The League of Women Voters supports SB188. The League believes in representative government at all levels and supports electoral systems that elect policy-making bodies that proportionally reflect the people they represent. State code forbids drawing districts in such a way that members of a minority group are dispersed into districts in which they constitute an ineffective minority of voters. The city of Virginia Beach provides evidence that converting to single-member districts can immediately double the minority representation on a city council. We believe that SB188 will result in local governing bodies that more closely reflect the people they represent.

The League of Women Voters of Virginia supports SB 300 because it is imperative that Virginia diligently maintain accurate voter lists. After withdrawing from ERIC, the consortium of states that securely and accurately matched data, Virginia has embarked on a series of memoranda of understanding with a number of other states. ERIC did not share member states’ voters personal identifying information, while the MOUs do. ERIC employed widely accepted national and international security protocols, while the MOUs do not address, and Virginia cannot determine, the strength of other states’ security protocols. This bill would require careful data matching, record keeping and notice to ensure that eligible registered voters are not improperly removed from the list of registered voters in Virginia.

The League of Women Voters of Virginia supports SB301 and the need for providing clear rules for appealing penalties relating to candidates’ filings, through the State Board of Elections.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Chairwoman and members of the committee. I am Melody Clarke with Virginia Institute Action. I urge you to oppose SB428 AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE, regarding the process of ranked choice voting. Please do not further enable bad legislation by passing this RCV bill. If RCV were a simple process, we would not now be playing clean-up on the original enabling legislation. Extensive research has shown that ranked-choice voting disenfranchises and suppresses the vote of minority voters. We need to look no further than Washington DC, which is a majority-minority jurisdiction where the DC City Council heeded the sage advice of the Washington DC Democratic Party and did not implement ranked-choice voting because they care about the voting rights of their minority population. pointing to data showing residents were already more likely just to pick one candidate in races where they are allowed to vote for two. The party also noted that an analysis of ranked-choice voting in New York City indicated that lower-income areas were less likely to participate in the voting process when ranked-choice voting was used. In addition, Deirdre Brown, a longtime Democratic Party member and LGBTQ community ally, is on record against RCV. Please vote NO on this legislation. Refrain from further enabling a process that disenfranchises our Virginia voters, increases the cost and time necessary to obtain election results, makes elections less transparent, and leaves all of our voters with less confidence in our electoral process and those elected to office. Sincerely, Melody Clarke

Ranked Choice Voting disenfranchises voters. The principle of one person-one vote is stripped away under the guise of providing the public with moderate candidates via RCV. At present, tabulators cannot calculate votes using RCV yet the Senator is pushing this bill forward. Senator Vanvalkenburg's bill requires that all ballots be brought to a centralized location for tabulation thus incurring risks of chain of custody of ballots. The national movement towards ranked choice is a current distraction by the hard left and is heavily funded by partisans operating as charitable organizations with no transparency. I urge the Committee to vote no on SB428.

The League of Women Voters of Virginia supports the clarification of processes for Ranked Choice Voting Elections, as described in SB 428. We believe that ranked choice voting, or RCV, would make our elections more accessible, would promote nominees with broad support, and would ensure that every voter's voice is heard. RCV often results in a more diverse slate of candidates who can run for office without the fear of being a "spoiler" or splitting the vote. RCV allows voters to express their choice of candidates fully, without worrying about "wasting their vote" if a preferred candidate drops out before election day, and without worrying about voting for the likely winner, rather than the candidate that most closely represents their personal views. RCV ensures that the winning candidate has the broad support of the majority of voters, rather than just a 22% or 34% plurality of voters. The League of Women Voters of Virginia asks this Committee to report out SB428 to the full Committee.

Please oppose Rank Choice Voting. RCV is very confusing and hard to count. There is a lack of accountability when a recount maybe needed. RCV will cause more distrust in Virginia's election process. As elected officials you should be working to improve the integrity of America's election system not making it more confusing. Virginia should ban RCV.

I oppose SB428 and ask you to vote against this bill. 1. Ranked Choice Voting does not treat voters equally. Some voters get many votes, as their second, third, fourth and sixth choice votes are counted, while other voters get only one vote. 2. Ranked Choice voting can not be audited and neither can recounts be done, so RCV should not be used in our elections. 3. Ranked Choice Voting is confusing to voters, which causes them to make mistakes and to cast a vote for candidates they would have never voted for, but do vote for, if they think they have to rank all the candidates listed. 4. The final results of the election are delayed for days and sometimes longer with RCV. 5. Often the winner with the initial majority of votes, does not win after ballots for the losing candidates are reallocated through several reiterations. 6 .Several of the RCV bills involved hiring a third party courier service to transport live ballots, which are still being processed for an unfinalized ongoing election. RCV creates unnecessary security and integrity problems, which don't happen currently when the election results are finalized in the precinct by bipartisan election officers and the ballots are transported to the election office by a team of bipartisan election officers. Vote No on SB428!

I oppose allowing or implementing Ranked Choice Voting. It is overly complex and non-transparent to the public. It disenfranchises voters, by forcing them to rank order candidates that they may wish to obstain, and when/if they do so they are penalized by having their ballot more likely to be thrown out due to ballot exhaustion. It is not compatible with precinct level reporting. It is capable of producing "perverse" outcomes, where candidates can be penalized for gaining support.

