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.

I am in favor of HB1652, HB1863, HJ452, HJ457

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.

Against the Bill: Existing Virginia Law - 40 Feet Buffer Zone: Virginia law, specifically § 24.2-604 of the Code of Virginia, already prohibits campaigning within 40 feet of any entrance of a polling place or within such distance to influence voters. This includes loitering, distributing campaign materials, or attempting to influence votes. The law aims to maintain a clear space around polling places to ensure voters can enter and exit without undue influence or intimidation. Inconsistency with Current Law: Introducing a 10-foot extension for curbside voting areas might lead to confusion and inconsistency. If the existing law already sets a 40-foot perimeter, adding another specific rule for curbside voting could complicate enforcement and understanding among election officials, law enforcement, and voters. Constitutional Concerns - First Amendment: Freedom of Speech: The First Amendment protects political speech. Courts have generally upheld buffer zones around polling places under strict scrutiny, recognizing the state's interest in preventing voter intimidation and ensuring an orderly voting process. However, expanding these zones beyond what's necessary could be seen as an overreach, potentially infringing on free speech rights. Relevant Case Law: Burson v. Freeman (1992): The Supreme Court upheld a 100-foot no-campaigning zone around polling places in Tennessee, but emphasized that such restrictions must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. A further 10 feet might be argued as not narrowly tailored if the 40 feet already suffices. Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky (2018): Although this case dealt with apparel restrictions inside polling places, the underlying principle is that laws restricting speech near elections must be carefully crafted to avoid unconstitutional overbreadth. Practicality and Enforcement: Implementing and enforcing an additional 10-foot buffer around curbside voting areas would require additional signage, monitoring, and potentially more resources, especially given that curbside voting is often set up in varied and sometimes less predictable locations. This could lead to inconsistent application of the law or unnecessary complications for election officials. Voter Access and Accessibility: Curbside voting is designed to increase accessibility for voters with disabilities or those who cannot easily enter the polling place. Adding another layer of regulation around these areas might inadvertently discourage voters or make the process more cumbersome by creating an environment perceived as overly restrictive or confusing. Potential for Legal Challenges: Given the existing buffer zone and the history of legal scrutiny on such laws, this amendment might be challenged in court as an unnecessary expansion of state control over speech in electoral contexts, potentially leading to litigation and legal costs for the state. Public Perception and Voter Intimidation: While the intent might be to further prevent voter intimidation, an already extensive buffer zone might be seen as sufficiently protective. Adding more could be perceived as an overreach, possibly affecting public trust in the electoral process by framing it as overly restrictive of political expression. In summary, The current 40-foot buffer zone in Virginia, upheld by state and federal legal standards, already seems to balance the state's interest in orderly elections with First Amendment rights.

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.

