I am opposed to any all bill that make it easier to cheat in elections like these bills being presented. I am opposed to any and all bills that make same sex marriage acceptable. I am opposed to any and all bills that allow full term abortion and allow minors to have abortions with out the parents knowledge. I am opposed to any and all bills that would allow minors to undergo transgender surgery . I am opposed to any and all bills that will raise taxes while the politicians are trying to give themselves a 150% increase no that is not acceptable.

Oppose Democrats and Socialists forcing gerrymandering in Virginia. We know that the left is trying to get power. We know the illegal aliens are one source for getting democratic votes. What happened to following the Rule of Law in America and following it without causing chaos, lockdowns, destruction, propaganda, riots, censoring, spying, fraudulent schemes, mail in ballots, and other forms of corruption?

My husband and I are extremely concerned about proposed abortion bills and legislation. We have lived in this state for many years and never dreamed of these bills moving forward and are aghast at the thought of it. We are vehemently opposed to any such passage of abortion and whole heartedly in favor of preserving and protecting all life espeically of the most vulnerable unborn life that all science now admits. Please say "no" to such bills.

I am opposed to any all bill that make it easier to cheat in elections like these bills being presented. I am opposed to any and all bills that make same sex marriage acceptable. I am opposed to any and all bills that allow full term abortion and allow minors to have abortions with out the parents knowledge. I am opposed to any and all bills that would allow minors to undergo transgender surgery . I am opposed to any and all bills that will raise taxes while the politicians are trying to give themselves a 150% increase no that is not acceptable.

I strongly support this bill.

With respect to HB111, I object that the language never says that the "person" being discussed needs to be a citizen. With respect to HB162, I object that there is no language or reference to other law that limits who may contribute to public funds. Is there some limitation on that elsewhere in the law?

I am against this bill

I stand against abortion in this state and any abilities for election fraud!

My husband and I are extremely concerned about proposed abortion bills and legislation. We have lived in this state for many years and never dreamed of these bills moving forward and are aghast at the thought of it. We are vehemently opposed to any such passage of abortion and whole heartedly in favor of preserving and protecting all life espeically of the most vulnerable unborn life that all science now admits. Please say "no" to such bills.

I oppose any legislation that would prohibit legal American citizens from having to vote in person. There should be one day to vote and no mail-in ballots except for military personnel overseas, travelers, and elderly. There must be legal voter identification requirements everywhere. This is Not discrimination! Masks, hijabs, and niqabs must be taken off. In the Middle East faces must be shown in banks , etc . Stop Gerrymandering that is not justice, equitable, and illegal. Dems need to stop the steal, fraud, and corruption because it is not “Democracy.”

I ask the committee to vote against HB213 Uniform Military and Overseas Voter Act. The removal of the requirement to affirm overseas employment just dilutes the protection in place against voter fraud by persons with no ties to Virginia. HB213 would take us in the wrong direction.

I request that you vote AGAINST HB213 (A BILL to amend and reenact §§ 24.2-612 and 24.2-646.1 of the Code of Virginia and to repeal § 24.2-453 of the Code of Virginia, relating to elections; Uniform Military and Overseas Voters Act; restrictions on ballot eligibility; repeal.). By repealing 24.2-453, the legislature will remove a crucial qualifier for overseas civilian voters. Virginia already does NOT require prior residence in the state. Without the requirement for an affirmation that the overseas voter resides there for employment or as a dependent of someone who is there for employment, anyone can vote as an overseas civilian with no proof of prior residence or any excuse for overseas residence. This is only one of several bills that will reduce verification of overseas civilian voters. Add in HB493 (https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20261/HB493) , which allows UOCAVA voters to vote electronically. (Note in HB493,  see lines 44-45 in the pdf: "When this statement has been properly completed and signed by the registered voter, his ballot shall not be subject to challenge pursuant to § 24.2-651.") Since challenges are now required to be filed in the Court and not with the Registrar, under the proposed HB640 (https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20261/HB640 ), overseas civilians' registrations will not be susceptible to challenges.  And under HB111 (see pdf lines 62-70 https://lis.blob.core.windows.net/files/1082433.PDF), the registrar can't cancel a UOCAVA voter's registration if that voter shows up in another state under the Driver License Compact. In conclusion, please vote NO on HB213.

