We do not know Mr. Moore, but we do know that many have been ensnared and are being incarcerated wrongly as a result of police unfair, immoral, and unconstitutional practices. One of our members so caught had his pension taken under VA administrative law. This is money he earned and had every right to. There is already NO penalty for judges, prosecutors, and police who wrongfully use tactics to gin up false child endangerment stats for public approbation and federal grant money. Passage of this bill is a step in the right direction toward justice.

We support the bill HB 1556 on the proviso that it authorizes the AG to prosecute cases involving ACTUAL children. To date, LE and prosecutorial arms in VA and elsewhere are allowed to further prosecutions by setting up online sex stings in which police approach unsuspecting adults looking to adult companionship, pretend to be an adult subscriber to a cite in violation of federal and state law, then abruptly claim to be underage (though their picture looks older), before arresting their targets in proactive (non investigatory trolling) and claiming the adult target was the aggressor and grooming a (fake) child merely by talking to the persona. An arrest is made even if no sex talk is advanced, and the prosecution then proceeds as if a real child was endangered. This must NOT be allowed to continue.

HB 1553. We support the bill.

This is a common sense bill to help people better manage relations with utilities and to receive appropriate customer service and should be passed.

Anything that deals with procurement must be taken seriously by all parties everywhere. The recent situation in the City of Richmond in which the procurement department were not being addressed appropriately is a reflection of how much the city is in trouble. Who is checking who? Again, I don’t know how much of it is lack of training or integrity, but the fact remains the leadership is not a place to go apply for a job in the City of Richmond. Where is the accountability for the mistakes and failures? Same goes on in the public schools, and lack of safety and security in the city. It is wrong to accept homeless, legalize drugs, chaos, excuse criminals, corruption, encourage government dependency, and victimization.

I am against this bill which proposes to terminate the Virginia Free File program and replace it with a state-developed free tax filing program. Here are my reasons: Disruption of Existing Services: Terminating the Virginia Free File program, which has been in place and utilized by taxpayers, could disrupt services for those who rely on it, potentially causing confusion and inconvenience, similar to concerns about service continuity in Goldberg v. Kelly (1970). Cost and Development: Developing a new state-specific tax filing program involves significant costs, both in terms of initial development and ongoing maintenance. This could be seen as an inefficient use of state resources, echoing fiscal concerns from City of Richmond v. Virginia (1976) regarding government spending. Compatibility Issues: Ensuring the new program is compatible with the IRS Direct File program might be challenging, leading to potential technical issues or delays in implementation, akin to the integration problems discussed in American Electric Power Co., Inc. v. Connecticut (2011) regarding federal-state coordination. Privacy and Security: A state-run program might not have the same level of security infrastructure as established federal or private sector programs, raising privacy concerns similar to those in Carpenter v. United States (2018) about data protection. Efficiency and User Experience: The transition period until 2028 might leave taxpayers without a seamless filing experience, potentially degrading service quality during the interim, which could impact taxpayer satisfaction and compliance, reflecting service delivery critiques in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007). Federal Dependency: Relying on a memorandum of understanding with the IRS for program development could make the state program overly dependent on federal cooperation, potentially affecting Virginia's autonomy in tax administration, a concern similar to federalism issues in New York v. United States (1992). Loss of Private Sector Innovation: Ending the partnership with the Consortium for Virginia might reduce the innovation and competition that private sector involvement brings to tax filing services, potentially leading to a less dynamic and user-friendly state solution, paralleling the market impact concerns in Lochner v. New York (1905). I oppose this legislation due to the potential disruption of existing services, high development costs, compatibility challenges, privacy and security risks, impact on user experience, increased dependency on federal cooperation, and the loss of private sector innovation, advocating for maintaining or enhancing current partnerships rather than creating a new state-run system.

Please vote “No” on this bill. The language of this bill is unreasonably restrictive. The Department of Elections already uses reliable information to match voter registrations with other states, including dates of registration for each state, before determining whether to cancel a voter. Placing the requirement of a “confidence score” of at least 80 percent simply creates confusion and subjectivity to what is otherwise an objective and straightforward process. Without data proving that the existing process results in a significant number of erroneous cancellations, it should be left as is.

