Please vote no on HB 90. We cannot expect to know all the reasons why a candidate would withdraw from a party nomination and then decide to run in a general election, as an independent or with another party. Some situations might be considered "sore loser." But other situations, a candidate may have legitimate reasons to leave a political party. Voters need more choices in General Elections, not fewer choices.

Good afternoon. Thank you for allowing me to provide my input. I believe HB 56, 90, and 1439 would restrict participation by independent voters in the political election system. The aforementioned bills would force citizens to align themselves with a particular party in order to participate in the election of their representatives. This creates a barrier for the exchange of ideas and positions amongst independent voter and literally forces people to choose a camp. These type of thinking reduces variables for politicians trying to coalesce and quantify their support, but poisons civics, creating a negative polarizing effect on the constituency.

(Please remove my previous comments) Veterans for All Voters opposes HB 90. HB 90 adds additional barriers to Independent candidates. Independent candidates should be able to have their names printed on the general election ballot even if they decide to withdraw from a party nominating process before the primary election date. If HB 90 is enacted into law, voters will have fewer choices in the general election. Voters want more choices, not less. More choices. More Voices. Please vote to lay HB 90 on the table.

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

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 HB185’s measures that implement a clearer process for legal challenges to a candidate’s qualifications or eligibility. The will of Virginia’s voters must be protected from bad-faith efforts to nullify votes or overturn elections.

WOOHOO campaign finance reform time!!!

HB254, just like HB176, only encourages more partisanship into local elections that have historically remained nonpartisan. There are no Democrat or Republican pot holes, schools, or zoning issues. These local issues are best addressed by the most qualified candidate who has the leadership qualities to bring people of differing political philosophies together to solve local issues. Not partisan candidates that are beholden to any political party. Please OPPOSE HB254 and ANY bill that makes nonpartisan local elections unnecessarily partisan.

Similar to HB176, this bill (HB254) would shift the focus of many local elections from individual qualifications to who has the support of various partisan institutions. But this bill appears to have an even broader reach. As a result, we could end up with partisan officials in positions that have been traditionally kept partisan-free. I realize that individual people have personal political beliefs that may lean one way or the other. But I don't see the need in unduly emphasizing these affiliations with formal party identifications on the ballot. For instance, do I really need to know if my local school board members are Republicans or Democrats? Such information, while potentially informative, should not be the primary basis for selection in roles that fundamentally require a focus on local issues, expertise relevant to the position, and an ability to serve the community above party lines. The potential inclusion of these traditionally nonpartisan positions under the umbrella of party identification could fundamentally change the nature of local governance. It could shift the emphasis from community-specific needs and qualifications to broader political allegiances, which may not serve the best interests of local communities. This change could also increase polarization at a local level, where cooperative, community-focused governance is essential. Because of this, I ask that this committee vote to keep constitutional offices nonpartisan by rejecting and tabling HB254. Thank you for your time and attention.

Support. Candidates affiliated in any way with apolitical party should be identified as such.

I am opposing proposed bill HB280. This proposal is in DIRECT conflict with my first amendment to guarantee free speech. According to this proposal, only by government approval will you be allowed to assemble. You will no longer be able to assemble and voice your opinion lest you be arrested, charged with a felony, jailed, fined, and severly limit your ability to hold any public office- This bill proposal has lost it's foundational roots of our history, law, and severly misconstrued the uniqueness of an American citizen and replaced that with a servant to the master.

The HB280 bill is political attack against people who supported an illegal election. No one was convicted of insurrection. You are playing judge to pass this bill. US congress is presently investigating the involvement of Government agencies. The word insurrection should be replaced by ambush of American people by Government. Why did this bill point out J6ers and not BLM or Antifa that burned cities and destroyed Government property? This is a bill I would expect in a communist country with no reguards to the American Constitution. This bill is a shameful political attack.

