Madam Chair and members of the committee, HB 55 is solely about saving all Virginia localities money and time on a primary where all candidates with the exception of one person properly withdraws, leaving only one viable candidate. This has happened several times since I became a General Registrar over 12 years ago, and not just in small rural districts, it recently happened in Northern Virginia as well. Most recently when Del. Wright faced opposition in a primary in 2023. His opponent John Marsden withdrew from the race 11 days before the primary day. Mr. Marsden withdrew from the race. He filed the necessary paper with his local registrar and then the department of elections notified all registrars. This left only one viable candidate on the ballot, and we were still required to have the election. This cost my locality an additional $18,192.00. It also cost the entire 50th district over 50,000.00. This does not include time spent on training officers of election, over time hours, 2 Saturdays open for early voting, a 16+ hour Election Day, and the minimum 3 day canvas. If you have any questions I would be happy to answer them. Respectfully, Jason Corwin General Registrar/Director of Elections Mecklenburg County

The League considers canceling a primary election where there is only one viable candidate and no other contests to be reasonable. It would save money and prevent confusion to voters. With the caveat only the primary for that particular race is canceled and none other are affected, we support SB 131.

Virginia Institute Action opposes SB196 - General registrars, instead of the courts, are best positioned to oversee this challenge process, since they are responsible by Virginia code to keep current and accurate voter registration lists. Additionally, this bill establishes new restrictions and changes to the challenge process that are not needed. We ask you to please oppose SB196.

Rather disappointed that I signed up to speak and they completely did not allow any comments from the public. SB196 (Oppose): The general public has a right and a duty under the constitution, and expressed in HAVA and NVRA, to be fully engaged in the elections process, and that includes their right to oversee, verify and validate voter rolls. - Removes the ability for voters to address issues with their registrar. (They are forced to go through 3 person court challenge) - Removes the ability to use public documents such as obituaries, etc. - As VA also does not release information to the public that has unique identifying information about individuals on it, there is no method by which a member of the general public could have the necessary documentation to use to challenge a voter. This law effectively cuts the public out of the process to verify and validate voter rolls. This is a depravation of the public right under color of law. - Is overly proscriptive as to how the courts (a seperate constitutional body) shall adjudicate any potential challenges. SB577 (Oppose): Why do we need special treatments and carve outs for this? I do not see a justification for this set of exemptions. SB606 (Oppose): While the concept of ERIC is not altogether objectionable, the ERIC organization has shown itself to repeatedly act in violation of its charter and in violation of VA disclosure laws. (a) While VA was a member, ERIC routinely provided PII information on VA citizens that it received from the state Health, DMV, and ELECT offices to left wing organizations in violation of VA privacy laws and in violation of their charter and ethical responsibilities to not have political bias. (b) ERIC was failing miserably to execute on its core mission: to find duplicate or errant records and help clean up state voter rolls. Instead ERIC focuses almost exclusively on identifying "Eligible but Unregistered" voters and aggressively pursuing them to register. Ask Susan Beales how many errant records were identified and removed via ERIC ... the answer is shocking small considering the money and support they are provided. (c) Multiple member states (including VA) attempted to address and correct these issues, and were unable to do so. That formed the justification for Susan Beales decision to withdraw from ERIC.

The League of Women Voters supports methods to improve the accuracy of Virginia’s voter list and to avoid improper disenfranchisement of valid voters. SB 196 would achieve this purpose. Registrars should not be in a position to hear challenges to a voter’s registration lodged by three other voters and the bill removes that authority. We urge the Committee to report this bill.