HB213 undermines election integrity by eliminating key eligibility restrictions for overseas voters who have relinquished their Virginia residency. Without requiring proof of employment overseas or dependent status, it allows individuals lacking genuine ties to the state to influence local and state elections, enabling fraud and diluting the votes of actual Virginia residents

There should not be any restrictions on military to exercise their right to vote as they are the ones who defend our rights. There is a fundamental right to life. See TCCAA cover story May-June 2022 regarding murder charge in case of death of 5 week old fetus, and 1970 Keeler vs Superior Court. The law never meant for marriage to be for same sex. It had always been meant for opposite sex.

I stand against abortion in this state and any abilities for election fraud!

My husband and I are extremely concerned about proposed abortion bills and legislation. We have lived in this state for many years and never dreamed of these bills moving forward and are aghast at the thought of it. We are vehemently opposed to any such passage of abortion and whole heartedly in favor of preserving and protecting all life espeically of the most vulnerable unborn life that all science now admits. Please say "no" to such bills.

I oppose any legislation that would prohibit legal American citizens from having to vote in person. There should be one day to vote and no mail-in ballots except for military personnel overseas, travelers, and elderly. There must be legal voter identification requirements everywhere. This is Not discrimination! Masks, hijabs, and niqabs must be taken off. In the Middle East faces must be shown in banks , etc . Stop Gerrymandering that is not justice, equitable, and illegal. Dems need to stop the steal, fraud, and corruption because it is not “Democracy.”

I am writing to oppose HB493 that would add Internet voting for certain voters. Many Virgina counties moved to Direct Record Electronic voting machines after the 2000 election and the problems in Florida. Problems with DREs became apparent shortly after that switch. The DREs could not be audited or recounted because there was no record to be checked. Even though there was a law permitting recounts in close races that law was essentially a nullity. Security experts also reported that the DREs were subject to hacking. These were machines that were subject to election security protocols, but nevertheless there were significant risks. Because of the machines could not be audited there was no way to determine whether in fact hacking ever occurred on whether results were accurate. For these reasons, Virginia moved to precinct based optical scan machines. The paper ballot permits audits and recounts, which deter attempts to change votes. The internet is far less secure than the DREs machines ever were and therefore the risk of hacking and changed outcomes would be much higher. Rather than adopting a law that would effectively preclude recounts and raise significant security risks, the legislature should consider a study to determine the best way to assist blind voters in need of assistance. Military and overseas voters should make plans to vote by mail. Carol Doran Klein 1369 Kirby Road McLean, VA 22101

To: The Honorable Patrick Hope Re: Support Electronic Return of Absentee Ballots Dear Delegate Hope, I am writing to you in your capacity as Chair of the Voting Rights Subcommittee. I understand that HB493 on electronic return of absentee voter ballots is on the subcommittee’s agenda for Monday, February 9. I strongly urge you and all subcommittee members to support this bill. I am the CEO of Virginia Voice, a Radio Reading Service which has served over 13,000 Virginians with blindness and other disabilities for 48 years. Virginia Voice creates access to print material and the arts using a 24/7/365 radio broadcast of 80 weekly programs and Live Audio Description of the arts. All services are free of charge. HB493 would require the Department of Elections to make available to all localities a tool to allow a voter with a visual impairment or print disability to receive, mark, and return their absentee ballot electronically through a secure internet system. Current available assistive technologies do not guarantee privacy and independence in voting for this population and do not remove the barriers that compromise their privacy. This bill is essential to ensure that approximately 175,000 blind voting age voters can exercise their civil right to vote independently and privately. Passage of this bill would also benefit members serving in the military overseas and citizens working overseas. HB493 would apply only to a very specific population of voters to prevent vulnerability. Similar systems are available in other states, including West Virginia and North Carolina, and have been used without incident. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of your constituents who are blind or low vision. Respectfully, Yvonne Mastromano, CEO Virginia Voice, Inc.

I am writing to you to respectfully request that you support HB493. This bill is essential in keeping voting accessible and private for ALL citizens, especially those with print disabilities. While an accessible absentee voting portal exists in Virginia, voters must still print, sign, and mail their ballots. These are tasks that many cannot perform independently or privately. The current system does not account for those with disabilities, and does not keep voting accessible for all Virginians, which should be the goal. Being able to vote privately is a right, and an importance in maintaining independence. My mom has Usher Syndrome, which is a rare recessive genetic disorder causing her to progressively lose her vision. She has low vision right now, and is losing more every year. My mom is one of the strongest people that I know, and her independence is one of the things that I admire most about her. By giving your support to HB493, you would be allowing my mom and so many others just like her to retain their privacy and independence. Please support this bill.