To those duly elected Representatives of the Commonwealth of Virginia who might consider HB280 worthy of consideration, I ask you to be very introspective. If this bill were to pass, whose liberties does it restrict? Whose does it protect? Theirs, Mine, or None? Shouldn’t ZERO restriction of liberties always be the test? What if the tables were turned? Mine, Theirs, or None? Should not all laws apply equally in terms of Liberty? Should Liberty not be the test of Equality? Do you not want opposing ideas, discourse, and debate? When the majority party can make legislation to exclude the minority from anything and everything, they have truly obtained power. Please understand the GRAVITY and IMPACT of your decision. America is watching. GOD BLESS AMERICA!

In reading this Bill it dangerously approaches a constriction on lawful free speech as what constitutes an "insurrection" is not clearly defined and is vague, subject to capricious and arbitrary interpretation and enforcement. Insurrections historically have been ARMED uprisings, and mere riots or protests are NOT insurrections: "What makes an insurrection here (the American Colonies) always more formidable than in other places is there is a law of this province which obligates every inhabitant to be furnished with a firelock, bayonet, and pretty considerable quantity of ammunition." - Brig. Gen Lord Hugh Percy, Royal Army, Boston, 1774 Further, in the last line of the Bill it makes its provisions retroactive to the Jan. 6th demonstration, and anyone who paid attention to their high school civics class would recognize a CLEAR violation of the ex post facto provision of the US Constitution: You cannot pass a law now to make an earlier act unlawful, and makes one wonder if members of the G.A. have lost their minds. Certain people, from certain groups, are intent on using their law making powers as a weapon, and this bill illustrates that trend. I find this trend in Virginia quite unsettling, as though we have forgotten our foundations set in the 1775 Revolution and real insurrection against the Crown.

I oppose this bill in the way it is currently written. It needs a more specific definition of what constitutes an "insurrection" and it needs to provide examples of actions that meet the definition of insurrection in terms of this bill. This bill also needs to specify and provide examples of what constitutes "positions of public trust". - - - -Moving along, if you are convicted of insurrection, there should be more options to petition and clear your name besides: "D. Any person prohibited from serving in any position of public trust within the Commonwealth pursuant to subsection B may petition the circuit court of the jurisdiction in which he resides or, if the person is not a resident of the Commonwealth, the circuit court of any county or city where such person was last convicted of a disqualifying offense pursuant to subsection B, for a restoration order that unconditionally authorizes his ability to serve in a position of public trust within the Commonwealth." . - - - On the surface this seems like a commonsense bill. Unfortunately, as you read it and dig deeper you can see that this bill could easily become a political weapon. This could become a tool for whichever political party is in power in Virginia to find ways to punish protestors from the opposing party. I also find it odd that events at the Capitol on Jan 6, 2021 are cited as an example of insurrection. As far as I'm aware, no one involved in those events have been convicted with insurrection. There have been many other convictions, but I don't believe a single person has been convicted of insurrection. Additionally, there was a lot going on that day at the Capitol. What specific actions are deemed as taking part in an "insurrection"? Are you no longer allowed to protest and hold a sign anywhere or are you allowed to do those things....just not at a certain proximity from " (i)...a polling place, a voter satellite office, or any other location being used for voting or registration purposes; (ii) during the certification of an election; or (iii) at any other official proceeding related to an election" ? - - - - Why is Jan 6, 2021 cited as the only example of an insurrection and not the Jan 13, 2024 "March on Washington for Gaza" which culminated in (amongst other things) many protestors shouting curses & insults at President Biden from the perimeter of the White House, protestors breaking part of the fence around the White House, protestors trying to crawl over the White House fence, protestors hurling objects at White House security, and forcing all non-essential White House personnel to be evacuated? The citation of Jan 6, 2021 as the only example of an insurrection is clearly biased and politically motivated. The essence of this bill isn't bad, but the contents of this bill need a lot of work.