SB196 will not improve Virginia’s voter list maintenance activities and will not help rebuild public confidence in our elections. This bill prevents the general registrars from maintaining a complete and accurate registered voter list. Maintaining a complete and accurate RVL is required and is an essential part of the process to ensure elections are safeguarded, fair and legitimate. There is concern that the registered voter list (RVL) is not accurate. Holtzman Vogel’s pre-litigation notice analysis dated August 8, 2023 indicates that 101 Virginia counties and cities are in violation of Section 8 of the NVRA and ELECT’s response to the pre-litigation notice is not reassuring. Large amounts of documentation submitted to the general registrars to correct the RVL are also alarming and indicates an inaccurate RVL. Challenges should be allowed to the general registrar who is responsible for maintaining an accurate registered voter list. Bypassing the general registrar and requiring a petition to the Circuit Court is unnecessary and a waste of the court’s time. We should be asking why Virginia’s RVL is not accurate and taking action to ensure that it is accurate. This bill restricts the reconciliation with other states’ voter data to ensure the accuracy of the registered voter list, and it could permit the duplication of registration in more than one state. SB196 restricts ELECT’s ability to reconcile with the states that do not use the full social security number. Many states only use the last 4 digits of the registered voters’ security number, which is not a unique identifier. ELECT does not verify or reconcile that the registered voters’ social security number matches the name and date of birth with the Social Security Administration, which is extremely important to ensure only one person is registered to vote and to verify the accuracy of the information on the application. An accurate registered voter list cannot be maintained without this verification and reconciliation. This bill requires ELECT to utilize full social security numbers or reliably linked data fields to match records when ELECT does not know if their registered voter information is correct. Using reliably linked data fields and leaving no room for other documentation will create an inaccurate registered voter list. The general registrars should not cancel registered voters based on the documentation they receive. They should review the documentation and send confirmation letter(s) to the registered voter as needed. If the registered voter does not respond to the confirmation, they will be put in inactive status. They can still vote while inactive. Voting, updating or confirming their information will change them to active. If no action is taken after 2 general federal elections, the registered voter is canceled. If you really want to improve list maintenance, please have ELECT reconcile the RVL immediately with the SSA or the DMV to make sure the social security number is valid and the name and date of birth match the social security number. Please also take action to have ELECT resolve registered voters who have duplicate social security numbers or no social security number listed. Please oppose SB196. Stronger internal controls are needed in list maintenance but SB196, as written, will create more inaccuracies in the registered voter list.

Rather disappointed that I signed up to speak and they completely did not allow any comments from the public. SB196 (Oppose): The general public has a right and a duty under the constitution, and expressed in HAVA and NVRA, to be fully engaged in the elections process, and that includes their right to oversee, verify and validate voter rolls. - Removes the ability for voters to address issues with their registrar. (They are forced to go through 3 person court challenge) - Removes the ability to use public documents such as obituaries, etc. - As VA also does not release information to the public that has unique identifying information about individuals on it, there is no method by which a member of the general public could have the necessary documentation to use to challenge a voter. This law effectively cuts the public out of the process to verify and validate voter rolls. This is a depravation of the public right under color of law. - Is overly proscriptive as to how the courts (a seperate constitutional body) shall adjudicate any potential challenges. SB577 (Oppose): Why do we need special treatments and carve outs for this? I do not see a justification for this set of exemptions. SB606 (Oppose): While the concept of ERIC is not altogether objectionable, the ERIC organization has shown itself to repeatedly act in violation of its charter and in violation of VA disclosure laws. (a) While VA was a member, ERIC routinely provided PII information on VA citizens that it received from the state Health, DMV, and ELECT offices to left wing organizations in violation of VA privacy laws and in violation of their charter and ethical responsibilities to not have political bias. (b) ERIC was failing miserably to execute on its core mission: to find duplicate or errant records and help clean up state voter rolls. Instead ERIC focuses almost exclusively on identifying "Eligible but Unregistered" voters and aggressively pursuing them to register. Ask Susan Beales how many errant records were identified and removed via ERIC ... the answer is shocking small considering the money and support they are provided. (c) Multiple member states (including VA) attempted to address and correct these issues, and were unable to do so. That formed the justification for Susan Beales decision to withdraw from ERIC.

The League of Women Voters of Virginia supports SB 605. Every eligible Virginian should have the opportunity to vote in every election. If entering a polling place presents a problem, the nature of a person’s disability, whether physical or mental, should not determine whether they can use curbside voting. Like HB 441, which passed the House, SB 605 will include any permanent or temporary disability and will train election officials how best to assist curbside voters.

