I support this bill and ask this Committee to report the bill to the floor for a vote. The systematic purge that Virginia conducted of supposed "non-citizens" in 2024 was dramatic and harsh. Thousands were "caught up" in this action - many of them were, indeed, citizens of the U.S. and should not have had their voting rights stricken. Extending the deadline for response from 14 to 28 days is also reasonable - especially in this time when the reliability of the US Postal Service is uncertain.

UpVote Virginia supports HB1657 and encourages this committee to do the same. Imposing a 90 day quiet period on removing voters from the rolls allows time for recourse, should that removal be a mistake. This bill would align Virginia law with existing federal law, which also prevents confusion and accidental disenfranchisement of eligible voters.

Please vote “NO” on this bill. With Virginia’s frequent elections, the provisions would unduly restrict necessary voter roll maintenance to just a few weeks a year. The Department of Elections has a difficult time properly maintaining voter rolls with the current blackout periods required by the NVRA. This bill would create an even greater crisis of confidence in our elections.

Please oppose HB1657. With Virginia's frequent elections, expanding the quiet period to all elections will inhibit critical voter list maintenance processes. For equitable elections and to protect every vote please vote no on HB1657.

Nancy Morgan from BigMoneyOutV, a non-partisan all volunteer group. We support this bill which establishes a tried and true mechanism to amplify the voices of our citizens in our elections. Public financing of elections programs have been effective in reducing the influence of large corporate and wealthy donors while encouraging candidates from diverse backgrounds to run for public office. Just to remind ourselves, Teddy Roosevelt called for public financing of elections in 1907 and the presidential check off system was successfully implemented for every single presidential election from 1976 to 2008. This is not a state-wide program, rather it simply allows localities to implement, with their own funding, a voluntary program of small donor public financing which creates a unique incentive for candidates to engage with many supporters. These systems have been successfully implemented in over 50 jurisdictions around the country, including in many of the counties in MD. Rather than spending time courting lobbyists, let local jurisdictions test out these programs which encourage to actually talk to voters. …. Something that is supposed to happen in election campaigning.

Comments Document

This would allo governing bodies of a county or ity to establish, by ordinance, a system of public campaign finances for elected local offices. IThe ordinances are to specify the criteria for determining when a candidate is eligible for this support. This is entire permissive, giving localities an option they do not otherwise have. Please support.

HB1576 (Cherry) The League of Women Voters supports HB1576.  This bill clarifies procedures for enforcing the prohibition on campaign fundraising during legislative sessions by specifying the State Board of Elections’ responsibility to report alleged violations. We agree that such violations should be reported to the Attorney General, or to the State Supreme Court in the case of an alleged violation by the Attorney General. The League supports actions that limit undue influence from vested interests.  HB1761 (Simon)  The League of Women Voters supports HB1761. The League believes that a public financing option for funding electoral campaigns reduces candidates’ reliance on large private donations and donations from vested special interests. A public funding option for campaign finance gives qualified individuals who don’t have deep pockets, or friends with deep pockets, more incentive to run for elected office, and increases the electorate’s opportunities to evaluate candidates on their merits and not just from paid advertisements. HB1761 is a “may, not must” bill that will give localities that wish to provide a public funding option for certain local elections the opportunity to do so via local ordinance.  HB2140 (Krizek)  The League of Women Voters supports HB2140. Requiring electronic filing of all campaign expenditure reports is a significant step toward promoting transparency and making campaign funding information more easily accessible to the electorate, in the ability both to access the reports and to analyze the information they contain.    HB2165 (Cole)  The League of Women Voters supports legislation restricting personal use of campaign funds. Virginia currently has no legal restrictions on how campaign funds may be used. The League believes that funds raised for a campaign should be used only for expenses directly related to running for office. We support the expanded provisions for what constitutes personal use, and the provision disallowing converting any funds to personal use, not just surpluses at the end of a campaign or term in office    HB2607 (Ware)  The League of Women Voters of Virginia supports legislation that limits campaign contributions. Corporations, particularly public service corporations, and their political action committees should not be allowed to make contributions to any candidate’s campaign committee or political action committee. The issue is the conflict of interest inherent in a corporation’s donating to legislators who have control over their activities, and goes hand in hand with the public perception of corruption and “pay for play.”