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

I am writing to urge you to vote against HB 375 and protect the Electoral College for presidential elections. The NPV Compact is an attempt to circumvent the Constitution, letting fewer than 20 states determine the results of our elections. Protect the rights of less populated states to have their voices heard. The links below shows the outsize effect that densely populated areas would have on the rest of the US https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/04/visualisation-the-extreme-variations-of-new-york-population-density/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/04/visualisation-the-extreme-variations-of-new-york-population-density/

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact disenfranchises Virginia voters by automatically giving all electors to the Presidential candidate who receives the most votes nationwide, regardless of the preference of state citizens. For example, if the majority of Virginians voted for Joe Biden, but Donald Trump received more popular votes, all Virginia electors would be given to Trump. This would be very hard to explain to your constituents who are probably unaware of the compact, and its binding nature. Also, NPVIC supporters have emphasized that, once the compact reaches 270 electoral votes, the electors from other states are "not needed". (See attached screenshot from their site.) In today's Supreme Court hearing, Justice Kagan expressed great skepticism about whether a state should have the power to decide an election on behalf of the entire nation. In a similar vein, the NPVIC member states would determine Presidential election results, rendering the votes of all non-compact states irrelevant. This would result in significant legal challenges to the election. The NPVIC is flawed and dangerous legislation. Please vote to defer HB-375. Thank you.

I consider HB375 to be a very dangerous bill that if passed would cause severe damage to our democracy here not only in Virginia but in the entire United States. The only voters who would benefit from HB375 would be the voters in the inner cities of large metropolitan areas. It is no surprise to me that liberals are pushing for the National Popular Vote, as they have for many decades now been doing very well in elections in the very large cities and have controlled many of them for the last three or four decades now at least. The only reason that they want to abandon the system that our very wise founding fathers created is because they would immediately stand to gain by doing away with the electoral college, for the time being. Our founding fathers created the electoral college system to create a more fair and balanced voting system that allowed all states to have an equal say in any National election. An election based on NPV would give an unfair advantage to cities such as New York and Los Angeles, among others like them. It would also give a very unfair advantage to heavily populated areas and cities like the ones that I mentioned over all of the rural areas of the country. States like Wyoming and Alaska would virtually have no representation or say in an election at all. Even here in Virginia, most voters would be disenfranchised in a National election. Please think about the damage this bill would do and all of the disenfranchisement that it would cause if it is passed. I don't like the idea of allowing New York and Los Angeles and a couple of other cities to decide virtually all of our National elections, but that is exactly what will happen if this bill is ever passed and gains enough support. Vote against it if you really support our Republic.

Our country is a republic ( reference the constitution) and the electoral college promotes a republic. All states are and should be equally heard. Popular vote simply promotes numbers . High population areas would have too much influence over national elections. All states should be represented equally. In the senate they are and in the House there are provisions for population by adding reps. National Popular Vote is another socialist plan for the downfall of our Republic. Please see this for what it is and protect our country and our Constitution.

Please stop destroying our country and our election system. It was meticulously well thought out and has worked flawlessly for over two hundred years. There is a reason we have the electoral college, and it is an extremely important tool in promoting fairness in our election system. I'm 47 years old, and I had never heard anyone ever criticize it until the election of 2016. That was the first time in my life I ever heard anyone criticize the electoral college, and to be completely honest, the only reason they criticized it then is because they lost. You lose one election and you want to upend over two hundred years of problem free voting to contort the system to your favor. Honestly most Americans want stricter rules for voting. No one asked for electronic voting machines, they were more or less imposed upon us without our input. We need to go back to paper ballots, one day voting, voter I.D., and the tried & true electoral college system, and we're good. If you want to instill trust in the system, you need simplicity & transparency. It's just that simple. Thank you and good day.

Please OPPOSE HB375 and keep Virginia out of the NPV compact so that Virginia's voters keep our own voice rather than surrendering it to more populous states like NY, CA and TX, The American Founders considered, and, in their wisdom, rejected a national popular vote because it would lack checks and balances to protect minority rights and limit corruption. You should respect their wisdom and review their extensive deliberations rather than rushing into making partisan-monitivated mistakes that will hurt Virginia.

Virginia Electors should be the electors of the majority of Virginia voters not part of some national popular vote, otherwise Virginians are being disenfranchised by large states.

Virginia would lose its unique voice with NPV. The Electoral College turns swing states into microcosms of America, where candidates are forced to go beyond the big cities and reach out to all kinds of people. NPV would allow a candidate to win without any sort of majority, encouraging more candidates to run and thus ensuring that future Presidents get elected with smaller and smaller pluralities. NPV leaves the Electoral College structure in place but eliminates its effects thus doing away with its benefits. This would lead to uncertainty, instability, and a constitutional crisis. The American Founders considered and rejected a national popular vote because it would lack checks and balances to protect minority rights and limit corruption.

