I support SJ3. This proposal simply puts the question of amendment to the voters to decide. SJ3 is proper and should be adopted accordingly.

I support SJ1. This proposal simply puts the question of amendment to the voters to decide. This is proper and should be adopted accordingly.

Delegates, I write in opposition to SJ1 and SB449. Both bills are an example of political posturing at the expense of the safety and well being of women seeking medical care when pregnant. SJ 1 is so broadly written it will remove all reasonable authority of elected officials to ensure that women are receiving care from licensed individual and properly trained medical staff. It also removes legitimate responsibility from law makers to safe guard the rights of doctors and nurses from being obliged to participate in abortion activity. SJ1 is bad law. SB 449 Is an obviously manipulation of exactly what SJ1 will do. It is deceptive and confusing for the public who don't understand how sweeping the effect of SJ1 will be. It is deeply troubling that this misleading language has been proposed for the ballot this November. Please oppose both bills.

I support SJ2. In short, adoption makes sense. This proposal simply puts the question of amendment to the voters. This is proper and should be adopted accordingly.

I support HJ45. I am very excited to see this Bill put forth! Very! 16 and 17 year olds should be allowed to vote in local elections. This is actually quite common and a normal practice in other localities across the country. 16 and 17 year olds are capable and competent to participate and exercise their right to vote. They work and pay taxes (no taxation without representation!). They are licensed to drive and entrusted to operate motor vehicles. They are able to handle and use firearms (e.g, they can go hunting). They are best situated to know the needs of certain arms of local government (e.g. how school systems are operating and the quality of facilities) that most other voters may not have the same insight for when casting ballots. HJ45 should be adopted!

Vote NO on HB640. The history of a voter's right to challenge another voter's eligibility directly at the polling place in the United States reflects a longstanding commitment to safeguarding election integrity in a decentralized system. Mechanisms like in-person challenges help protect the votes of legitimate citizens—particularly amid concerns over lax verification in some jurisdictions, such as no strict proof-of-citizenship requirements for registration in many states and the absence of photo ID in others (e.g., Virginia allows non-photo alternatives or affidavits in certain cases. The proven approach in state laws permitted qualified electors, party challengers, or poll watchers to object on-site if they believed a voter was ineligible (e.g., due to non-residency, non-citizenship, or other disqualifications), often leading to immediate resolution via oaths, provisional ballots, or precinct official decisions—bypassing the need for court action in routine cases. This approach prevents dilution of valid votes. The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized the legitimacy of such safeguards. In Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (553 U.S. 181, 2008; full opinion at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/553/181/), the Court upheld Indiana's photo ID requirement, noting that states have a compelling interest in preventing voter fraud, including impersonation, which "dilutes" legitimate votes. Justice Stevens' plurality opinion affirmed that reasonable preventive measures do not unduly burden voting rights when balanced against integrity concerns. Similarly, in Purcell v. Gonzalez (549 U.S. 1, 2006), the Court addressed Arizona's Proposition 200 (requiring proof of citizenship for registration), staying lower-court injunctions partly due to the state's interest in verifying eligibility amid fraud risks. Concerns persist about vulnerabilities where states lack strong citizenship checks or photo ID mandates. Federal law (e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 611) prohibits non-citizens from voting in federal elections, yet many states rely on self-attestation during registration without routine documentary proof, raising risks—especially with high immigration levels. Audits in states like Georgia (2022 referral of 1,600 potential non-citizen registrations at https://sos.ga.gov/news/secretary-raffensperger-refers-1600-noncitizen-registrants-local-das-gbi-state-election-board) and others have flagged issues. Today, most states (over 40) permit some form of on-site or pre-election challenges by citizens, poll watchers, or party representatives, often triggering provisional ballots (counted later if verified). This preserves localized integrity checks without overburdening courts. In balance, while voting rights must be protected—ensuring no undue burdens—the ability to challenge at the polling place serves a vital role in deterring and addressing fraud, upholding the principle that every legitimate citizen's vote deserves safeguards against dilution. Vote NO on HB640.

