Voters have plentiful options for IDs in Virginia and adding, "(vi) any valid identification card containing a photograph of the voter and issued by any private entity that is licensed or certified, in whole or in part, by the Department of Health, Department of Social Services, Department of Medical Assistance Services, or Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services; " adds to the likelihood that non-citizens will vote. This dilutes out votes and is not acceptable. Please vote NO.

Oppose bill in "accepting forms of identification" Must be an American Citizen to vote

Good afternoon, and thank you for allowing me to testify on behalf of HB26. I am Robert Moses I have been an election worker and election officer for over 20 years and have been on the Loudoun board of elections for 6 years. This bill will fill a critical void in acceptable forms of voter ID for Seniors who may lost their driver’s license due to medical or age issues. Reason 1: We currently accept this form of ID for GOVERNMENT run senior facilities only. This precludes facilities owned by churches, non-profits or private companies. Reason 2: This ID would meet the Virginia high security standards including verified information and picture ID. Every facility resident goes through that process. Reason 3: This would be more secure than some methods used today. Like acceptable utility bills or some work IDs. Please don’t disenfranchise this small but vital community of seniors. Thank you for your time and consideration.

The League of Women Voters supports HB 26. This bill adopts an additional form of photo ID that voters can use to verify their identity when they vote in-person. Specifically, this bill recognizes that many voters have photo IDs issued by a private entity that is licensed or certified by one of four Virginia agencies listed in the bill. Like our Department of Motor Vehicles’ IDs, photo IDs from these private entities, by being licensed or certified by Virginia agencies, can provide the same assurance that the voter is registered.

The Virginia Civic Engagement Table is a nonpartisan voting rights and civic engagement 501(c)(3) organization based in Richmond, VA. It anchors the Virginia Election Protection Coalition, the Commonwealth’s largest nonpartisan pro-voter coalition that works year-round to advance the freedom to vote. The Virginia Civic Engagement Table is proud to support this bill that updates the voter identification code to better reflect the full diversity of our Commonwealth and the needs of Virginia voters.

No attachment

The League of Women Voters of Virginia supports the fundamental right to vote and supports measures that seek to enhance voter access and voter participation. Curbside voting is one of the ways that Virginia localities ensure that having a disability is not a barrier to voter participation. The current law focuses on physical disabilities, but those are not the only disabilities that can be barriers to voting inside a polling place. HB1222 would add developmental disabilities which is a step in the direction of increasing voter access. HB43 and HB441 are more inclusive and would cover mental and emotional health which can fluctuate unpredictably. The League of Women Voters of Virginia supports the greatest degree of inclusion for persons with disabilities. Additionally, HB441 provides for training of Officers of Elections on how to provide assistance to voters outside the polling place. Therefore, the League of Women Voters of Virginia supports HB441 as providing the most help to the largest number of voters with disabilities.

The Virginia Civic Engagement Table is a nonpartisan voting rights and civic engagement 501(c)(3) organization based in Richmond, VA. It anchors the Virginia Election Protection Coalition, the Commonwealth’s largest nonpartisan pro-voter coalition that works year-round to advance the freedom to vote. The Virginia Civic Engagement Table strongly supports measures that make our Commonwealth’s elections more safe and accessible for Virginia voters. HB43 fully recognizes the diversity of needed accommodations for voters and would ensure that all Virginians could fully access the freedom to vote.

VCOG supports HB69 and thanks Delegate Bulova for working on this bill on our suggestion. While the process for selecting someone to fill a board vacancy is transparent in some localities, the final decision is often sprung on the public without any prior knowledge in others. Citizens voted for the person who has stepped down, so they should know in advance who might be filling the vacancy since that person will be representing them and voting as their representative.

I support HB69 and any additional legislation that allows for requiring more transparency in our local Town government. In Smithfield there were recently 2 vacancies on our 7 member Town Council. The Mayor chose two individuals to form the vetting committee and interviews were held in private. The individuals selected - from a bank of 21 interested - were preselected prior to the vote of this council. Citizens and our local newspaper requested transparency in the process for these critical appointments The Mayor and vetting committee refused and continued to note there was nothing illegal in making these selections behind close doors. We need our state representatives to ensure light is shed on these processes at all levels of government in Virginia. More guardrails are needed - at least at our local level - to ensure our local elected officials aren’t serving their own , or others, special interests . Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Leah

The LWV-VA supports HB 69. While we agree that seats on an elected local governing body or an elected school board should not remain unfilled, citizens should have an opportunity to participate in a hearing where they receive information on each candidate under consideration for such an interim appointment. Thank you for considering this important bill.

In the past 2 years Isle of Wight County has had 4 appointed members 2 to IWC School Board and 2 to Smithfield Town Council with no citizen in-put. The 2 school board members where literally appointed by 2 other members and documents later destroyed. Today, the one member is currently in court proceedings and has cost the citizens thousands of dollars within the court system. Because of the way the School Board appointed member Michael Vines, way omitted information on his economic financial has upset citizens and the way he then treated parents and citizens at meetings says a lot on why citizens should be involved in the decision making of those who then represent them. This bill requiring governing bodies to have a public meeting prior to making an appointment and require them to make available to the public materials being used to make the selection, such as resumes and applications would prevent also what took place when school board member Denise Tynes was able to make a false statement during a school board meeting regarding Michael Vines and why she appointed him. A citizen who spoke that evening and had also interviewed for the appointment could not verify her remarks due to them destroying the records, applications, and resumes, along with the submitted letters. The citizen did state he did put on his letter and state on his application exactly what School Member Denise Tynes stated only Micahel Vines had answered and that is why she choose him. Again all unverified, due to destruction. Smithfield Town Council just last month appointed 2 members behind closed doors, conducting their interviews. Pulling FOIA of the applicants, the 2 appointees had 2 of the worse applications. On top of that one of the Town Councilmen openly stated that they did not wish to question the applicants, as they feared they would not get an honest answer. To what questions or answers would be asked or answered that the public could not, or should not hear? That statement there, is exactly why this process should and needs to be more transparent. This bill is a good step in the right direction. I beleive it could go further. But believe it is a great step in the right direction and commend the Delegate for not allowing it to no move from last year. Thank you, Heidi Swartz

Over the past 3 years, Isle of Wight and Smithfield have had a total of four appointments made to fill vacated elected positions. In each case, the governing bodies have gone out of their way to avoid transparency and hidden behind the “personnel exemption” in VA FOIA as though they were hiring an employee instead of selecting a representative of the people. Also each selection has led to controversy and further eroded trust of local governance. HB 69 will not fix everything in the appointment process, but it certainly is a much needed step in the right direction.