Last night I registered to give my comments virtually to the committee this morning. I rearranged my work schedule for this sole purpose. I received the link this morning with all the instructions and connected into the meeting waiting to speak but to my surprise, no comments were allowed. Is the public going to be cut out of the process unless it is a brand new bill? The Chair introduced the last set of bills, of which SB606 was one, as "moving to the bills that were contested." Given this, shouldn't discussion from ordinary Virginians with their concerns and comments been allowed before a vote which could (and did) send it to the floor for passage? Having a similar bill pass in the House earlier in session should have no bearing on testimony when the bill is sent to the other chamber for crossover, especially when the vote was razor thin. Regarding the bill. one of the greatest concerns is the fact that ERIC is allowed to share our private information without our consent or even our knowledge. That includes minors. There are other substantive reasons for concern but this privacy issue is so important that no one should support this bill if they believe the individual should control their personal information, including SS# and DOB. The state should have no ability to leverage or share without the voter's express and fully informed permission. I hope the committee and the House leadership will take these comments to heart.

Rather disappointed that I signed up to speak and they completely did not allow any comments from the public. SB196 (Oppose): The general public has a right and a duty under the constitution, and expressed in HAVA and NVRA, to be fully engaged in the elections process, and that includes their right to oversee, verify and validate voter rolls. - Removes the ability for voters to address issues with their registrar. (They are forced to go through 3 person court challenge) - Removes the ability to use public documents such as obituaries, etc. - As VA also does not release information to the public that has unique identifying information about individuals on it, there is no method by which a member of the general public could have the necessary documentation to use to challenge a voter. This law effectively cuts the public out of the process to verify and validate voter rolls. This is a depravation of the public right under color of law. - Is overly proscriptive as to how the courts (a seperate constitutional body) shall adjudicate any potential challenges. SB577 (Oppose): Why do we need special treatments and carve outs for this? I do not see a justification for this set of exemptions. SB606 (Oppose): While the concept of ERIC is not altogether objectionable, the ERIC organization has shown itself to repeatedly act in violation of its charter and in violation of VA disclosure laws. (a) While VA was a member, ERIC routinely provided PII information on VA citizens that it received from the state Health, DMV, and ELECT offices to left wing organizations in violation of VA privacy laws and in violation of their charter and ethical responsibilities to not have political bias. (b) ERIC was failing miserably to execute on its core mission: to find duplicate or errant records and help clean up state voter rolls. Instead ERIC focuses almost exclusively on identifying "Eligible but Unregistered" voters and aggressively pursuing them to register. Ask Susan Beales how many errant records were identified and removed via ERIC ... the answer is shocking small considering the money and support they are provided. (c) Multiple member states (including VA) attempted to address and correct these issues, and were unable to do so. That formed the justification for Susan Beales decision to withdraw from ERIC.

I am opposed to SB606. There are many reasons against re-entering into an agreement with ERIC, including the astronomical sum of $200,000 that VA recently spent to entice individuals who had ALREADY declined to register to vote, to change their mind. This number was provided by the Commissioner to the General Assembly a few weeks ago. Moreover, the ERIC member agreement contradicts Federal law. The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) requires disclosure to the public of all records involved in a state’s voter registration program, upon request. The ERIC agreement, however, prohibits disclosure of “ERIC data” to anyone without a court order. “ERIC data” is mainly a reformulation of state-provided information to ERIC. ERIC has no special rights to that data, and the agreement violates preemptive Federal law by prohibiting the disclosure of that data. Nowhere does the NVRA require a court order for disclosure. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Project Vote v. Long, 682 F.3d 331 (4th Cir. 2012) held that the NVRA’s requirement for public disclosure of all voter roll data to be sweeping. The legislature is not empowered to require the executive branch to enter into a legally flawed agreement. Therefore, SB 606 should be a non-starter.