I am writing to you to urge you to pass HB493 on electronic absentee ballot return. For several years now, Virginia residents who have requested to vote via Absentee Ballot have had the option to receive and fill in their ballots over the internet. This system is accessible, convenient, and fairly easy to use. However, current law forces voters to print their completed ballot, insert the ballot into the envelope provided, and mail or take the ballot to a polling place to have their vote counted. This return system makes it very difficult for people who are print disabled to vote privately and independently for several reasons. Many people no longer have printers to print their ballot and other necessary documentation. Another barrier is that the envelope provided for return of absentee ballots requires the voter to provide identifying information in an area under a flap. A voter who is blind or has low vision would find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to provide the required information independently. The alternative to trying to fill out the envelope is completing an affidavit provided by the locality's Board of Elections to be filled out on the computer, printed, and inserted in the envelope with the ballot. Ballots may be rejected and the envelope unopened because the identifying information is not on the outside of the envelope, or the Board of Elections staff has sent the affidavit as a locked .PDF file which cannot be completed independently. Another shortcoming of the current system is that not all localities have the funding to provide a completely accessible mechanism at all polling places for print disabled citizens to complete their ballot privately and independently. Vendors who provide electronic ballot services also provide safe, accessible, and convenient electronic return services. This is evidenced by the fact that 33 states already receive ballots electronically from military and overseas citizens. 13 of those states (including West Virginia and North Carolina) receive ballots electronically from absentee voters including those who have print disabilities along with the military and overseas citizens. And, despite several years of experience offering this system of electronic return, there have been no substantiated complaints of security breaches or fraud. Two major reasons people request absentee ballots are because they cannot successfully vote at their local polling place or because they do not have necessary transportation to get to their voting place, particularly for those in small towns and rural areas where transportation options are limited. We suggest that including electronic ballot return, along with the electronic distribution and completion of ballots, if publicized widely, would encourage more citizens to vote in future elections. We, therefore, urge you to support the passage of HB49

I moved to Northern Virginia in 1980 and have voted in every local state and federal election for which I Was eligible to vote. I have continued to vote, despite losing my eyesight due to Retinitis Pigmentosa an inherited eye disease. At one time, I saw enough to use the same voting machines as all other voters in my voting precinct. Beginning in my late 20s, as I gradually lost my eyesight, I was forced to have my spouse accompany me to assist me in casting my vote. Eventually technology was developed that allowed voters who vote in person to use an audio system, allowing voters such as myself to once again vote independently and privately. To be sure , the audio systems had some glitches, and I experienced a failure of the audio ballot equipment over 30 years ago and was forced to submit a provisional vote. Technology continued to be developed, tested and implemented and in person audio ballot systems have now been used successfully for many election cycles. Also, reliable technology was later developed and successfully deployed that now securely delivers an absentee ballot, electronically, to voters who meet specific qualifications. Today, passage of HB493 will take the next step and allow Virginia to join several other states by embracing proven technology that will allow qualified voters, including blind, low vision, deafblind and overseas and military voters to securely, privately, independently and verifiably return their absentee ballot electronically. To be sure, the security of all ballots, cast in person or electronically, is essential. However security concerns are not insurmountable concerns, as has been proven by the results in those states that have implemented secure electronic ballot return systems. Voting systems such as those required in HB493 are in place and working in several states and I urge members to take an historic step and pass HB493, .

The League of Women Voters opposes HB493 because electronic ballot return is dangerously insecure. This method has undeniable appeal, particularly for military and overseas voters and voters with print disabilities. This is why Virginia provides a tool to send them ballots electronically and provides 45 days of early voting, plus extra time after election day to return their ballots. There are 1.1 million active-duty military stationed within the United States. The Virginians among them would be eligible to cast their ballots electronically, even if they are here in the Commonwealth. No existing internet voting system is secure from attack. No personal device is secure from attack. In other online transactions, like banking, tracing is essential, and it is possible to recover from intrusion. Ballot secrecy and voter anonymity are the bedrock of our elections, so a ballot cannot be traced to the voter. Meanwhile, an intercepted or tampered ballot cannot be recovered. On a wide scale, the effect could be devastating.