The League of Women Voters considers HB 111 to be essential. We need a Code chapter prescribing the processes and requirements for selecting and, if necessary, replacing electors for president and vice president of the United States, as well as setting forth their duties. .

Support ensuring electors follow the popular vote

Support electors voting for the candidate who got the most votes.

Support electors voting for the candidate who got the most votes.

The Virginia Civic Engagement Table is a nonpartisan voting rights and civic engagement 501(c)(3) organization based in Richmond, VA. It anchors the Virginia Election Protection Coalition, the Commonwealth’s largest nonpartisan pro-voter coalition that works year-round to advance the freedom to vote. HB111 is a needed measure to strengthen our electoral system and defend against bad-faith efforts to overturn the voice of Virginia’s voters. We support its passage.

I oppose HB 176. Please leave our local and constitutional offices as non-partisan. Constitutional duties should not be a partisan endeavor. These offices should remain independent of partisan affiliation.

The offices of sheriff, commonwealth's attorney, commissioner of the revenue and treasurer were set out in the state constitution to create checks and balances of transparency and responsiveness to We the People. They were not created to be beholden to a political party, or any other group or organization that may endorse them. Voters have a duty to elect these officers based on qualifications, not party affiliation. There is already too much partisanship in government today. HB176 only encourages more partisanship. Please vote NO on passing HB176.

Please oppose HB176 for the following reasons: • Of the 645 elected constitutional officers the MAJORITY DO NOT avail themselves of the party process and are non-partisan. • In the MAJORITY of Virginia localities the local governing body, school board and constitutional officers are ALL NON-PARTISAN offices. • This bill will only serve to increase partisanship in offices which should remain non-partisan. Presently, the majority of constitutional officers, in all five offices, run non-partisan. • Partisanship among ALL constitutional offices is unnecessary as we do not caucus with anyone. We come together, in a non-partisan manner, when issues impact us. • Adding CO’s to partisan politics could result in more primaries. Localities bear the full cost of primary elections. • This bill was NOT requested by any known constitutional officer or constitutional officer group. • “Local elections are best served by addressing local issues, not party issues…In our local elections we are not party connected, we are neighbors serving neighbors.” – VML 2012 Thank you for your time and consideration. Robin Coles Goard Commissioner of the Revenue Pittsylvania County

Please do not make local or constitutional offices partisan. Similar bills have failed to move forward in previous sessions. Sheriff's, commissioner of revenues, treasurers etc should focus on their duties, not be beholden to political parties. These bills, if passed, may exclude military involved or federal employees from running for office, due to the Hatch Act. Local and constitutional offices should be nonpartisan.

Each of these bills, HB 176, 413, and 429 would require party affiliation to be included on the ballot of constitutional officers. At a time of deadly political polarization, we should be moving to REDUCE the influence and impact of parties on our government. These bills go in the opposite direction. There is no Republican, Democratic or Independent way to be a treasurer or a court clerk. These are nonpartisan offices for a reason - we don't WANT partisanship in the basic administration of local government. Please don't make the mistake of supporting these measures and making partisan politics are even greater distraction to good governance. Thank you.

This bill is a bad idea, period. It was bad when it was proposed in past general sessions, and it's bad now. Party labels will undoubtedly shift the focus of these elections from individual qualifications to who has the support of various partisan institutions. Furthermore, constitutional officers have day-to-day duties that have nothing to do with their personal political persuasion. I want my sheriff to do his or her duty based on rule of law, not party alliances. The same goes for all the constitutional offices because the proper role of local governance is to serve the community, not the agendas of party leaders. We're already living in a time of considerable social unrest and polarization. Let's not make things worse. I ask that this committee vote to keep constitutional offices nonpartisan by rejecting and tabling HB176. Thank you for your time and attention.

Veterans for All Voters opposes HB 176 My name is Mike Cantwell. I am the Virginia Task Force Lead for Veterans for All voters. I am a retired Naval Officer, a retired Federal Government Employee, and a 30 resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia. HB 176 would make election for constitutional offices partisan, effectively prohibiting separating or retiring active duty military members and federal government employees from running for local or constitutional offices. Under current state and federal law, separating or retiring active duty military members and federal government employees are permitted to run for constitutional offices. If HB 176 becomes law, these patriotic Americans would risk violating federal law (the Hatch Act) if they campaign for office in a “partisan election” even if they run as an Independent. They would also be prohibited from participating in "partisan political activities" such as gathering petition signatures or hosting a fundraiser for a friend or neighbor. Do we really want to put a party label on Sheriffs, Commissioners of the Revenue, Treasurers, Commonwealth's Attorneys, and Clerks of the Circuit Court? Most voters say no. Voters want honest, competent local elected officials who swear an oath to serve and protect their local communities. I respectfully ask you to keep the status quo and allow separating or retiring active duty military members and federal government employees to run for constitutional offices. Please vote to lay HB 176 on the table. Mike Cantwell Virginia Task Force Lead - Veterans for All Voters 703-786-3922

Please do not make local or constitutional offices partisan. Similar bills have failed to move forward in previous sessions. Sheriff's, commissioner of revenues, treasurers etc should focus on their duties, not be beholden to political parties. These bills, if passed, may exclude military involved or federal employees from running for office, due to the Hatch Act. Local and constitutional offices should be nonpartisan.

Each of these bills, HB 176, 413, and 429 would require party affiliation to be included on the ballot of constitutional officers. At a time of deadly political polarization, we should be moving to REDUCE the influence and impact of parties on our government. These bills go in the opposite direction. There is no Republican, Democratic or Independent way to be a treasurer or a court clerk. These are nonpartisan offices for a reason - we don't WANT partisanship in the basic administration of local government. Please don't make the mistake of supporting these measures and making partisan politics are even greater distraction to good governance. Thank you.

Veterans for All Voters opposes HB 413 My name is Mike Cantwell. I am the Virginia Task Force Lead for Veterans for All voters. I am a retired Naval Officer, a retired Federal Government Employee, and a 30 resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia. HB 413 would make election for constitutional offices partisan, effectively prohibiting separating or retiring active duty military members and federal government employees from running for local or constitutional offices. Under current state and federal law, separating or retiring active duty military members and federal government employees are permitted to run for local or constitutional offices. If HB 413 becomes law, these patriotic Americans would risk violating federal law (the Hatch Act) if they campaign for office in a “partisan election” even if they run as an Independent. They would also be prohibited from participating in "partisan political activities" such as gathering petition signatures or hosting a fundraiser for a friend or neighbor. Do we really want to put a party label on Sheriffs, Commissioners of the Revenue, Treasurers, Commonwealth's Attorneys, and Clerks of the Circuit Court? Most voters say no. Voters want honest, competent local elected officials who swear an oath to serve and protect their local communities. I respectfully ask you to keep the status quo and allow separating or retiring active duty military members and federal government employees to run for local and constitutional offices. Please vote to lay HB 413 on the table.