Please protect SW Virginis from the mob rule which popular vote only would inflict upon us and the biggest part of the state. The founding fathers knew what was best for our republic.

If the Electoral College is removed, we are no longer a democratic republic. The Electoral College forces candidates to go beyond the big cities and reach out to all kinds of people. Virginia would give up some of its sovereignty by becoming part of an interstate compact that would determine who is elected president. NPV essentially destroys the Constitutional process by bypassing it. The Electoral College keeps individual states in charge of elections. NPV would allow a candidate to win without any sort of majority, encouraging more candidates to run and thus ensuring that future Presidents get elected with smaller and smaller pluralities. NPV leaves the Electoral College structure in place but eliminates its effects thus doing away with its benefits. This would lead to uncertainty, instability, and a constitutional crisis. The American Founders considered and rejected a national popular vote because it would lack checks and balances to protect minority rights and limit corruption.

Judging purely on the organizations who are promoting it, Ranked Choice Voting is the most cleverly disguised partisan attempt to give dominance to a single political party that this country has ever seen. It is complicated, will require an extensive and expensive educational effort to ensure voters know how to fill out a ballot correctly, and patently violates the traditional "one person/one vote concept with has been the bulwark of elections in this country since its inception. Having to discern the voter's intent, rare at present, will become a commonplace requirement laid on General Registrars and Election officials if RCV is ever mandated.

The National Popular Vote (HB 375) initiative is absolutely abhorrent. It suppresses the unique voices of the individual states and holds rural areas hostage to the whims of the urban elite. I don't care about the "national" vote totals. I care about how Virginians vote. The number of voters in California or New York easily overwhelm smaller states. The Electoral College was designed the way it is for a purpose. This is just another attempt at consolidation of power by the Left.

The national popular vote (NPV) idea is nothing more than a dilution of Virginia’s voting power and cedes the same to more populated states. It’s wrong. We are a constitutional republic. Those wanting to do away with the electoral college shouldn’t attempt to flout the constitution as this NPV scheme does, they should argue instead for a constitutional amendment that they know would never be adopted. Framers were against mob rule. Virginia would lose its unique voice with NPV. The Electoral College turns swing states into microcosms of America, where candidates are forced to go beyond the big cities and reach out to all kinds of people. NPV would allow a candidate to win without any sort of majority, encouraging more candidates to run and thus ensuring that future Presidents get elected with smaller and smaller pluralities. NPV leaves the Electoral College structure in place but eliminates its effects thus doing away with its benefits. This would lead to uncertainty, instability, and a constitutional crisis. The American Founders considered and rejected a national popular vote because it would lack checks and balances to protect minority rights and limit corruption.

Good afternoon, I believe that switching our election results to popular vote alienates ALL states other than New York and California. The electoral college prevents our presidential elections from being decided by the most populated cities in our country. Please do NOT switch to popular vote. Thank you for your time.

Against: "By Popular Vote" would destry representation for rural VA. Norther VA is a socialist vote farm for Democrats. We already struggle with representation. Please don't do this...

Our Founding Fathers knew what they were doing and the Electoral Collage makes every state important. Popular vote would concentrate on large cities and the rest of the smaller cities and states would be ignored since so many votes are concentrated in large cities. Every state, city, town, county no matter the population should count and be just as important as large cities. The Electoral Collage levels the playing field and does not nullify any one area of the America because every citizens' vote would count.

Comments Document

My testimony is intended to highlight the numerous technical defects in NPV that will lead to, in the words of one of the law professors who initially developed the concept of NPV, "electoral crises" and "historic debacle."

Oppose this bill! The Electoral College was put in place for a very good reason, and while it may seem imperfect the alternative turns power over to the large metropolitan areas.