As a fifty year citizen of the Commonwealth I appreciate this opportunity to testify in support of HB 2607, HB 2140 and HB 1761. These resolutions will move Virginia toward systems of state and local government more truly representative of all it's citizens and mitigate the legacy of injustice that your fore-bearers in the legislature enshrined in our legal code. I am particularly concerned that, without the remedy provided in HB 2607, our public utilities continue to exert enormous influence over the legislative and regulatory process through the volume and number of campaign contributions they make, with the ultimate aim of maximizing their profits rather than assuring the quality of service they provide. This issue is particularly critical in light of the enormous consequences for electric and water infrastructure related to data center construction. Please give these measures your unanimous support. Sincerely yours, Raymond W. Fary

Please support HB1761. In the most recent election for City Council in Virginia Beach, some candidates had campaign funds well over a hundred thousand dollars. This is a ridiculous sum for a seat on City Council. Ordinary folks cannot raise sums like that. What we are seeing is self-financed campaigns by the wealthy. I might agree with their issues but this is not healthy for grassroots democracy. Please enable localities to set up a system of public campaign financing if they so choose. Let's see if it can work.

I oppose the 40 foot limit changed to 100 feet. jI am a precinct captain in an urban area. Most precincts in urban areas don't have 100 feet from the door to spare without pushing political party representatives to the street or into parking lots. At my precinct people actively seek out literature, information, conversations, etc. -- Both Parties. The change to 100 feet should not be implemented. I agree that curbside voting should be protected from political partisanship -- that can be handled at my parking lot by banning anyone from approaching where the cars are. Political free speech is important part of the fabric of elections.

Please support HB1938 (Delegate Reid). This proposed legislation would allow curbside voters to cast a ballot without fear of intimdation, harassment, or delay. This would afford them the same protections as voters who are able to come into the polling place to cast their ballot in person. Equal access and protections are needed. The Voter Registrars' Association of Virginia (VRAV) supports this bill. Please vote in support of this measure! Thank you.

Hello, I supported a bill similar to HB 1938 last year but Youngkin vetoed it. The current bill would help with the intimidating people with guns who stand just outside of the 40 foot limit and usually close to the absentee ballot box. I was harassed and followed by a man with a gun throughout the last two elections, including during early voting. Recently there was more than one person with a gun too close . This bill is a BIG mistake because it forces everyone, even political candidates to stand way back in the parking lot. I and other volunteers deserve the free speech right to hand out fliers to voters within a reasonable distance from the polls. The candidates for office deserve to meet and greet voters at a reasonable distance from the 40 foot line. I am very disappointed that this bill does not recognize the rights of law-abiding citizens and candidates for office to greet people outside of the 40 foot line. This bill needs to be amended! I saw that Dep. Graves withdrew a similar bill for similar reasons. Many of my neighbors complained to me and to the head of Elections about these guns and their close proximity. Please do the right thing and amend this bill. Thank you. Dr. Alice Twining, Clinical Psychologist

Against the Bill: Here's why one might oppose this amendment, particularly in light of existing laws and Supreme Court rulings: Supreme Court Precedent - Burson v. Freeman (1992): The U.S. Supreme Court in Burson v. Freeman upheld a 100-foot buffer zone around polling places in Tennessee as constitutional under strict scrutiny, but emphasized that such restrictions must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Extending this to 150 feet could be seen as exceeding what's necessary to achieve the state's interest in preventing voter intimidation and ensuring orderly elections. Inconsistency with Current Virginia Law: Virginia currently has a 40-foot buffer zone under § 24.2-604 of the Code of Virginia. This law already balances the state's interest in protecting voters with First Amendment rights. A significant increase to 150 feet would not only deviate from this established balance but might also suggest an overreach without clear justification. First Amendment Concerns: Such an extension could be viewed as an infringement on free speech rights more than necessary. The First Amendment protects political speech, and while buffer zones around polling places are justified, they must be carefully balanced to avoid overly restricting expression. Relevant Case Law: Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky (2018): This case reinforces the need for restrictions on speech near polling places to be content-neutral and narrowly tailored. A 150-foot zone might be seen as not meeting this standard. Practicality and Enforcement: Enforcing a 150-foot zone would be logistically challenging. It would require more resources for monitoring, additional signage, and could lead to confusion or inconsistent application, especially in urban areas or where space is limited around polling places. Voter Accessibility and Public Perception: Expanding the zone could inadvertently create a perception of voter suppression or intimidation by making the area around polls seem overly restrictive. This might discourage voters or create confusion about where political expression is permissible. Potential for Legal Challenges: Given the existing legal framework and the precedent set by the Supreme Court, this amendment could face immediate legal challenges for overbreadth, potentially leading to costly litigation and undermining public trust in the electoral process. Balance Between Security and Freedom: The current 40-foot zone already addresses the need to protect voters from intimidation while allowing for political expression in proximity to polling places. An expansion to 150 feet might tip this balance too far towards security at the expense of freedom, without clear evidence that the current zone is insufficient. Community Impact: In densely populated or urban areas, a 150-foot radius could significantly affect how communities engage during election times, potentially limiting the vibrancy of public discourse and community involvement in elections. In conclusion, while the intent to further safeguard the voting process is understandable, expanding the prohibited area to 150 feet could be seen as an unnecessary and potentially unconstitutional overreach, especially given the established legal standards and existing state law. This could lead to legal challenges, practical enforcement issues, and might not significantly enhance voter security in ways that justify such a drastic change.