Please do not make local or constitutional offices partisan. Similar bills have failed to move forward in previous sessions. Sheriff's, commissioner of revenues, treasurers etc should focus on their duties, not be beholden to political parties. These bills, if passed, may exclude military involved or federal employees from running for office, due to the Hatch Act. Local and constitutional offices should be nonpartisan.

Each of these bills, HB 176, 413, and 429 would require party affiliation to be included on the ballot of constitutional officers. At a time of deadly political polarization, we should be moving to REDUCE the influence and impact of parties on our government. These bills go in the opposite direction. There is no Republican, Democratic or Independent way to be a treasurer or a court clerk. These are nonpartisan offices for a reason - we don't WANT partisanship in the basic administration of local government. Please don't make the mistake of supporting these measures and making partisan politics are even greater distraction to good governance. Thank you.

Veterans for All Voters opposes HB 429 My name is Mike Cantwell. I am the Virginia Task Force Lead for Veterans for All voters. I am a retired Naval Officer, a retired Federal Government Employee, and a 30 resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia. HB 426 would make election for constitutional offices partisan, effectively prohibiting separating or retiring active duty military members and federal government employees from running for local or constitutional offices. Under current state and federal law, separating or retiring active duty military members and federal government employees are permitted to run for local or constitutional offices. If HB 429 becomes law, these patriotic Americans would risk violating federal law (the Hatch Act) if they campaign for office in a “partisan election” even if they run as an Independent. They would also be prohibited from participating in "partisan political activities" such as gathering petition signatures or hosting a fundraiser for a friend or neighbor. Do we really want to put a party label on Sheriffs, Commissioners of the Revenue, Treasurers, Commonwealth's Attorneys, and Clerks of the Circuit Court? Most voters say no. Voters want honest, competent local elected officials who swear an oath to serve and protect their local communities. I respectfully ask you to keep the status quo and allow separating or retiring active duty military members and federal government employees to run for local and constitutional offices. Please vote to lay HB 429 on the table.

I support HB440 and urge you to do so as well. Onerous petition requirements impose extra costs on candidates, both in terms of the money that they must spend and in the hours that volunteers must dedicate to paperwork. In cases where a prospective candidate is unable to collect the required number of signatures (or in those cases where they are deterred from even making the attempt) voters are unnecessarily deprived of additional choices in those elections. Allowing for the electronic filing of forms, petitions, and notifications, will ensure that voters do not needlessly lose choices at the ballot box and that candidates seeking office can devote their resources to making sure that the messages of their campaigns are communicated to voters.

I urge you to support this critical bill. This bill begins to address the severe limits on democracy that have been in place in Virginia for far too long. Every election season candidates of every political party and persuasion are faced with difficult requirements to get on the ballot, this bill will help alleviate that burden. I sincerely believe that anyone eligible to run for office should face minimal requirements in order to get on the ballot, while this bill helps improve their ability to meet the requirements currently in place, I would hope to someday see those requirements drastically lowered. I urge the members of the committee to pass this bill and help move our commonwealth towards letting the democratic process play out at the ballot box by alleviating the current onerous physical signature requirements.

VA NAACP HB 1003,1177,943,43,1172,942,1408,441,565 WE do not support HB463,hb932,

No attachment

The League of Women Voters of Virginia supports the fundamental right to vote and supports measures that seek to enhance voter access and voter participation. Curbside voting is one of the ways that Virginia localities ensure that having a disability is not a barrier to voter participation. The current law focuses on physical disabilities, but those are not the only disabilities that can be barriers to voting inside a polling place. HB1222 would add developmental disabilities which is a step in the direction of increasing voter access. HB43 and HB441 are more inclusive and would cover mental and emotional health which can fluctuate unpredictably. The League of Women Voters of Virginia supports the greatest degree of inclusion for persons with disabilities. Additionally, HB441 provides for training of Officers of Elections on how to provide assistance to voters outside the polling place. Therefore, the League of Women Voters of Virginia supports HB441 as providing the most help to the largest number of voters with disabilities.

So proud of my delegate. Not all disabilities are visible. If you think of it as voter fraud, don’t you dare call yourself an autism advocate. Ever!

Neither the Defense Department nor the Veterans' Administration provide financial benefits to active duty surviving spouses based on the "killed in action" designation, and for good reason; everyone in the armed forces has a deep understanding of and appreciation for the random nature of such deaths. Service members, having given up agency over their own lives upon enlistment in exchange for a free education and a steady paycheck, essentially become military assets to be deployed and positioned whenever and wherever the leadership deems necessary. Their voluntary service alone is what allows us civilians the luxury of avoiding a draft requirement. Whether a green recruit's training parachute fails to open, or a combat mess tent pot scrubber dies by missile strike, or a multi-combat-tour sniper successfully returns stateside only to die in a line-of-duty accident, all honorably fulfilled their obligation to do the dirty and dangerous work of American defense on our behalf. These examples prove that chance determines not only service members' deployment to combat zones, but also their survival in combat. Although required to categorize and account for all active duty deaths, and although KIA deaths are tragic and newsworthy, the DoD (and the VA) should not and do not reward death by only one of a thousand ways to die in military service, and neither should the Virginia Constitution. DoD/VA surviving spouse benefits are appropriately determined by whether or not the active duty member's death was in the line of duty. This is the appropriate criterion, if there is to be one, for the Virginia Constitution as well, in offering limited tax relief to unremarried surviving spouses of active duty service members.

Neither Bill will help election integrity. Voting with paper ballots on election day with hardship exceptions is the only way to insure that there was no electronic interference with the vote!