Please oppose SB606. ELECT needs to take full responsibility to ensure the accuracy of the registered voter list (RVL) before it enters into an agreement with ERIC. ERIC’s initial intent was to improve the accuracy of VA’s RVL by comparing other states voting data with ELECT to prevent duplicate registrations. ELECT has no supporting documentation that any voter registration data comparison was done with other states for 2021 to 2023. FOIA request dated Jan. 31, 2024: Please provide the dates that ELECT's voter data (RVL, voter history, etc.) was compared with other states voter data for 2021, 2022 and 2023. Please include the state, the date done, number of issues identified, number of mailings sent. ELECT's Response dated Feb. 13, 2024: Attached is the list maintenance calendars partially records responsive to your request. We have no records responsive to "number of issues identified". For states ELECT completed list maintenance with and any NCOA mailings you may review our list maintenance reports here: https://www.elections.virginia.gov/resultsreports/maintenance-reports/ There are sections on the list maintenance reports comparing voter registration data with other states. However, nothing is mentioned about duplicates identified, confirmations sent, & voter registrations cancelled on comparing data with other states. There is concern that the RVL is not accurate. Holtzman Vogel’s pre-litigation notice analysis dated August 8, 2023 indicates that 101 VA counties and cities are in violation of Section 8 of the NVRA and ELECT’s response to the pre-litigation notice is not reassuring. Maintaining a complete and accurate RVL is required and is an essential part of the process to ensure that elections are safeguarded, fair and legitimate. Over 10,000 inactive registered voters (RV) were researched. Over 50% appear to have moved out of VA. ELECT's Feb 1, 2024 registration statistics report shows 457,047 inactive RV (7.4% of the RVL). These are voters who have potentially moved and did not respond to their confirmation notice. They will remain inactive for 2 general federal elections unless they vote, update or confirm their information. These appear to have been identified by the NCOA process. No cancellation letters were sent to RV due to out of state surrender of license for 2021, 2022 and most of 2023. License surrender began in October 2023 with 1,717 removed voters for 2023. License surrender is covered in 24.2-427 E, but it does not tell ELECT it shall do it on a monthly basis. A RV can be canceled under this process after sending a confirmation letter to both the new address, as reported by the DMV, and the address at which he most recently registered in VA. ELECT needs to reconcile the RVL with the DMV surrender of license records and send cancellation letters sent to all disqualified RV. VA DMV joined the driver’s license compact (DLC) in 1968, at which time Virginia began capturing surrender license data. Most states belong to the DLC, which requires that the driver’s license held by the applicant from a DLC member state must be surrendered when applying for a VA’s driver’s license or VA ID card. Other concerns with ERIC regard stewardship, maintenance, privacy, & confidentiality of voter information & the controversy surrounding the sharing of data. Please oppose SB606 & hold ELECT accountable for maintaining an accurate RVL.

The League strongly supports SB 606, as we supported Del. Sickles’ companion bill. Virginia was a founding member of ERIC, the Electronic Registration Information Center. ERIC is hands down the best tool for securely maintaining accurate voter lists. It is managed and directed by its member states, each of which has a seat on the board. ERIC developed sophisticated safeguards that secure and protect all member states’ voter registration information. It informed our Department of Elections of voters who moved to any of 31 other states and the District of Columbia, those who might have voted in more than one state, and those who died. Virginia’s current agreements with other states leave unanswered questions about the security of our voters’ personal information and the quality of the data provided to us. The Commonwealth should rejoin ERIC as soon as possible and encourage all other states that are not current members of ERIC to join or renew their membership.

The League of Women Voters supports SB 692, including the delayed effective date. The League believes that democratic government depends on the informed and active participation of its citizens. Timely access to campaign expenditure information is important to such participation, increasing voters’ ability to make informed decisions. Requiring electronic filing of all campaign expenditure reports, and removing the provision that has different requirements as to where campaign reports must be filed, depending on the office the candidate is seeking, as this bill does, is a significant step toward promoting transparency through timely access, with all reports in a central location and no need to wait for some to be digitized.