We are against expanding voter registration sites in Virginia due to the potential problems that will arise. These include the following: 1. Administrative Challenges • Coordination Across Agencies: Different agencies may have varying levels of experience or resources for handling voter registration. Ensuring consistency and compliance with election laws may be difficult. • Training Requirements: Staff at new locations will need thorough training on voter registration procedures, privacy requirements, and how to assist the public without introducing bias. • Technology Integration: Agencies must have the proper technology to securely handle voter registration data and integrate it with the state’s centralized voter registration system. 2. Security and Data Privacy Concerns • Risk of Data Breaches: Expanding the number of locations handling voter information increases the risk of sensitive data being exposed. • Inter-agency Data Sharing: Proper safeguards must be in place to ensure personal data is only shared as necessary and in compliance with privacy laws. 3. Implementation Costs • Initial Investment: Adding voter registration capabilities to new agencies will require funding for technology upgrades, staff training, and public awareness campaigns. • Ongoing Expenses: Regular maintenance of systems, refresher training, and compliance audits could strain agency budgets. 4. Unequal Accessibility • Geographical Disparities: Some agencies may be unevenly distributed across the state, creating accessibility issues in rural or underserved areas. • Language and Disability Access: New locations must meet federal and state requirements for language accessibility and accommodations for people with disabilities, which may not be consistently available across all agencies. 5. Risk of Errors • Inconsistent Data Entry: Non-specialized staff may be more prone to data entry errors, leading to incorrect or incomplete voter registrations. • Duplication or Confusion: Expanding registration options could result in duplicate registrations if systems aren’t properly integrated or updated in real time. 6. Public Perception and Trust • Partisan Concerns: Expanding voter registration may be perceived as benefiting one political party over another, depending on how it’s implemented. • Awareness and Trust: Some people may distrust certain agencies or lack awareness of their new role in voter registration, leading to underutilization. 7. Legal and Regulatory Hurdles • Compliance with Federal and State Laws: Agencies must ensure their voter registration processes comply with the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and state-specific regulations. • Legal Challenges: Expanding voter registration locations could face political or legal pushback, delaying implementation or creating uncertainty. 8. Monitoring and Evaluation • Tracking Effectiveness: Evaluating the success of expanded voter registration locations requires a system to monitor how many registrations come from each agency and how this impacts voter turnout. • Fraud Prevention: Expanded systems may require enhanced measures to detect and prevent fraudulent registrations. Thank-you

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.

Against: Increased Risk of Identity Theft: Requiring the last four digits of a social security number introduces additional risks of identity theft. Even partial social security numbers, when combined with other personal information like full name and birth year, can be used maliciously to commit fraud or for other criminal activities. Privacy Concerns: Collecting and storing such sensitive personal information could be seen as an invasion of privacy, especially without clear justification for how it enhances election security or integrity. This could discourage voting among those concerned about their personal data's security. Potential for Fraud: While the intent might be to reduce voter fraud, the information collected could ironically be used for fraudulent activities if the security of these records is compromised. The handling and storage of this data would need to be exceptionally secure, which isn't always guaranteed in every election office. Administrative Overload: Managing additional personal information increases the administrative burden on election officials, including secure storage, data protection compliance, and potential future disposal of records, adding to the cost and complexity of elections. Ineffectiveness Against Voter Fraud: Without comprehensive checks or cross-referencing systems, this method might not effectively combat voter fraud, as it relies on the honesty of the voter and lacks immediate verification mechanisms. Alternative Suggestion: Implement a Free State-Approved ID Program: Instead of collecting more personal data, the state should focus on providing easier access to voting by: Offering Free State-Issued IDs: These IDs would be specifically designed for voting, incorporating advanced security features to prevent duplication or misuse. They would ensure that every voter has an acceptable form of identification without compromising their privacy. Standardization and Security: By having a state-controlled ID system, verification becomes more straightforward, reducing the potential for fraud since each ID can be directly linked to voter registration records. Educational Campaigns: Alongside this, conduct educational outreach to inform the public on how to obtain these IDs, emphasizing the security benefits and the right to vote without additional personal disclosures. Voter Registration Integration: Integrate the ID issuance with voter registration to streamline the process, ensuring that once someone has this ID, they're automatically registered or can easily register to vote. Accessibility for All: Ensure that these IDs are accessible to all demographics, including those without driver's licenses or other forms of ID, thereby promoting inclusivity in the electoral process. This approach would address voter fraud concerns more directly by providing a secure, state-issued identification method while also enhancing voter access without the risks associated with collecting and storing additional personal data. It would balance security with the right to vote, ensuring that no one is disenfranchised due to identification issues.