Dear Chair Rouse, Members of the Committee, My name is Jalisa Giles, and I serve as the Campaign Coordinator at Public Citizen, a nonpartisan non-profit organization dedicated to upholding the principles of democracy. On behalf of our 16,000-plus supporters in Virginia, expressing our strong opposition to the internet ballot return provision outlined in HB796, while voicing our support for the other accessibility measures incorporated into the bill. At Public Citizen, we are unwavering in our commitment to ensuring equal voting access for all citizens, including those with disabilities and overseas voters. We recognize the importance of online platforms for requesting and receiving ballots, especially for voters with print disabilities who rely on assistive technology. We endorse the streamlined request process and thoughtful provisions for voter assistance outlined in the bill. However, our primary concern lies with the submission of marked electronic ballots over the internet. We firmly believe that, for the sake of privacy and accurate vote counting, such ballots should be printed and ideally verified by the voter before being submitted through secure means, such as poll workers, scanners, mail, or drop boxes. In lieu of internet ballot return, we propose considering alternative accessible and secure voting options that generate verified paper ballots. Examples include programs that deliver accessible voting equipment, printers, or absentee ballots to in-state voters upon request, as successfully implemented in parts of California, Washington, and Oregon. These programs ensure that in-state voters, including those with disabilities and military personnel, are on equal footing with other voters, avoiding the segregation inherent in an unreliable internet-based system. Our opposition to internet ballot return stems from the potential risks it poses to the integrity of elections, as evidenced by recent catastrophic crashes in other parts of the world. In 2022, Sydney, Australia had to rerun an election due to a limited online voting system crash, affecting over 30,000 people. Similarly, Ecuador faced challenges when its overseas absentee internet voting system failed, necessitating an expensive rerun of disrupted contests. These incidents not only disenfranchise voters but also cast doubt on election outcomes, leading to costly and time-consuming legal battles. The inherent instability of internet-based voting systems jeopardizes the democratic process, and we cannot afford to introduce such risks into our electoral system. Therefore, we strongly urge you to reconsider and remove the electronic ballot return provision from HB796. By doing so, we can uphold the principles of secure and accessible voting, ensuring that all citizens can exercise their right to vote without compromising the integrity of our democratic process. Thank you for your attention and consideration. Sincerely, Jalisa Giles Campaign Coordinator Public Citizen

The League of Women Voters opposes HB 796 because of the dangerous insecurity of electronic ballot return. There is no current internet voting system that is secure from attack. If there is a breach, no one can undo the damage either to the outcome or public trust in elections. In other online transactions, tracing is essential, and it is possible to recover from hacking and attacks. In contrast, the secret ballot is a bedrock of American elections, preventing bribery and election fraud. Voters remain anonymous. Our security measures are strong. We appreciate the needs of military and overseas voters, as well as voters with print disabilities. Virginia can and does provide ballots to these voters over the internet but requires ballots to be returned by mail. This is why the federal government requires 45 days of early voting for military and overseas voters and why we allow mail ballots to be returned after election day. We cannot open the door to a corrupted election or the distrust it would generate. Electronic ballot return is appealing. Some day we hope and expect that voting on a device will be standard and trustworthy. That day has not come. We urge you to vote no on HB 796.

Comments Document

Attached please find a coalition letter signed by 5 major voting rights organizations who advocate across the United States for greater access to the ballot. The organizations include The Brennan Center for Justice, Common Cause/Common Cause Virginia, Public Citizen, Free Speech for People and Verified Voting. We oppose the use of electronic ballot return because of the major security risks involved as identified by four government agencies - the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), DHS's Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

I recommend that the P&E committee reject HB 796 as written due to the significant cyber risk that allowing electronic return of cast ballots would pose to Virginia elections. Elections are a very high priority target for hackers, including well funded and training state-sponsored actors. The current Internet design does not support high security applications needed to conduct federal or state elections on-line, especially combined with Virginia's constitutional requirement for a secret ballot (which prevents many of the safeguards used in financial transactions) Large well funded corporations and financial institutions suffer huge losses due to cyber fraud each year, despite having significant professional resources for defense. County election offices would be ripe targets in comparison. I strongly urge you to continue to safeguard the integrity of Virginia elections by rejecting HB 796

The League of Women Voters supports HB 904, a bill that will improve Virginia’s voter list maintenance activities and show the public many steps that are taken to ensure accuracy and security. This bill’s provisions will go a long way toward preventing incorrect voter purges, which approximately 3,400 voters experienced last year. Qualified voters should not be disenfranchised for nonexistent felony convictions nor for technical violations after their rights have been restored. Virginia should not be subject to other states’ errors either. Record matching will be more precise, helping to protect eligible citizens from disenfranchisement and prevent those who are no longer eligible from voting in Virginia. The bill also strengthens record keeping requirements so that a mistakenly disenfranchised voter can find out what happened. The bill codifies in detail security and list maintenance procedures that are already in place throughout the Commonwealth. Every locality has a security plan in place, subject to annual reconsideration. The Department of Elections’ IT team can assist any locality that needs help in reaching minimum standards. Change of address procedures are already in place but the bill spells out the standards. This bill accomplishes two things, better list maintenance so that only qualified voters can vote, and rebuilding public confidence in elections.

The League of Women Voters supports HB 904, a bill that will improve Virginia’s voter list maintenance activities and show the public many steps that are taken to ensure accuracy and security. This bill’s provisions will go a long way toward preventing incorrect voter purges, which approximately 3,400 voters experienced last year. Qualified voters should not be disenfranchised for nonexistent felony convictions nor for technical violations after their rights have been restored. Virginia should not be subject to other states’ errors either. Record matching will be more precise, helping to protect eligible citizens from disenfranchisement and prevent those who are no longer eligible from voting in Virginia. The bill also strengthens record keeping requirements so that a mistakenly disenfranchised voter can find out what happened. The bill codifies in detail security and list maintenance procedures that are already in place throughout the Commonwealth. Every locality has a security plan in place, subject to annual reconsideration. The Department of Elections’ IT team can assist any locality that needs help in reaching minimum standards. Change of address procedures are already in place but the bill spells out the standards. This bill accomplishes two things, better list maintenance so that only qualified voters can vote and rebuilding public confidence in elections.

No attachment

(Additional comments from the LWV-VA in support of HB 904) The bill codifies in detail security and list maintenance procedures that are already in place throughout the Commonwealth. Every locality has a security plan in place, subject to annual reconsideration. The Department of Elections’ IT team can assist any locality that needs help in reaching minimum standards. Change of address procedures are already in place but the bill spells out standards. This bill accomplishes two things, better list maintenance so that qualified voters can vote and people who should not vote here cannot, and it rebuilds public confidence in elections.