If you were in favor of the bill, here are several arguments you might use to support it: Voter Roll Accuracy: The bill aims to ensure that voter rolls are more accurate by requiring better data matching and verification procedures. This could reduce the likelihood of voter fraud by ensuring only eligible voters are on the rolls. Enhanced Data Standards: By setting higher standards for the data used in list maintenance, the bill could lead to more reliable voter lists, reducing errors where ineligible or duplicate registrations might exist. Transparency: The requirement for public access to cancellation records under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act increases transparency in how voter registration is managed, fostering public trust in the electoral system. Proactive Notification: The mandate for notification before cancellation gives voters a chance to correct any misinformation or address issues with their registration, potentially preventing legitimate voters from being removed from the rolls inadvertently. Annual Data Review: The obligation to review data sources annually ensures that the Department of Elections continuously improves its processes, adapting to changes in data quality, technology, or voter demographics. Preventing Cross-Jurisdiction Fraud: By prohibiting the use of data from other states or jurisdictions without unique identifiers, the bill aims to prevent fraudulent activities where individuals might try to vote in multiple places. Confidence in Elections: With more accurate voter lists, there's potentially greater public confidence in election outcomes, as the integrity of the voter registration process is upheld more rigorously. Systematic Approach: The bill provides a systematic approach to voter list maintenance, which could lead to more consistent practices across different registrars, reducing variability in how voter records are managed statewide. Legal Clarity: The clarifications and technical amendments in the bill could help in legal contexts, making it clearer how voter registration and cancellation should be handled, potentially reducing legal disputes over voter eligibility. Long-term Benefits: While there might be short-term costs or adjustments, the long-term benefits could include a cleaner voter database, fewer disputes on election day, and potentially lower costs associated with managing voter challenges or recounts due to registration issues. I am Advocating for this bill for the need of integrity, accuracy, and public trust in the electoral system, these enhancements would make elections more secure and fair. Important for modernizing voter management practices to keep pace with current data handling standards and technologies.

The League of Women Voters supports HB 2276, a bill that will improve Virginia’s voter list maintenance activities and go a long way toward preventing incorrect voter purges. Record matching will be more precise, protecting eligible citizens from disenfranchisement while at the same time preventing those who are not eligible from voting in Virginia. The bill codifies, in detail, security and list maintenance procedures that are already in place throughout the Commonwealth. The bill also strengthens record keeping requirements, so that a voter who has been disenfranchised by mistake can find out what happened. 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 should help to rebuild trust in elections. The League urges the Committee to report.

Do not criminalized pro-Palestine speech, demonstrations and written material.

I am in favor of this bill which expands the ability to challenge an attorney-issued subpoena duces tecum in Virginia. Here's why: Broader Protection: By allowing any person affected by or subject to a subpoena duces tecum to file a motion to quash or modify it, this bill broadens the protective scope of legal proceedings, ensuring that individuals indirectly impacted also have a voice, aligning with principles of due process as upheld in Mathews v. Eldridge (1976). Increased Fairness: This change promotes fairness in legal proceedings by giving standing to more parties, reducing the potential for abuse of subpoena power, which echoes the fairness considerations in Goldberg v. Kelly (1970) regarding procedural protections. Efficiency in Legal Process: Allowing affected parties to directly address subpoenas can streamline legal processes by reducing the need for third-party interventions or appeals, potentially speeding up case resolutions, similar to the efficiency arguments in Felker v. Turpin (1996). Privacy and Burden Reduction: This legislation helps protect the privacy of individuals and reduces unnecessary burdens by ensuring that only relevant documents or information are subpoenaed, reflecting privacy concerns akin to those in Carpenter v. United States (2018). Judicial Oversight: Directing the Supreme Court of Virginia to amend its rules ensures that this legislative change is integrated seamlessly into the judicial framework, promoting consistency and clarity in legal practice, much like the judicial rule-making authority discussed in Sibbach v. Wilson & Co. (1941). Prevents Overreach: By providing a mechanism for anyone affected to challenge a subpoena, it helps prevent overreach by attorneys, ensuring subpoenas are not used as tools of harassment or undue pressure, addressing concerns similar to those in NAACP v. Alabama (1958) about abusive legal tactics. Enhances Access to Justice: This bill enhances access to justice by making the legal process more inclusive, allowing more stakeholders to participate actively in defending their rights, which supports the broader access to justice principles from Gideon v. Wainwright (1963). I support this legislation for its enhancement of procedural fairness, efficiency, privacy protection, judicial oversight, prevention of legal overreach, and for improving access to justice, ensuring that the legal system in Virginia operates with greater equity and responsiveness to all parties involved.