I support HB1014. I am an attorney that practices in areas of law that have placed me in the courtroom for many guardianship / conservatorship cases. These cases where the question of “incapacity” is placed before the court show that there is no black and white, but instead a broad spectrum across which an individual may have a need for a guardianship / conservatorship to be placed. With that, there are many individuals who may lack the capacity to understand or otherwise assert their right to vote whereas I have observed many cases where the person is highly functioning, completely capable of the understanding necessary to assert and exercise their right to vote. This Bill properly places the nuance of this determination with the court where there are attorneys, a judge, a guardian ad litem (acting as the eyes and ears of the court), and the professional input of medical professionals convened to determine the unique needs of the individual. This constitutionally protected right deserves consideration of the unique needs and abilities of the individual prior to being swept away merely because there is some other need that might call for a guardianship / conservatorship determination. HB1014 appropriately centers the rights of otherwise qualified voters and should be adopted.

I believe that just because people have a Legal Guardian it doesn’t mean they can not vote. Many people with disabilities are legally competent to vote and can vote via absentee ballot if they can not go in person to vote.

The proposed bill HB968 lacks justification, because the possible scenarios requiring hand counts are all already authorized by law. The amendment is written for polling places but the "as authorized by law" phrase could encompass additional situations requiring hand counts, which are already all addressed by existing law. For example: 1. Machine-readable ballots at a polling place could be non-scannable due to paper issues or machine issues, requiring them to be separately hand-counted. In addition, the high-speed optical scanners used at the Central Absentee Precincts for mail-in ballots can reject and fail to scan some ballots, requiring hand-counts for these “Did Not Scan” ballots. Both scenarios allow for hand counts, as stated in §24.2-642 (B) “Inoperative Equipment.” 2. Recounts can require hand counts, as specified in § 24.2-802.2. “General recount procedures.” 3. If an overseas Military or civilian voter uses the Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot form (FWAB), the ballot might not be machine readable and must be hand-counted, as stated in § 24.2-461 “Federal write-in absentee ballot.” HB968 appears to state that that unlawful hand counts are, indeed, unlawful. If a barrage of spontaneous, unlawful polling place hand counts has flooded Virginia polling places, it has not been brought to the notice of the State Board of Elections, nor been covered in the media. The proposed amendment is not needed. Vote NO on HB968.

As a Virginia voter, I support HB 78. This bill closes a key procedural gap by clarifying that election certification is a required duty once all statutory post-election steps are completed. By clearly defining responsibilities and ensuring continuity if a local board is unable to act, HB 78 strengthens public confidence in the orderly administration of our elections.

As a Virginia voter, I support HB 28 and thank Delegate Henson for introducing it. Maintaining public confidence in the accuracy and integrity of our voter data is essential. Conducting systematic voter list changes too close to an election creates confusion and undermines trust. HB 28 provides reasonable, commonsense protections. Thank you.

I support HB640. Elections offices are best situated with the information necessary to identify the qualification status of individual voters. That qualification is established when voter registration is accepted and the individual is placed on the voter rolls. The ability to vote is confirmed by the poll book status of the individual voter. The existing process is self proving and eliminates any reason for others to challenge the ability of a voter to exercise their constitutionally protected rights. This Bill best places any such challenge before the court and protects voters from frivolous challenges (e.g. a court may choose to sanction frivolous filings). This Bill further works to disarm elections observers from disruption and interference with the continuity of the election.