The League of Women Voters supports HB 904, a bill that will improve Virginia’s voter list maintenance activities and show the public many steps that are taken to ensure accuracy and security. This bill’s provisions will go a long way toward preventing incorrect voter purges, which approximately 3,400 voters experienced last year. Qualified voters should not be disenfranchised for nonexistent felony convictions nor for technical violations after their rights have been restored. Virginia should not be subject to other states’ errors either. Record matching will be more precise, helping to protect eligible citizens from disenfranchisement and prevent those who are no longer eligible from voting in Virginia. The bill also strengthens record keeping requirements so that a mistakenly disenfranchised voter can find out what happened.

The League of Women Voters of Virginia strongly urges you to reject HB 907. Ballots would no longer be secret. Receipts showing how voters voted would open our elections to bribery and fraud. In addition, the cost of new voting machines that are capable of printing receipts would be exorbitant, since they do not now exist.

We are in support of having space between guns and polling places in order to keep our community safe.

I am a member of Virginia Moms for Change. We support having space between guns and the places where Virginians vote and determine the results of elections.

I am a member of Virginia Moms for Change. We support having space between guns and the places where Virginians vote and determine the results of elections.

I am a member of Virginia Moms for Change. We support having space between guns and the places where Virginians vote and determine the results of elections

“I am a member of Virginia Moms for Change. We support having space between guns and the places where Virginians vote and determine the results of elections.”

I am a member of Virginia Moms for Change. We support having space between guns and the places where Virginians vote and determine the results of elections.

I am a member of Virginia Moms for Change. We support having space between guns and the places where Virginians vote and determine the results of elections.

I am a member of Virginia Moms for Change. We support having space between guns and the places where Virginians vote and determine the results of elections.

I am a member of Virginia Moms for Change. We support having space between guns and the places where Virginians vote and determine the results of elections.

I am a member of Virginia Moms for Change. We support having space between guns and the places where Virginians vote and determine the results of elections.

Guns are very threatening. Having space between guns and polling places is a good idea.

No attachment

The League of Women Voters supports HB 939 and HB 1023. Certain activities or conduct, such as electioneering or carrying a firearm within 40 feet of a polling place are currently prohibited because they can intimidate or harass voters and/or officers of election. The same prohibitions should apply wherever voters may cast their ballots in person or drop off their completed ballots. The combined bill would provide the necessary extension of existing law to locations in which ballots are processed and counted. We urge you to report the bill.

My spouse has worked as an election volunteer for many years. I am a former Navy combat fighter pilot and now a senior airline captain who has been involved in aviation safety for over 20 years. I am an expert in safety management systems, investigations, and am a Fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society. I am also a Federal Flight Deck officer, credentialed to carry a weapon myself. HB 939 is essential for mitigating the risk of death or serious injury to both election workers and the voters that visit the polling stations. Security in elections should be no different than at airports. There is no need for anyone besides clearly identifiable and credentialed local, state, or Federal law enforcement officers to be in possession of a firearm, period. As the horrific trend in firearm deaths continues to climb in this country, we simply must act to mitigate this danger. In every professional field, creating rules and legislation that create barriers where preconditions for unsafe acts exist is considered an industry best practice. To not do so is considered reckless. The mere visible presence of a gun intimates its use as a threat of deadly force. Far too many people consider this to be an acceptable use of intimidation and have little regard for the consequences it brings, neither for themselves nor for other people. Seeing mad, angry white men cosplaying the military while brandishing weapons provides a clear indication that a mass shooting can be only seconds away. Let me be clear, this is not professional, responsible, or in any way masculine or patriotic, it is childish, immature, and selfish. It is with all my experience as a Federal Officer, combat fighter pilot, and experienced airline captain that I give my highest possible support for the passage of this bill to expand the gun free zone around our public polling stations. To not support this measure would be reckless in any professional measure of safety. Thank you.

I support this important bill. Voters must traverse the parking lot, curb, surrounding lawn, and sidewalk before gaining entrance to the polling place, then cross the same space when leaving. Voters should not have to encounter a stranger with a gun and unknown intentions and background on their way in to vote, or out to get back to their car. This is intimidating and designed to instill fear, discouraging voting and the use of the polling site for other legitimate purposes. In November, we had a mentally ill man with a gun outside the Registrar’s office for several weeks during the early voting period. He shouted and harassed voters, arguing and standing in their way as they tried to enter and leave. He later moved to a library used as an early voting satellite site, exhibiting the same disruptive, harassing, intimidating behavior. Although they received daily complaints from voters about his behavior, the Chief and election officials at the site refused to require the mentally ill man with a gun to leave, because he was outside the 40 foot limit set out in current law. (The man did periodically teasingly step over the 40 foot line with one foot, while keeping the gun on his other hip just outside the line.) Extending the line where firearms are prohibited to 100 feet would alleviate this problem to some extent, giving election officials a clear standard by which to enforce the limit. This would keep voters, their families, the elderly, and children more safe from those who inexplicably choose to bring a firearm into this safe, protected space. It would encourage voting, teach the young about the importance of voting, and allow the use of the library and other public spaces for safe activities by the general public. Please pass HB 939. Thank you.

I'm a volunteer with Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, and I support this bill.

Comments Document

Hello Honorable Delegates: I am a strong supporter of HB939. I would be in support even if I hadn’t had this experience. I volunteered in early voting for 3 weeks. A candidate running in my district every day was wearing a gun. For 3 weeks he harassed me by approaching me and picking on my appearance, clothes, etc. I was the first to report this to the Director of Elections and they said he’s legal, and n one else complained. After that day, many voters called Elections to complain about the man with the gun. No matter that he stood 6 feet from the absentee ballot box. I also called the police and told them he was shouting at every person “I’m the only Independent in Virginia Beach…” and more. I thought he had mental problems. I am a Psychologist. The police told me he was ok. The following weeks I was at Kempsville Library, and so was he. I kept telling him to stay away from me and stop talking to me. He said he could talk to anyone he wanted. He got in a shouting match with 2 voters and my colleague asked the Head Librarian to call police. After the voters left, this candidate told my colleague that if they had touched him, he would have shot them! Obviously his gun was loaded. After that, deputies came every day for support, and my colleagues were very helpful snd supportive. His behavior triggered an old trauma that had me reeling and anxious, but I persevered. Very unpleasant. One deputy told me he was trying to intimidate voters. Please vote YES on HB 939. Thank you.

No attachment

The League of Women Voters supports HB 940 and HB 1003. Many League Members have extensive experience serving as election officers, including experience where the location of a polling place is changed. We know how important it is to voters to be given timely notice on a new polling location, as well as information on the new polling location if they unknowingly go to the location that they last used for their polling place. Voting should not seem like a puzzle for Virginia voters.