I agree the Electoral College has its problems, but I firmly believe that electing our President by popular vote would be a horrendous idea. The Electoral College preserves the principles of federalism that are essential to our constitutional republic. The U.S. is a large country made up of people from very different regions and cultures, and federalism is an important way of preserving the differences that make us unique while uniting us behind one common federal government. Since the country is comprised of 50 states coming together to form the federal government, it is important that the system to elect the President fairly represent them. By allocating electoral votes by the total number of representatives in a given state, the Electoral College allows more states to have an impact on the choice of the President. The Electoral College prevents presidential candidates from winning an election by focusing solely on high-population urban centers and dense media markets, forcing them to seek the support of a larger cross-section of the American electorate. This addresses the Founders’ fears of a “tyranny of the majority,” which has the potential to marginalize sizeable portions of the population, particularly in rural and more remote areas of the country. Large cities like New York City and Los Angeles should not get to unilaterally dictate policies that affect more rural states, like North Dakota and Indiana, which have very different needs. These states may be smaller, but their values still matter—they should have a say in who becomes President. By forcing presidential candidates to address all Americans during their campaigns, not just those in large cities, the Electoral College has the added benefit of eschewing radical candidates for more moderate ones.

Oppose HB375; Virginia must NOT automatically cast our presidential electoral college votes for whoever voters of OTHER states decide. Virginia votes must be decided each election by VIRGINIA voters. If HB375 becomes effective, over 80% of Virginians voting for "A" will be meaningless if Virginian electoral votes go to "C" because of so many voters elsewhere. STOP this bill of goal to devote Virginia's votes to whoever others decide.

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.

The Institute for Responsive Government Action strongly supports HB 565. This policy, which has been successfully implemented in states like Kentucky and Colorado, makes simple changes to DMV and Board of Elections procedures that will result in hundreds of thousands of additional address updates for registered voters. More address updates through the DMV means cleaner voter rolls, significant cost-savings for elections officials from reduced undeliverable mail, and a better experience for voters. We thank the Committee for their careful consideration of the bill.

To Whom It May Concern: I am writing to you today about Virginia’s H.B. 565 / S.B. 315, a nonpartisan, good-government proposal that will result in more voters being registered in the correct location while saving money and reducing the administrative burden on election administration officials. This bill would increase the accuracy of voter registration rolls by automatically updating a voter’s registration record if the voter were to provide a different address to the Virginia DMV during a licensing transaction. The voter would still have an opportunity to correct the change, if needed. By automatically syncing voter registration records with DMV records, Virginia can ensure cleaner voter rolls and dramatically reduce the cost of undeliverable election mail. To be clear, no Virginian would be automatically registered if this bill were to pass. Only voters who are already registered would see their addresses automatically updated to their new, current address. This precise policy has been adopted in 10 states — red and blue alike — including Colorado, Kentucky, and Wisconsin. And a similar policy exists in several other states. In Colorado, the policy has updated an extra 200,000 outdated records per year. If Virginia’s success rate were similar, taxpayers would save over $1 million each cycle on undeliverable mail alone. It will also save elected officials’ campaigns time and money. Finally, by spreading updates throughout the year, it should reduce the workload during the busiest time of the election calendar, when most think about updating their addresses. That’s why reforms like this attract bipartisan support across the country. I regret that I cannot be at the statehouse to testify due to pre-scheduled travel around the National Association of Secretaries of State conference in Washington, D.C. I hope we can count on your support of this bill and welcome any questions, thoughts, or concerns about the bill. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Trey Grayson Advisory Board Chair, Secure Elections Project Kentucky Secretary of State, 2004-2011 Past President, National Association of Secretaries of State Past Chair, Republican Association of Secretaries of State tgrayson@fbtlaw.com (859) 817-5930

Please vote NO on HB 565. The bill would create confusion in the voter registration system because it assumes that any address provided in a DMV transaction is the last known and primary address of a voter. For instance, if someone has a farm in VA that is not their primary (registered) residence, and houses a vehicle at that farm, the farm address becomes their new voter registration address when the vehicle is registered. Without any advance notice, that voter then will not be able to vote at their original registered precinct. This is unfair to the voter. Instead, the bill should require DMV to ask anyone providing an address whether that voter’s registration information should be updated with that address (or not).