As the Vice-President of the American Council of the Blind of Virginia, I strongly urge you to support HB493. While an accessible absentee voting portal currently exists, voters must still print, sign, and mail their ballots—tasks many cannot perform independently or privately. HB493 would require the Department of Elections to develop a secure, accessible electronic system allowing covered voters to receive, mark, and return absentee ballots online. This bill would benefit people who are blind or have low vision by eliminating the need to depend on others for functions that they may not be able to perform independently. In addition, in many largely rural areas of the state, there are few transportation options, making accessible absentee voting imperative. Thirteen states have already adopted secure electronic ballot return systems with no security issues having been reported. Virginia should do the same to protect every voter’s right to a private and independent ballot.

I support HB493. Despite protestations of potential fraud and lack of security, thirteen states have adopted some kind of electronic return, including West Virginia, and there seems to be no problem with their system of recording ballots. Military and overseas voters would not have to worry about the vagaries of the mail-in process, wondering whether their vote got to the registrar on time. As a blind person, electronic return would provide me with a direct, efficient way of voting. As of now, I must fill out my ballot on- line, print it, and find the correct line to sign my name, and mail the ballot . I would probably need some assistance, so my vote would not be private. I know that, according to some comments, people envisage some kind of voter scam, but it is always easy to be apprehensive when a new way of doing things is introduced. Please support this bill.

I am a blind Virginian, and I deserve the same right to vote privately and independently as every other Virginian. Virginia’s current system, which requires voters to return paper absentee ballots by mail, does not provide equal access for voters who are blind or print-disabled. Blind and print-disabled voters must rely on other people to complete critical steps in the voting process, depriving us of the privacy and independence guaranteed under federal law. The law is clear: • The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) guarantees voters with disabilities the right to mark, cast, and verify their ballots privately and independently.
 • The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires equal access to the voting process.
 • The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) protects the rights of military and overseas voters and recognizes the unique barriers created by distance, mail delays, and unreliable delivery. The barriers created by paper ballots returned by mail are not theoretical. According to a report by the U.S. Department of Justice, voters with disabilities are five times as likely to require assistance or encounter problems compared to voters without disabilities. Before losing my sight, I served our country overseas for nearly two decades. I am intimately familiar with the realities of military and diplomatic mail systems. Delays, lost mail, and unreliable delivery are common. Electronic ballot return is neither new nor radical. It is already used successfully in more than a dozen states. Every voting system carries some risk; the appropriate response is to mitigate and manage those risks—not to deny entire groups of voters their civil rights. There are approximately 175,000 blind and low-vision voters in Virginia. There are more than 120,000 active-duty service members in the Commonwealth who may be deployed overseas at any time, and a large number of U.S. Foreign Service Officers also call Virginia home. Please vote to support the voting rights of ALL Virginians.
Please support HB493.

I am almost totallyu blind and I always voted in all elections. Please pass this legislation that will allow those who are blind or visually impaired to be an active part of this critical American process.

Testimony of Aquene Freechild Campaign Co-Director, Democracy Campaign, Public Citizen Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Public Citizen works daily to ensure convenient and accessible voting for all - there are options worth exploring without internet voting. A few years ago, the state that includes Sydney, Australia had to re-run an election because their limited online voting system crashed. More than 30,000 people called the iVote helpline in desperation, many with no other option. All they got was a voicemail saying, "sorry for the inconvenience." An unknown number of people lost their right to vote in that election. The state re-ran 3 contests, but there were at least 19 in contests in question. There are MANY other ways an internet voting system can fail and deeply damage our democracy: - If I mark my e-ballot for Sen. Jones. The software at the county elections office can still record that I marked my ballot for Sen. Smith on their end, even print that I voted for Smith on a paper ballot once it arrives. - Currently Virginia voters can verify their own ballots as they mark them, or once they print out, and that voter reviewed record is there should there be any problems with voting machines or software. - Hackers ransomed 100+ county governments last year. - Employees make errors - If you can’t tell how many votes there should be, you can’t tell how many are missing. Or how many were added. - The loss of thousands of votes can go undetected. Again, votes through any error, glitch or hack could vanish or change undetected. - There is no meaningful recount of an election with internet voting, only a very expensive re-run of the whole thing In Australia, winning candidates were in tears in court because they couldn’t afford to run again. The state had to sue the candidates to force the new election. Ecuador had to re-run it’s federal legislative elections thanks to a similar problem in 2023. Imagine in this moment in the United States of consolidating authoritarianism, introducing this kind of wild card. Our democracy, survived a nearly successful coup attempt on January 6th based on lies about an election WITH paper ballots recounted by bipartisan teams and lots of observers. What would happen here if there were no ballots of record to recount? What record is there of elections being re-run at all in the United States? Who runs our government while this gets litigated? The Australian internet voting system was shut down. Let’s not repeat their mistake. Thank you.