VA NAACP HB 1003,1177,943,43,1172,942,1408,441,565 WE do not support HB463,hb932,

No attachment

The League of Women Voters’ mission is to Empower Voters/Defend Democracy. The LWV of Virginia supports and welcomes no-excuse early voting to empower voters to participate in the voting process. We recognize that in-person early voting has been implemented in many different ways in different localities and that it is time to provide standards to ensure that all voters are equitably enabled to cast a ballot during the early in-person voting period. The question of number and locations for satellite voting is complex and varies based on a county or city’s geographic size, population distribution, public transportation options, general registrars’ office location within the locality, voting patterns, and underserved communities. Chapter 18 of the GREB (General Registrar and Electoral Board) Handbook provides guidance for operation of satellite locations but only states that localities “may” establish them. No standards or Code exist to require or provide guidance for the number or placement of satellite locations. Three bills before this committee HB942, HB1172, HB1408, offer opportunities to set standards to broaden the access of voters to early voting at satellite locations. HB1408 requires a standard developed by the Department of Elections. Standards exist for many aspects of elections and the number and distribution of satellite voting locations should be no exception. Standards can be very detailed descriptions of various scenarios and how the number and location of satellites should be determined in each. The League supports passage of this bill. HB1172 sets a minimum of one satellite (operating in addition to the Registrar’s office) during the early voting period for any county or city with a population over 50,000. The League supports this attempt to set a minimum number of satellite locations but has concerns that it might not be adequate for all localities based on geographic size, population distribution, and underrepresented or underserved communities. HB942 addresses several satellite location concerns. The League supports language requiring consideration of proximity to public transportation, parking, proximity to historically underrepresented or underserved communities, population distribution, and the needs of tribal organizations. The League recommends that the bill be amended to establish guidance on the number of satellite locations. Additionally, the League supports the bill’s rules limiting the use of police or sheriff offices for all voting locations including satellites and requiring tribal voting locations. Thank you for considering our input in support of Virginia’s voters.

No attachment

The League of Women Voters staunchly supports HB943. Although elections in the Commonwealth are secure, transparent, and accurate, trust in elections has deteriorated both here and nationwide. Fortunately, Virginia’s election officials have thus far not experienced some of the trauma wreaked on officials in other states. Nevertheless, it is prudent to offer the identified election officials the option to withhold their residential addresses from the public voter list. These protections could be extended to cover statewide election officials, but this bill is a necessary start.

HB1003 is a no brainer; I can't believe this notice of polling place changes isn't standard procedure already. Support HB1045 looks great as well, would be a huge step towards making elections more about who has the most popular ideas rather than who can raise the most money. Support HB375 is the main reason I'm commenting; the electoral college is outdated and provides voters in some states with much more power than others. Until the electoral college can be abolished by constitutional amendment, this compact is a great way of ensuring that ALL the people of this country choose its president, not just those in a few swing states. It saddens me to see how many people in the comments on this bill are against this common sense change. Major support SB270 is another no brainer; allowing voters to express their preferences beyond a winner take all system would be a huge win for democracy in the state of Virginia. Support

Please vote in support. It's a common sense measure to ensure voter clarity.

VA NAACP HB 1003,1177,943,43,1172,942,1408,441,565 WE do not support HB463,hb932,

No attachment

The League of Women Voters supports HB 940 and HB 1003. Many League Members have extensive experience serving as election officers, including experience where the location of a polling place is changed. We know how important it is to voters to be given timely notice on a new polling location, as well as information on the new polling location if they unknowingly go to the location that they last used for their polling place. Voting should not seem like a puzzle for Virginia voters.

HB1003 is a no brainer; I can't believe this notice of polling place changes isn't standard procedure already. Support HB1045 looks great as well, would be a huge step towards making elections more about who has the most popular ideas rather than who can raise the most money. Support HB375 is the main reason I'm commenting; the electoral college is outdated and provides voters in some states with much more power than others. Until the electoral college can be abolished by constitutional amendment, this compact is a great way of ensuring that ALL the people of this country choose its president, not just those in a few swing states. It saddens me to see how many people in the comments on this bill are against this common sense change. Major support SB270 is another no brainer; allowing voters to express their preferences beyond a winner take all system would be a huge win for democracy in the state of Virginia. Support

The League of Women Voters supports HB 1045.  An option for public funds to help finance campaigns, similar to the provision to designate a dollar of federal taxes owed to fund presidential campaigns, will be a meaningful step toward tightening Virginia’s notoriously lax campaign finance laws.   You are aware that Virginia is one of only five U.S. states that allows unlimited contributions of campaign funds and has no restrictions on using campaign funds for personal use.  A League study in 2022 demonstrated the extent to which the lack of campaign finance regulations distorts our democracy by allowing huge gifts from invisible donors, including state-regulated utilities, out-of-state donors, and potentially foreign influencers.  The absence of limits to dollar amounts for contributions exacerbated the problem.  The study cited a poll from the Wason Center at Christopher Newport University in late 2021 showing that 75% of residents support limits on contributions, 78% percent support reducing allowable contributions from large contributors, and 56% favor banning corporate contributions altogether.  The electorate supports saner funding for campaigns, and a public funding option goes a long way toward that objective. The Virginia Public Access Project, VPAP, has demonstrated conclusively that Virginia’s last election was the most expensive on record, with legislative candidates collectively raising $56 million, 43% more than the last election cycle where all 140 General Assembly seats were on the ballot.  It further showed that only one candidate each for the Senate and the House received contributions from small donors ($100 or less), all the rest being 50% or less of their donors, and that contributions from Virginia donors (not otherwise classified as e.g. businesses or political committees) comprised only 18% of contributions to Democratic candidates and 28% to Republican candidates, leading to the inescapable conclusion that big money and outside interests are the tail wagging the Virginia election dog.   We also support the mechanism for funding the program. Instead of using scarce taxpayer dollars, the new Public Campaigns Program would be financed through an optional check off on Virginia taxpayer income tax filings. The League believes that a public financing option for funding electoral campaigns such as HB 1045 will reduce candidates’ reliance on large private donations and donations from vested special interests, which can discourage those without deep-pocketed contacts from running for elected office and limits the expression of the voters’ interests

Public financing of elections: Marcus Simon (HB 1045) BigMoneyOutVA supports this bill which establishes a tried and true mechanism to amplify the voices of our citizens in our elections. Public financing of elections programs have been effective in reducing the influence of large corporate and wealthy donors while encouraging candidates from diverse backgrounds to run for public office. The provisions of this bill (small donor progressive match) mirrors some of the successful programs implemented around the country: 14 states and in nearly 40 local jurisdictions. It also-and importantly, uses a creative mechanism for funding the program, rather than using tax-payer dollars, it is financed through an optional check off through the Virginia tax filing. It is a voluntary program of small donor public financing for state elections which and creates a unique incentive for candidates to engage with many supporters. Rather than spending time courting lobbyists, candidates are encouraged to actually talk to voters. …. Something that is supposed to happen in election campaigning. We hope that you pass this bill.