Rank choice voting has no place in a Democratic Republic. One person, one vote is the rule. Votes "moved" by committee is an attributed seen in dictatorial societies. Let's not go there. The "rules" to allocate votes to other candidates are not part of the election process. The people do not decide - a small group of election officials can decide the outcome of an election using "business rules" or something generated artificially. We HAVE the time to decide between a small slate of candidates when there is no clear winner. This is why we have run-off elections. There is no need to change what is working. Do it right. Let the VOTERS decide.

Dear Committee Members: SB428: I have worked as an election officer, assistant chief, and chief for the past 5 years. I oppose Rank Choice Voting due to the following: 1) The possibility of many candidates to choose from which each voter must rank. For example, if there are 6 candidates, the voter must rank each candidate 1 – 6 by selecting the appropriate oval. The attached file shows an example of the instructions for Rank Choice voting ballot that took place at the Alaska’s Secretary of State election. 2) It will cause confusion for the voters which would lead to a high percentage of spoiled ballots especially if they mistakenly selected two candidates as first choices even though the instructions are presented. 3) Forces the voters to rank a candidate they don’t support. 4) If the voter does not rank all candidates, their ballot will not move forward to the next round which causes the voter’s ballot to be discarded. This is called “ballot exhaustion”. It means the ballot does not count toward the end election result which leaves voters and voices uncounted. This is not the American democratic way, and their voices are silenced. 5) The results can be skewed by rigging counting software each time it runs multiple rounds. 6) Particularly damaging to vulnerable voters (military, seniors, mail voters) who are unable to immediately correct mistakes. 7) Hinders recounts and audits. 8) Expect longer lines. As a chief election officer, it is great to see voters come out to exercise their right to vote. Let us not discourage the voters by complicating the election process. Thank you for your time, Carmen Torres-Nisbet, a concern citizen

I oppose Ranked Choice Voting for all offices in Virginia. The process is confusing. It is arbitrary because people may not be voting seriously for their second, third, fourth choice. It cannot be audited because it is not reproducible. It changes the "one person one vote" model with multiple votes for some people and disenfranchisement for others.

I strong oppose the use of RCV for any local, state and/or federal elections. * RCV results cannot be reported by precinct. * RCV allows some voters to have multiple votes in the same election. * RCV disenfranchises those votes who have their ballots thrown in the trash (ballot exhaustion). * RCV uses a false 50%+1 majority calculation to determine winner of race. For example, start with 100 voters - 20 voters with exhausted ballots = 80 votes) At the end of the RCV rounds, the 'winner' received 42 votes. However, 42 votes out of the original 100 is NOT a 50%+1 majority. *More and more states and localities that tried RCV are now working hard to eliminate RCV from the process. Most recent is Utah: https://thefederalist.com/2024/02/23/after-a-chaotic-tryout-utah-house-votes-to-ditch-ranked-choice-voting/ * Please DO NOT pass SB428 Here's a good brief video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3K3OWokYapU

We are 100% against Rank Choice Voting. People can just vote for their favorite candidate. Rank Choice Voting is a terrible idea on ten different levels.

I oppose SB428 Expanding Rank Voting for these reasons, 1. Rank Choice Voting is extremely complicated and difficult for voters to understand. We need to make our elections less complicated, not more complicated. 2. According to our election laws, we need to report election results by precinct. You can't report results by precinct with Rank Choice Voting. 3. Rank Choice Voting is more expensive and takes much longer to determine outcomes than our current election system.

Vote may not count if "exhausted" and violates the 1 person, 1 vote rule. Discriminatory.

Veterans for All Voters supports SB 428 In ranked choice voting elections, early voters and mail-in voters can rank the candidates, thereby, ensuring their votes "count" even if one or more of the candidates drop out of the race before election day. Because of their service to our nation, many military voters exercise their franchise using mail in ballots. During our RCV advocacy efforts, many local officials, including some veterans, asked us why their localities couldn't use RCV for school board and constitutional officer elections. We informed them that we were still waiting for the Virginia General Assembly to amend the law and give localities the option of using RCV for school board and constitutional officer elections. If you don't expand RCV this year, please consider expanding RCV next year.

The RCVRC is submitting brief written testimony in support of SB 428.

Please pass this bill. It will allow us to use the same approach for all of our local offices, which will simplify the voting experience.

Please pass SB428. Ranked choice voting is a positive upgrade to our current voting system. I had the opportunity to participate in Arlington’s ranked choice county board primary. I appreciated the opportunity to express my opinion in favor of more candidates than would be elected, since there were many candidates who I would have supported for the county board seats. I hope that all voters across Virginia are able to take advantage of this opportunity in the near future. I am a young voter and know many other young voters in support of ranked choice voting. It’s the voting system upgrade that we need to keep our democracy strong in the future.

I support SB428 which clears up some questions localities may have if they choose to exercise the ranked choice voting option.

Please pass SB428 to make the option of ranked choice voting available for local offices. There are currently four announced candidates for Mayor of Virginia Beach. I know that ranked choice voting can be used for City Council but I cannot get a definite answer about Mayor. This bill would resolve that question. Of the four candidates for Mayor there are two I favor. I don't want to have to guess which one is more likely to win - I want to vote for them as my first and second choices. I even have a preference between the other two for my third choice. Ranked choice will help me vote without having to think like a pundit. Ranked choice is also good for the person who is elected. That person will know that at least half the voters are satisfied with them instead of possibly 25% +1. And this bill does not require any locality to use ranked choice voting. It simply makes the option available.