Oppose. This bill is a solution in search of a problem. It also has the potential of disrupting the exercise of judgment on the part of the State Board of Elections (SBE) in determining the most appropriate process for Risk Limiting Audits, depending on how one interprets the insidious verbiage of "...shall not count machine readable ballots by hand for any reason not specifically authorized for by law" . Those who have spoken in support of this bill needed to search the entire nation for a few outlier examples of incidents with hand counting. Personally, I was the chief election official in my home town for twenty years in New Hampshire. We hand counted every single election and had no such incidents. Hand counting also had the additional benefit of building confidence among election observers who could observe the process. Hand counting also has the benefit of allowing an election official to make a judgment on the intent of a voter, as required by law, when ovals are not completely filled out, or a voter expresses their intent in other ways, such as circling a preferred candidate instead of filling in an oval. These incidents are common and are missed during the scanning process.

I support HB1321. This Bill addresses a conflict in the law where the existing enforcement mechanism effectively provides that the canvass period for primary elections is only 6 days (unlike the 10 day canvass period for general elections). This change will bring canvass uniformity across all elections. This change further supports and is necessary for the smooth adoption of HB773 and HB774 (if passed).

I support HB774. This Bill centers the rights (and ability to exercise those rights) of qualified voters. Together with adoption of HB1321 (extending primary canvas to 10 days), this Bill allows for elections offices to have adequate time to ensure that each otherwise qualified voter is able to register, cast a ballot, and have that ballot count. NOTE: Va Dept of Elections will need to adjust the canvas SDR Duplicate Report deadlines. NOTE: While the language itself is sufficient when speaking to ALL provisionals cast (and does not otherwise distinguish or treat any category of provisional ballots differently), it might helpful towards seamless implementation to make clear that all forms, reasons, and methods of provisional ballots are to be included in these proposed cure and extension provisions—specifically that HB774 includes Same Day Registration (SDR) provisional ballots along with all other categories of provisional ballots and provisional ballot forms.

Oppose. See my comments under HB773

The combined impact of HB 773, HB774 is to raise the operational costs for the Central Absentee Precinct which must be staffed to scan absentee ballots from two weeks before Election Day through six days after Election Day. The removal of ANY Friday deadline for receipt of absentee ballots after Election Day (HB773 and SB582) imposes uncertainty for the cut-off deadline for accepting absentee ballots and creates a potential conflict with the Monday noon cure deadline. For example, under HB773 and SB582, an absentee ballot with material omissions could be received on the Monday morning after the Election, and the Registrar would be obligated to “cure” it promptly by noon on the same day.

Oppose. This bill impacts election integrity by tying the hands of local electoral boards, intimidating them into certifying elections against their will. Electoral boards are in the loop for a reason. As was the case with HB71, this is another bill that has been introduced due to a single, rare incident where an electoral board member refused to certify for reasons that some felt were illegitimate. In that case, effective action was taken in a timely manner and no significant delay was experienced. This appears to be a pattern in 2026 - bills that are being filed over incidents that are rare outliers in our otherwise effectively run electoral operations. Please oppose this bill.

I support HB773. This Bill centers the rights (and ability to exercise those rights) of qualified voters. Together with adoption of HB1321 (extending primary canvas to 10 days), this Bill allows for elections offices to have adequate time to ensure that each otherwise qualified voter is able to cast a ballot and have that ballot count.

Strongly oppose this bill. The genesis of HB71 appears to be a single series of conflicts between the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors and the Loudoun County Electoral Board in recent history. There was frustration expressed by the BOS with the Electoral Board's decision to not expand early voting to the extent of their liking. However, the BOS, as usual, did not consider the impacts of the extensive workload imposed by early voting that has strained volunteers in extreme ways in Loudoun County and around the state. After the Loudoun Board of Supervisors threw an irresponsible temper tantrum about this, complete with potentially illegal public attempts to intimidate the Electoral Board, over a dozen hard working volunteers swarmed a future electoral board meeting in Loudoun County to voice support for the electoral board's actions. Electoral boards are vested with the responsibility to establish early voting schedules for a reason. They are best equipped to make these decisions as they interface with the registrars and hard working volunteers who are the core of effective election operations in Virginia. This bill throws the baby out with the bathwater over a single incident. Strongly oppose.