No attachment

The League of Women Voters’ mission is to Empower Voters/Defend Democracy. The LWV of Virginia supports and welcomes no-excuse early voting to empower voters to participate in the voting process. We recognize that in-person early voting has been implemented in many different ways in different localities and that it is time to provide standards to ensure that all voters are equitably enabled to cast a ballot during the early in-person voting period. The question of number and locations for satellite voting is complex and varies based on a county or city’s geographic size, population distribution, public transportation options, general registrars’ office location within the locality, voting patterns, and underserved communities. Chapter 18 of the GREB (General Registrar and Electoral Board) Handbook provides guidance for operation of satellite locations but only states that localities “may” establish them. No standards or Code exist to require or provide guidance for the number or placement of satellite locations. Three bills before this committee HB942, HB1172, HB1408, offer opportunities to set standards to broaden the access of voters to early voting at satellite locations. HB1408 requires a standard developed by the Department of Elections. Standards exist for many aspects of elections and the number and distribution of satellite voting locations should be no exception. Standards can be very detailed descriptions of various scenarios and how the number and location of satellites should be determined in each. The League supports passage of this bill. HB1172 sets a minimum of one satellite (operating in addition to the Registrar’s office) during the early voting period for any county or city with a population over 50,000. The League supports this attempt to set a minimum number of satellite locations but has concerns that it might not be adequate for all localities based on geographic size, population distribution, and underrepresented or underserved communities. HB942 addresses several satellite location concerns. The League supports language requiring consideration of proximity to public transportation, parking, proximity to historically underrepresented or underserved communities, population distribution, and the needs of tribal organizations. The League recommends that the bill be amended to establish guidance on the number of satellite locations. Additionally, the League supports the bill’s rules limiting the use of police or sheriff offices for all voting locations including satellites and requiring tribal voting locations. Thank you for considering our input in support of Virginia’s voters.

Hi there, I'm Natalie from Social Busy Bee, your partner in the exciting world of Instagram growth. I've discovered something phenomenal for skyrocketing your Instagram popularity and I'm thrilled to share it with you! Social Growth Engine introduces a groundbreaking service that takes your Instagram engagement to new heights. It's effortless: - Zero in on producing unforgettable content. - Extremely budget-friendly at a mere $36/month. - Completely safe (no password needed), incredibly powerful, and Instagram's best friend. I've experienced remarkable results firsthand, and I'm sure you will too! Amplify your Instagram presence right now: http://get.socialbuzzzy.com/instagram_booster Best wishes, Natalie at Social Busy Bee"

Hi I am writing to you on behalf of The Well Connection UK, a media and publishing company. We could easily get virginia.gov featured in various publications such as magazines, online blogs and news sites. This would undoubtedly help virginia.gov with publicity, reputation, domain authority and organic search engine rankings. We have a wide range of options including completely free collaborations, sponsored posts, guest posts and banner ads. If this sounds of interest, please reach out to the senior business development manager, Anita at info@thewellconnection.co.uk and whatsapp +447395206515 (GMT) Kind regards Clifton Junior Outreach Assistant

The ERIC system FAILED to remove registrants as stated, and this is documented by ELECT & by voter roll analysis. WE DO NOT NEED ERIC AND IT WILL ERODE OUR ELECTIONS. ELECT & Virginians have no idea how ERIC/CEIR transferred or stored the Commonwealth’s PII data (provided from 2012 through 2023), what algorithms were used to identify EBUs or whether only certain EBUs were targeted, which individuals or entities were granted access to the data, what types of other analytics were performed on the data, or if the myriad potential unofficial uses (or misuses) of the data. Such legitimate concerns (over data privacy, ERIC’s obvious partisan ties, lack of transparency, and focus on costly voter registration efforts versus actual voter maintenance) are the reason VA and eight other states (LA, FL, MO, WV, AL, OH, IA, TX) opted to withdraw from ERIC since January 2023. To be clear, if ERIC had been concerned with voter roll maintenance, how is it that ERIC failed to detect the nearly 19,000 deceased voters on Virginia’s rolls (from 1960 to 2023) recently identified & removed by ELECT? And similar issues have been found in many other ERIC member states. In fact, it appears that by signing the ERIC contract in 2012, ELECT unilaterally, willfully, & negligently granted itself authority not permitted by federal or state statute, and committed the Department to: Perform regular, ongoing, costly, taxpayer-funded, mass voter registration and GOTV efforts, Release the Commonwealth’s sensitive data to a partisan hack organization (& other unknown entities) by which said groups utilized undisclosed methods, algorithms, and datasets without any oversight. Virginia Law explicitly requires the Commissioner of Elections to serve as state coordinator for the administration of the NVRA & for the continuing operation and maintenance of the Virginia voter registration system for all voters registered in the Commonwealth. Virginia Code (§ 24.2-404.4. Exchange of registered voter lists with other states.) already requires ELECT to exchange voter registration information & lists with bordering states to identify duplicate registrations, voters who no longer reside in the Commonwealth, and other persons who are no longer entitled to be registered in order to maintain the overall accuracy of the voter registration system. Given modern technology and the numerous available government (federal, state, and local) and easily accessible commercial databases, Virginia can and should utilize such resources to garner, compare, and exchange information and records (Social Security, voter registration, DMV, deaths, address changes, felons, property tax, and citizenship status) to maintain accurate voter rolls. Ultimately, Virginia must follow the law, use taxpayer money wisely, and protect both the rights and privacy of: each legally-registered voter in Virginia, each citizen who opts not to register to vote, each minor citizen under the age of 18, and the privacy of each noncitizen residing in the Commonwealth. The integrity of Virginia’s voter rolls is a fundamental component of the protection of voter rights, and accurate and up-to-date voter rolls are essential to prevent the dilution of each legal vote cast. Allowing partisan organizations unfettered access to and control over our state’s voter rolls infringes on voter rights, eradicates legitimacy of our voter rolls, and allows for the dilution of each legal vote cast.