The League supports HB 565 because it will help ensure that voters who are already registered to vote in Virginia are registered in the correct precinct. Many people forget to update their voter registration addresses but remember to update their addresses for their driver’s licenses. While it is true that eligible citizens can opt out of automatic voter registration, once they are registered, this proposal would make it easier for them to keep their registration current and accurate. Not only would the bill help voters, but it would also assist in maintaining clean voter rolls.

UpVote Virginia supports this legislation. The ability of voters and the organizations designed to protect them to bring legal action when the rights of those voters are abridged is crucial. The Voting Rights Act is only as effective as our ability to enforce it. This bill answers a true need - this is a right that is under threat from recent federal court rulings, which would gut the VRA and leave millions of voters open to unchecked violations of their rights.

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 supports both HB 998 and HB1238, which extend local electoral board certification of elections until either seven calendar days after absentee ballots are returned by mail or ten calendar days after the election. Sorting mail ballots by precinct is burdensome. Registrars also need time to verify same day registrants and count their provisional ballots. Compounding the workload is that no mail is delivered on Friday when it is a federal holiday, as it was in both 2022 and 2023. Tackling these tasks right after the election means tired administrators can make mistakes. The largest localities barely finished in time last year. Remember this: extending the certification deadline at the local level by three days does not affect the timing of the final certification by the State Board of Elections.

HB 1149 (Cordoza) Removal of elected and certain appointed local officers by courts; Governor. Allows the Governor to petition the circuit court to remove from office any local elected officer. The process for removal of local elected officers already exists in Virginia Code. Allowing the Governor to petition the circuit court circumvents the “petition by registered voters” process already in place and potentially politicizes the process.

The League of Women Voters supports both HB 998 and HB1238, which extend local electoral board certification of elections until either seven calendar days after absentee ballots are returned by mail or ten calendar days after the election. Sorting mail ballots by precinct is burdensome. Registrars also need time to verify same day registrants and count their provisional ballots. Compounding the workload is that no mail is delivered on Friday when it is a federal holiday, as it was in both 2022 and 2023. Tackling these tasks right after the election means tired administrators can make mistakes. The largest localities barely finished in time last year. Remember this: extending the certification deadline at the local level by three days does not affect the timing of the final certification by the State Board of Elections.

This bill would extend the period for final count and certification of the vote from 7 days to 10 days after an election. Currently, large localities do not have adequate time to finish the vote count, provisional ballot decisions, canvass, and certification, to ensure the accuracy and integrity of each election. This is particularly a problem when there are multiple races on the ballot and high turnout, as there will be in the November 2024 general election. Early voting in person and by mail are significant improvements to the accessibility of voting and a real convenience for voters. However, these important innovations come at a cost to the Registrar’s staff and election officials, who must work long hours with sometimes inadequate staffing to count each and every one of these votes, double check, prepare voluminous documentation, and certify the totals for each precinct and each race. In the last election, the state Board of Elections and state Department of Elections had to extend the state agency’s deadline to certify the vote statewide, an accumulation of all local results. With this precedent, the obsolete 7 day deadline should be extended to 10 days so that the timeline is more realistic. The Electoral Board Association reportedly endorses this legislation, which has been introduced previously.. With upcoming races in November 2024 for School Board, City Council/Board of Supervisors, Mayor, House of Representatives, Senate, and President/Vice President, turnout will be very high, and all eyes will be on the process and results. In 2024, this measure is more important than ever. This needed and overdue legislation will not affect the timeliness of unofficial results, as staff and election officials will continue to work tirelessly to provide those as quickly as possible on election night or shortly thereafter. HB 1238 will simply give officials in large jurisdictions the time they need to complete their job and ensure accuracy in the final, certified vote totals. Please pass this bill without delay.

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. We strongly support HB 1330 regarding absentee voting for individuals who are confined while awaiting trial or for having been convicted of a misdemeanor. This legislation is a crucial step towards ensuring that our democracy is truly inclusive and equal for all Virginians, irrespective of their legal circumstances. By ensuring that these voters are able to cast their votes through the absentee process, HB 1330 recognizes the importance of preserving the fundamental freedom to vote for every Virginian. Regardless of circumstance, every Virginian deserves the right to access the ballot box. The Commonwealth should demonstrate its commitment to fostering a more inclusive and equitable democracy by guaranteeing this opportunity to all Virginians. By addressing the unique challenges faced by individuals in confinement, HB 1330 not only protects their freedom to vote but strengthens our electoral system as a whole by ensuring that all voices are heard. It is our hope that this bill is reported favorably.