In Favor: Enhanced Election Integrity: Requiring photo ID for voting directly addresses concerns about voter impersonation and other forms of voter fraud by ensuring that the person voting is indeed the registered voter they claim to be. Uniformity in Voter Verification: A photo ID standardizes the verification process across all polling places, reducing the potential for errors or inconsistencies that might occur with the current system of affirmation statements. Deterrence Against Fraud: The knowledge that photo ID is required might deter potential attempts at voter fraud, as it adds an additional layer of difficulty for those who might consider impersonating voters. Protection of Voter Rights: By ensuring that every vote cast is from a verified voter, the system protects the electoral process from manipulation, thereby safeguarding the democratic rights of all citizens. Constitutional Validity: Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008): The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Indiana's voter ID law, which required photo IDs for voting, stating that such laws serve important state interests in preventing voter fraud and safeguarding public confidence in elections. This ruling supports the constitutional basis for requiring photo ID to vote. State Interest in Election Integrity: Deterrence of Fraud: Crawford v. Marion County Election Board also noted that even the potential for fraud justifies photo ID laws as a preventative measure, suggesting that the mere existence of such laws can deter fraudulent activities. Public Support and Confidence: Numerous polls, as cited in various web results (e.g., Monmouth University findings), show broad public support for photo ID requirements at the polls, which can be argued to enhance trust in the electoral process. Suggestion for Implementation: Free State-Approved ID Program: Help America Vote Act (HAVA): While HAVA doesn't mandate photo IDs, it does emphasize improving election administration, including voter identification. States could interpret this as support for providing free IDs to ensure compliance with voter eligibility checks. State Law Precedents: Several states have implemented free ID programs to comply with voter ID laws while ensuring access. For example, Georgia's Voter ID Law: Georgia provides free voter ID cards to those who lack other forms of valid ID, which has been upheld as a means to balance security with access. Tennessee's Free Photo ID for Voting: Tennessee offers a free photo ID card for voting purposes, demonstrating how states can legislate to ensure inclusivity. Educational and Outreach Efforts: Similar to how states have conducted voter registration drives, there should be extensive outreach to ensure that all citizens know about the availability of free IDs, potentially drawing from the success of programs in states like Wisconsin, where mobile units have been used to reach underserved populations. By adopting this bill alongside a free state ID program, Virginia would align with legal precedents that support voter ID requirements while also addressing access concerns, ensuring that the right to vote is protected for all citizens, as suggested by both federal and state legal frameworks.

Please vote “yes” on this bill. This bill would serve to increase the transparency of Virginia’s election administration and in turn increase voters’ confidence in Virginia’s elections. The costs of the various iterations of Virginia’s voter rolls are among the highest in the country, and bear no relationship to the cost to Virginia to transmit the rolls. The cost to transmit online, digital voter rolls is negligible, however Virginia charges thousands of dollars for this service. For the transmittal of paper voter rolls, the bill fairly provides that they be provided at actual cost.

Forty-five days of early voting is exhausting to the election officials. a shorter early voting period would reduce both the administrative burden on election officials and the risk of fraud. The average cost to have a polling place open is about $2,500 a day and It makes a lot of sense to cut that back to about two weeks. We would roughly save about $12 million in direct savings. We want everyone who wants to vote to have the opportunity but how we are doing it now is not working. We want voting to stop be a long season and be done in a reasonable and less exhausting space of time. Please pass HB 2445 out of committee.

There should be NO drop off boxes. Mail in ballots should be MAILED IN. And received by election day or INVALID.

