the category of voters who may list a post office address instead of a street address on their registration will result in even more opaque voter rolls. The bill would allow all current or former election officers, or employees of election officials (presumably staffers who work at county election offices or electoral boards, whether or not they are election officers and regardless whether their names or titles are even publicly known as election workers) to opt out of using their home address on voter rolls. A home address is one of the most valuable and reliable tools by which to identify a voter and confirm someone is who they say they are. When a voter checks in to a polling place, his name and street address are the two identifiers used to confirm identity. With voter identification (photo or otherwise) no longer required in Virginia, a street address provided on an absentee ballot application or in person at a polling station is one of the few remaining ways to assure proper identification. With approximately nine million residents in Virginia, there are tens of thousands of current and former election officers and employees of election offices. It is highly improbable that a former election officer or election officer staffer necessitates inclusion in a protected class. No statistics have been provided showing that election officers and staffers are subject to threats or violence at a rate higher than that of the general population, warranting special protections. To expand the “protected class” to include one-time election officers and rotating staff workers (many are seasonal workers who work only during election season), would also be expensive and impractical. Valuable Elect staff time would be spent confirming an individual’s status as a current or former election officer or seasonal staff worker, etc. To expand the category of those who may use a post office address in this fashion would amount to an exception swallowing the rule. The protected class would continually increase, be difficult to maintain, and would be to the detriment of complete and accurate voter rolls.

I oppose SB 364 for several reasons: 1) The language in SB364 amending 24.2-418, Section A is unclear as to the new affirmation on the voter registration application, which states in SB364 ONLY that " The form shall contain a statement that whoever votes more than once in any election in the same or different jurisdictions is guilty of a Class 6 felony. " Does this language REPLACE the language in the existing affirmation on the voter registration application (https://www.elections.virginia.gov/media/formswarehouse/veris-voter-registration/applications/VA-NVRA-1-Voter-Registration-Application-rev-4-2023.-(3).pdf ) which states "AFFIRMATION: I swear/affirm, under felony penalty for making willfully false material statements or entries, that the information provided on this form is true." Does the amended language replace the instructions on the existing Registration Application which state: "WARNING: INTENTIONALLY VOTING MORE THAN ONCE IN AN ELECTION OR MAKING A MATERIALLY FALSE STATEMENT ON THIS FORM CONSTITUTES THE CRIME OF ELECTION FRAUD, WHICH IS PUNISHABLE UNDER VIRGINIA LAW AS A FELONY. VIOLATORS MAY BE SENTENCED TO UP TO 10 YEARS IN PRISON, OR UP TO 12 MONTHS IN JAIL AND/OR FINED UP TO $2,500." It appears that SB364 removes the language about "willfully false material statements or entries" and "materially false statement." Either SB364 should be rewritten in this section specifically to include that language or a statement made that all affirmations will remain as currently stated on the Voter Registration Application. 2) The language in SB364 amending 24.2-1000 is similarly unclear and redundant. It's imprecise, using the phrase "employee of an election official," when more appropriate language would be "employee of an election office." SB 364 is both unclear and arguably weakens the protection described for officials in the existing language in 24.1000 by substituting the undefined brief phrase "administering elections" in place of the current, precise and comprehensive language in 24.2-1000: "the officers of election at any polling place, voter satellite office, or other location being used by a locality for voting purposes from holding an election." The objective of Section B in the SB364 Amendment to 24.2-1000,, to add electors as a group protected from coercion and intimidation, could be accomplished simply by adding electors to the existing language in 24.2-1000, without any other changes. Section C in the SB364 Amendment to 24.2-1000 is entirely redundant, since both the crimes and the penalties are covered under 18.2-60 (Threats of death or bodily injury to a person or member of his family ) https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter4/section18.2-60/ The SB364 language amending 24.2-1020 is also unclear, with the phrase "Any person who was a victim of any conduct that constitutes a felony or misdemeanor in this title". Note that the crimes specified - "intimidation" for example - are highly subjective and could be considered permitted free speech under Brandenburg v Ohio. Is the decision as to the "conduct" and whether it "constitutes" "intimidation" up to the self-described victim? No conviction of a crime is required, merely that an action "constitutes" "intimidation"? This seems to approach the slippery slope of a "hate speech law" specific to elections, permitting civil suits against media, legislators, political parties and voters who may question "administering elections."