Comments Document

See attached statement.

My name is John LoGalbo, and I am the Chair of Voter Protection for the Loudoun County Democratic Committee. This statement is made on my own behalf and does not reflect a position of the LCDC or the Voter Protection Committee. I fully support Delegate Reaser's bill to vest local governing bodies with the responsibility to set the dates and hours of operation of satellite offices for early voting - or what is referred to in the Code as "absentee voting in person." It's fairly clear what may have prompted Delegate Reaser's proposal: the recent decision of the Loudoun County Electoral Board to completely eliminate two weeks of weekday voting in two satellite locations in the eastern portion of the County. The Electoral Board has since partially reversed its decision, after pointed and harsh criticism from members of the community and from a majority of members of the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors. As a practical matter, the satellite office in western Loudoun had more limited availability than the two satellite offices in eastern Loudoun. The Electoral Board claims that its original decision was not based on partisan politics, but rather on the "principle" that each of the three satellite offices for early voting in the County should have dates and hours of operation that are equivalent. This "principle" flies in the face of the fact that there are many more thousands of voters in eastern Loudoun than in western Loudoun. It is no coincidence that eastern Loudoun is a very heavily Democratic area, while western Loudoun is heavily Republican. Despite their protests to the contrary, it seems obvious that the two Republican members of the Electoral Board's decision to "equalize" the voting dates and times in all three satellite locations was intended to reduce the availability of early voting times in the Democratic area of the County. Local governing bodies already have the authority under the Virginia Code to determine the location and number of satellite offices for early voting. It is not a radical proposal to vest those bodies with the authority to determine their dates and hours of operation, especially when partisan majorities on local Electoral Boards are liable to disadvantage certain voting districts for political motives. I urge you to support Delegate Reaser's amendment to the Code to accomplish that purpose.

Weekend voting hours are really important for my husband. He is a teacher in a private school and does not have election day off. Because of his teaching schedule, it is often very difficult to make it to the polls in time to vote. I am also usually scheduled to work all day and evening on election day making it difficult to vote on the day of. Because of this, he and I make a plan to vote early and, again, because of our work schedules, weekend voting is often the only time that we are able to attend. I know for many voters in our area, they face the same difficulties. Having a location nearby (in Sterling) that has weekend hours is imperative to provide equal access for voters like us. Please protect equal voting rights by passing this Bill.

Please vote in favor of this bill as 2 people almost disenfranchised thousands of voters in Loudoun County by shutting down one of our early voting locations that typically votes more Democratic than Republican. These two individuals have continually not published agendas within the appropriate time frames and meet on Tuesdays from 1-3 in the middle of the work day for most constituents so most of us cannot show up to speak. This is disenfranchisement on top of disenfranchisement and we need oversight of these two individuals. No one should be trying to decrease voting. Please vote in favor of this bill. Heather Gottlieb

I am commenting in support of HB 1490 which will provide greater support for localities to expand early voting locations if they want more than what the Board of elections has designated. This is critically important in my county, where our recent board of elections attempted to severely restrict early voting access to Eastern parts of the county, where there is significant density of voters. Voting access is of critical importance to ensure voting equity in localities and I support this effort to increase access.

What right does the legislature have to unilaterally extend the length of a current registrar's employment to 2029? Why is there an assumption that the Registrar wants to continue in their position at the end of their contract rather than having them inform the Electoral Board that they wish to continue in the position? Also, there is no date by which the assumption should be made by the Electoral Board which would hamper the Electoral Board's ability to advertise for the position. Finally, the cost of retirement is born by the locality so again, what right does the legislature have to make changes that involve the locality without their consent to the change? Why does the legislature feel empowered to take away the voice of the locality, the entity that is closest to the people that will be effected by these changes both in the administration of their elections and to their budget. Vote No. Thank you.