I support this Bill. It protects the continuity of administration and removes the potential for tension, disruption, and chaos. In the event some truly remarkable and unforeseen circumstance should occur where a Board (in part or in whole) is genuinely unable to submit certification to no fault of its own, this Bill still allows for the Va Dept of Elections to step in and ensure the uninterrupted reporting of results.

I support this Bill.

Vote NO on HB774 HB774 keeps the specific deadline of Friday noon for receipt of absentee ballots, but it extends the 3 day deadline for curing the ballot envelope to Provisional ballots, like HB773 setting a final receipt deadline of the cured provisional ballot envelope by noon Monday following the election. Provisional ballots and ballot envelopes are completed at the polling place with the in-person assistance of an Election Officer and should not need the option of a “cure” because any material omissions will have been remedied at the polling place. Vote No on HB774

Vote NO on HB773. HB773 removes the specific deadline of Friday noon for receipt of absentee ballots (eliminating Friday entirely) and also removes the 3 day deadline for informing the voter on curing absentee ballots, replacing it with “promptly” and a final receipt deadline of the cured ballot envelope by noon Monday following the election. The changes are also in SB582. Other bills simply move the Friday deadline later to 5:00 pm from the current noon deadline, which at least is more specific. Replacing the "3 day" curing notification with "Monday" still puts the entire cure process way too late to be efficient . The removal of ANY Friday deadline for receipt of absentee ballots after Election Day (HB773 and SB582) imposes uncertainty for the cut-off deadline for accepting absentee ballots . RECOMMENDATIONS: The existing laws on all mail-in absentee ballots should be amended to accept only absentee ballots for special circumstances (medical, disability etc), with a receipt deadline on the Tuesday a week before Election Day, and a three-day deadline to let a voter know of any required cure.

HB1014 - I am writing as both a parent and guardian of a special needs child that recently turned 18. Surprisingly, my child, a US citizen, lost the right to vote based on outdated assumptions about disabilities and guardianship status. Please help our children keep their fundamental constitutional right (the right to vote) and not hold them to a "higher standard" than their peers by requiring "proof" that they are able to vote. A guardianship or conservatorship finding is not the same as being mentally incompetent to vote. Many Virginians with disabilities may need support in some areas of life but are fully capable of understanding the act of voting and that right should not be taken away from them without a specific court finding that they lack this capacity. Our children should be part of their community, which includes voting at 18 years old, and not be excluded! Thank you, Julie Cudworth

Regarding HB1014, please vote yes. Just because someone needs gaurdiansbip after the age of 18, does NOT mean they should lose the right to vote. A guardianship or conservatorship finding is not the same as being mentally incompetent to vote. Voting rights should not be removed without a specific, individualized court determination. Protect the fundamental constitutional right—the right to vote—by ensuring that people with disabilities are not disenfranchised based on outdated assumptions about disability or guardianship status. Many Virginians with disabilities may need support in some areas of life but are fully capable of understanding the act of voting and that right should not be taken away from them without a specific court finding that they lack the capacity to understand the act of voting.

Please Vote YES for HB1014 which ensures that no one is disenfranchised unless a court makes a specific finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that the person truly lacks the capacity to vote. A guardianship does not automatically mean someone lacks the capacity to vote. Many people with disabilities may need support in some areas of life but are fully capable of understanding the act of voting and independently determine who they want to vote for. Capacity is not all-or-nothing, and the ability to vote does not depend on the ability to manage other aspects of one’s life. Please VOTE YES for HB1014

Many election officials in Loudoun County oppose HB28. It jeopardizes election integrity by preventing broad reviews or cross-checks (e.g., with other states, postal data, or federal databases) during the critical pre-election window, potentially allowing ineligible voters to remain on rolls when ballots are cast and counted. In close races, outdated or inaccurate rolls heighten fraud risks and erode public confidence. Virginia should reject arbitrary restrictions on roll hygiene in favor of continuous, robust verification to protect fair and trustworthy voting.