In Favor: Controlled Environment for Voter Registration: By restricting voter registration activities to school officials and registrars, the process can be conducted in a controlled, educational environment, reducing the risk of misinformation or undue influence from external parties. Parental Involvement: Requiring parental consent for minors to register to vote respects parental rights and ensures that families are involved in the process. This aligns with the principle of family decision-making, as supported by cases like Troxel v. Granville (2000), where the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of parental autonomy. Protection of Privacy: The bill's acknowledgment of the need for parental consent when sharing a minor's personally identifiable information is crucial for privacy protection, adhering to principles under laws like FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act). Education and Integrity: High school is an appropriate venue for learning about civic duties, including voter registration. This controlled setting can be leveraged for educational purposes about democracy, ensuring students understand the gravity and process of voting. Addition for Photo ID Requirement at Registration: Enhanced Voter Verification: Requiring a photo ID at the time of registration would align with the overarching goal of maintaining election integrity. By verifying identity at registration: Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008) supports this by affirming that states have a legitimate interest in preventing voter fraud, which can be extended to the registration process. Security from the Start: Ensuring identity verification at registration reduces the potential for fraudulent registrations, which could later impact elections. Consistency with Voting ID Requirements: If a photo ID is required to vote, having one at registration ensures consistency in the voter verification process from start to finish. This could streamline election administration by ensuring all registered voters have already provided a verified form of identification. Encourages Proper Documentation: This requirement could motivate young voters and their parents to secure a photo ID, promoting good civic habits like keeping personal identification up-to-date, which is beneficial beyond just voting. Public Trust in Elections: Enhanced verification at registration can bolster public confidence in the electoral system, as it demonstrates a commitment to ensuring only eligible voters are on the rolls. Preparation for Voting: By requiring ID at registration, it prepares students for the voting process where they will need to show ID, making the transition from registration to voting seamless and educational. In summary, this bill, with the added requirement of photo ID at voter registration, would not only protect the integrity of the voter registration process but also educate young voters within a controlled, family-informed environment. This approach aligns with both legal precedents advocating for secure elections and the educational mission of high schools in fostering informed, engaged citizens.

Please support HB2508 which protects the private information of minors and ensures that students are not unduly influenced by any third parties but can safely register to vote with the help of school staff and the local registrar's office.

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.

We are against expanding voter registration sites in Virginia due to the potential problems that will arise. These include the following: 1. Administrative Challenges • Coordination Across Agencies: Different agencies may have varying levels of experience or resources for handling voter registration. Ensuring consistency and compliance with election laws may be difficult. • Training Requirements: Staff at new locations will need thorough training on voter registration procedures, privacy requirements, and how to assist the public without introducing bias. • Technology Integration: Agencies must have the proper technology to securely handle voter registration data and integrate it with the state’s centralized voter registration system. 2. Security and Data Privacy Concerns • Risk of Data Breaches: Expanding the number of locations handling voter information increases the risk of sensitive data being exposed. • Inter-agency Data Sharing: Proper safeguards must be in place to ensure personal data is only shared as necessary and in compliance with privacy laws. 3. Implementation Costs • Initial Investment: Adding voter registration capabilities to new agencies will require funding for technology upgrades, staff training, and public awareness campaigns. • Ongoing Expenses: Regular maintenance of systems, refresher training, and compliance audits could strain agency budgets. 4. Unequal Accessibility • Geographical Disparities: Some agencies may be unevenly distributed across the state, creating accessibility issues in rural or underserved areas. • Language and Disability Access: New locations must meet federal and state requirements for language accessibility and accommodations for people with disabilities, which may not be consistently available across all agencies. 5. Risk of Errors • Inconsistent Data Entry: Non-specialized staff may be more prone to data entry errors, leading to incorrect or incomplete voter registrations. • Duplication or Confusion: Expanding registration options could result in duplicate registrations if systems aren’t properly integrated or updated in real time. 6. Public Perception and Trust • Partisan Concerns: Expanding voter registration may be perceived as benefiting one political party over another, depending on how it’s implemented. • Awareness and Trust: Some people may distrust certain agencies or lack awareness of their new role in voter registration, leading to underutilization. 7. Legal and Regulatory Hurdles • Compliance with Federal and State Laws: Agencies must ensure their voter registration processes comply with the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and state-specific regulations. • Legal Challenges: Expanding voter registration locations could face political or legal pushback, delaying implementation or creating uncertainty. 8. Monitoring and Evaluation • Tracking Effectiveness: Evaluating the success of expanded voter registration locations requires a system to monitor how many registrations come from each agency and how this impacts voter turnout. • Fraud Prevention: Expanded systems may require enhanced measures to detect and prevent fraudulent registrations. Thank-you