Neither Bill will help election integrity. Voting with paper ballots on election day with hardship exceptions is the only way to insure that there was no electronic interference with the vote!

No attachment

The League of Women Voters strongly supports HB 1177 and appreciates Delegate Sickles’ extensive efforts to convince ELECT to rejoin ERIC. Our voter rolls must be accurate. ERIC provided Virginia residents the assurance that our voter rolls did not include voters who moved away from our Commonwealth. This bill would require ELECT to regain efficient access to that important data.

Comments Document

January 26, 2024 RE: HB 1177 Opposition Chair Marcia S. Price & the Committee on Privileges and Elections Dear Committee on Privileges and Elections, America needs to restore integrity in the election process; Virginia needs election laws that citizens can support and instill confidence in. We need nonpartisan laws that both sides can support. Unfortunately, the repeal of the Electronic Registration Information Center, better known as E.R.I.C., is flawed with problems. Large states like Florida, North Carolina, Texas, and Ohio have pulled out, while California and New York have never been part of the program. Why would Virginia join a program that has not met these states' needs? The Voter Reference Foundation, a 501(c)(4), is dedicated to ensuring transparent, accurate, and fair elections in the United States of America. We have a national scorecard for every state in the nation. Virginia’s transparency score is only 65, while North Carolina has a score of 97, and West Virginia has a score of 83. Two other partisan states have similar scores: New York's 84 and Ohio's 92. Virginia's previous departure from ERIC was necessary to restore the public’s trust. There has been no real reform nor justification to go back. The legislature's last actions were bipartisan and correct. We urge the committee to oppose HB 1177, and support continued transparency. Respectively, Gina Swoboda Executive Director The Voter Reference Foundation

I oppose HB 1177. The bill requires VA to re-enter into an agreement with ERIC. ERIC’s standard agreement prohibits the disclosure to the public of ERIC data or reports without a court order. ERIC data includes state provided information reformulated by ERIC and sent back to Elect in the form of monthly reports. The National Voter Registration Act requires the disclosure of data to the public if that data is used for voter list programs or maintenance. It appears that this provision of the ERIC agreement is legally flawed. The legislature is not empowered to require the executive branch to enter into a legally flawed agreement.

The League of Women Voters of Virginia supports the fundamental right to vote and supports measures that seek to enhance voter access and voter participation. Curbside voting is one of the ways that Virginia localities ensure that having a disability is not a barrier to voter participation. The current law focuses on physical disabilities, but those are not the only disabilities that can be barriers to voting inside a polling place. HB1222 would add developmental disabilities which is a step in the direction of increasing voter access. HB43 and HB441 are more inclusive and would cover mental and emotional health which can fluctuate unpredictably. The League of Women Voters of Virginia supports the greatest degree of inclusion for persons with disabilities. Additionally, HB441 provides for training of Officers of Elections on how to provide assistance to voters outside the polling place. Therefore, the League of Women Voters of Virginia supports HB441 as providing the most help to the largest number of voters with disabilities.

The League of Women Voters of Virginia supports HB 1314. Voters should be able to easily see that a sample ballot is in fact a “Sample Ballot,” and know who or what entity authorizes and pays for them. Otherwise, sample ballots can mislead voters.

VA NAACP HB 1003,1177,943,43,1172,942,1408,441,565 WE do not support HB463,hb932,

No attachment

The League of Women Voters’ mission is to Empower Voters/Defend Democracy. The LWV of Virginia supports and welcomes no-excuse early voting to empower voters to participate in the voting process. We recognize that in-person early voting has been implemented in many different ways in different localities and that it is time to provide standards to ensure that all voters are equitably enabled to cast a ballot during the early in-person voting period. The question of number and locations for satellite voting is complex and varies based on a county or city’s geographic size, population distribution, public transportation options, general registrars’ office location within the locality, voting patterns, and underserved communities. Chapter 18 of the GREB (General Registrar and Electoral Board) Handbook provides guidance for operation of satellite locations but only states that localities “may” establish them. No standards or Code exist to require or provide guidance for the number or placement of satellite locations. Three bills before this committee HB942, HB1172, HB1408, offer opportunities to set standards to broaden the access of voters to early voting at satellite locations. HB1408 requires a standard developed by the Department of Elections. Standards exist for many aspects of elections and the number and distribution of satellite voting locations should be no exception. Standards can be very detailed descriptions of various scenarios and how the number and location of satellites should be determined in each. The League supports passage of this bill. HB1172 sets a minimum of one satellite (operating in addition to the Registrar’s office) during the early voting period for any county or city with a population over 50,000. The League supports this attempt to set a minimum number of satellite locations but has concerns that it might not be adequate for all localities based on geographic size, population distribution, and underrepresented or underserved communities. HB942 addresses several satellite location concerns. The League supports language requiring consideration of proximity to public transportation, parking, proximity to historically underrepresented or underserved communities, population distribution, and the needs of tribal organizations. The League recommends that the bill be amended to establish guidance on the number of satellite locations. Additionally, the League supports the bill’s rules limiting the use of police or sheriff offices for all voting locations including satellites and requiring tribal voting locations. Thank you for considering our input in support of Virginia’s voters.

Neither the Defense Department nor the Veterans' Administration provide financial benefits to active duty surviving spouses based on the "killed in action" designation, and for good reason; everyone in the armed forces has a deep understanding of and appreciation for the random nature of such deaths. Service members, having given up agency over their own lives upon enlistment in exchange for a free education and a steady paycheck, essentially become military assets to be deployed and positioned whenever and wherever the leadership deems necessary. Their voluntary service alone is what allows us civilians the luxury of avoiding a draft requirement. Whether a green recruit's training parachute fails to open, or a combat mess tent pot scrubber dies by missile strike, or a multi-combat-tour sniper successfully returns stateside only to die in a line-of-duty accident, all honorably fulfilled their obligation to do the dirty and dangerous work of American defense on our behalf. These examples prove that chance determines not only service members' deployment to combat zones, but also their survival in combat. Although required to categorize and account for all active duty deaths, and although KIA deaths are tragic and newsworthy, the DoD (and the VA) should not and do not reward death by only one of a thousand ways to die in military service, and neither should the Virginia Constitution. DoD/VA surviving spouse benefits are appropriately determined by whether or not the active duty member's death was in the line of duty. This is the appropriate criterion, if there is to be one, for the Virginia Constitution as well, in offering limited tax relief to unremarried surviving spouses of active duty service members.