Please vote “No” on this bill. The provisions of this bill would disallow the cancellation of voter registrations based on data from other state election offices, contrary to existing Virginia state law. Hundreds of thousands of Virginians move to other states each year and register to vote in those states. Under existing law, Virginia can rely on other state election officials’ records for a new registrant who matches with a previous Virginia resident, and cancel that voter’s VA registration. This bill would tie the hands of our registrars and Elect from cancelling ineligible voters. It would be a disaster for voter list maintenance.

On behalf of the R Street Institute, we respectfully request you support HB2277. I have attached the long form testimony for your consideration.

Please vote “No” on this bill. To require certification of election results as a ministerial duty would conflict with and undermine an electoral board member’s legal duty to ensure compliance with election laws prior to any certification. Electoral board members are sworn and entrusted with ensuring fair and honest elections. Converting the certification process into merely a ministerial duty would have the potential to render any anomalies discovered by election officers or electoral boards or their staff meaningless.

Nancy Morgan, Coordinator of Big MoneyOutVA, an all volunteer, non-partisan group advocating for campaign finance reform. We support this bill because it protects candidates/legislators from obscure ads which misrepresent their positions using “synthetic” media. It also allows citizens to know who is trying to influence elections, using independent expenditures. We would obviously favor more broader disclosure on electioneering communications but this is a step in the right direction.

On behalf of the R Street Institute, we ask that you oppose HB2479. Please see attached for the long form testimony.

Please vote “yes” on this bill. Cancellation of a voter who has moved out of Virginia should be mandatory, not permissive, as that individual is no longer eligible to vote in Virginia. The cancellation should not be dependent upon the availability of a voter’s new address; rather, sending the notice to the individual’s most recent Virginia address is sufficient. This bill would increase the accuracy of Virginia’s voter rolls and Virginian’s confidence in their elections.

I am writing with the hope that you will join your colleagues in the Senate and please block the appointment of three partisan political operatives to GMU’s Board of Visitors: Kenneth Marcus, Nina Rees, and Mark Short. I strongly believe all three nominees pose an unacceptable risk to the independence and integrity of George Mason University. One quick look at their professional resumes illustrates why my colleagues and I oppose these nominations. Their public statements and actions reveal a shared and alarming hostility to Mason's public mission and the core principles of open inquiry and academic freedom. Kenneth Marcus Mr. Marcus resigned from the U.S. Department of Education amid allegations of misconduct, with two complaints accusing him of abusing his authority to advance personal and political agendas. One complaint, filed with the U.S. Department of Education’s Inspector General by nine civil rights organizations, alleges that Mr. Marcus gave preferential treatment to a conservative Zionist group with close personal ties to him by reopening a settled antisemitism case against Rutgers University. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights has stated, “What we saw with Ken Marcus was a misuse of the office to further marginalize marginalized people." Indeed, as we noted in a recent op-ed (see attached), Mr. Marcus has long seemed less interested in truly addressing discrimination against Jewish students and faculty and much more interested in weaponizing accusations of antisemitism to attack scholarship in Middle East Studies and to repress pro-Palestinian speech on campus. Nina Rees Ms. Rees previously served as President and CEO of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, where she supported the controversial decision by the State of Oklahoma to approve a contract for a religious public charter school. She also held a senior education policy role at the Heritage Foundation. Notably, two current members of George Mason’s Board of Visitors are affiliated with the Heritage Foundation, and they have already interfered in Mason's curriculum and attacked programs designed to advance the goals of diversity, inclusion, and equity. Confirming Ms. Rees would only strengthen the Heritage Foundation's troubling influence over Mason's governance board. Mark Short Mr. Short’s appointment to the University of Virginia’s Miller Center sparked widespread criticism. As The Washington Post reported, leading scholars resigned in protest, citing that his appointment contradicted the Center’s values of non-partisanship, transparency, and civility. A petition signed by over 2,000 individuals demanded his removal. Before his tenure in the Trump administration, Mr. Short led Freedom Partners, a political nonprofit closely tied to conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch. In summary, my colleagues and I urge you to join Sen. Ebbin and your Democratic Senate counterparts in their effort to block these troubling nominations to the governance board of George Mason University. Approving individuals whose actions and affiliations raise significant concerns undermines the principles of integrity, inclusion, and non-partisanship that should guide our institution’s leadership. Thank you for supporting nonpartisan governance and academic freedom at George Mason University.