Please see attached written testimony.

I urge you to reject HB 493 which would introduce Internet voting to Virginia for the first time. Although, returning cast ballots electronically may sound innocuous, it would expose our elections to serious risks of fraud that are nearly impossible to detect or remedy. The vast majority of computer scientists and technical experts tell us that it is not possible to conduct a secure verifiable election via today’s Internet, despite sweeping assurances made by vendors and advocates. At first glance, it may seem alarmist to warn of unsolvable security threats given the amount of electronic on-line commerce and banking conducted daily. But recognize that we accept the loss of billions each year to financial fraud, identity theft and other cyber crimes as the cost of that convenience. By contrast, how much election fraud can we tolerate? Securing electronic elections is MUCH more difficult than electronic banking, In a financial system, customers can get receipts and statements tied to their identity. Administrators can view customer transaction details and change data to correct errors, even after the workday ends. Transactions are logged and inspected by auditors looking for fraud. None of these safeguards are available in an election. Voters cannot be able to prove how they voted to prevent selling votes, there can be no receipts or useful security logs including voter identity. There can be no administrators that can correct a problem after the fact. Votes must be both verified and prevented from modification, yet be transparent to recounts and audits. These restrictions make conducting a secure on-line election near impossible. The DoD (now DoW) spent millions of dollars over years attempting to find secure voting solutions and failed. Vendors and advocates tell people what they want to hear, quick to claim they have (or will have) easy solutions that never stand up to real scrutiny. Be skeptical. Despite good intentions, this bill is risking the bedrock of our democracy to solve a problem that already has reasonable solutions. Current law already allows disabled voters to use on-line systems to assist them marking a ballot. Current law already allows military and overseas voters to request and receive blank ballots electronically with plenty of time (45 days) to return them before Election Day. These actions can be done relatively safely on-line because they don’t require keeping the voter identity secrecy, unlike a cast ballot. The only convenience that this bill would add is the ability to avoid returning the cast ballot by mail. By keeping that final step off line, current law prevents many kinds of attacks on our elections and enables transparency and oversight. In recent years, we have seen incredible pressure placed on our election systems and personnel, and rising distrust in election results. Our elections are an extremely high value target of interest to motivated and capable state funded actors seeking to disrupt our democracy. Keeping our elections off-line is essential to keeping them safe. Making ballot access easier is a noble goal, but should not come at the expense of the integrity of our elections. Beware of unintended consequences. I strongly urge you to reject HB 493 and any moves toward Internet voting.

I oppose this bill. TWO WRONGS DON’T MAKE IT RIGHT. How disrespectful Mrs. Louise Lucas cussing out others who disagree. She allowed destruction, looting, vandalism, and violence to happen. Today’s Democrats have lost their way especially during Biden’s tyrannical presidency.

I am writing to comment on HB493. I am opposed to ballots being received, marked and cast electronically through the internet. I don't believe that this method is secure partly due to the increasing number of online scams that are confusing to people and deceive many. I think there is too much at stake to use this method currently. I believe that votes, cast this way, could be easily invalidated for frivolous reasons. The internet is now under much surveillance and manipulated by hackers. I want to know that everyone's votes will be cast in a way that will be securely validated in our local, state and national elections by all candidates, not only at the end of the election day but also during close election recounts that are certain to occur. Please do not approve this bill.

I am writing to you on behalf of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law to oppose House Bill 493, which would expand existing Virginia law to allow the electronic return of marked ballots via the Internet. The Brennan Center is a national nonpartisan law and policy institute that seeks to improve our systems of democracy and justice. The Brennan Center has a long history of partnering with election administrators, legislators, and other elected officials at the local, state, and federal level to reform and improve our elections and election administration. Every independent review has found that we currently lack the technology to make electronic ballot return secure from attack. In 2020 and again in 2024, four federal executive branch agencies --the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (part of the Department of Homeland Security or DHS), the Election Assistance Commission, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)-- jointly released a report concluding that internet-based return of votes presents a “high risk” to United States elections and cannot be secured. It noted that, with internet-based ballot return, hackers from anywhere in the world could engage in large-scale, high-volume tampering with ballots that could impact results and possibly the outcome of an election. Two of these agencies have opined repeatedly on the issue over the years. In 2022, NIST issued the report Promoting Access to Voting: Recommendations for Addressing Barriers to Private and Independent Voting for People with Disabilities and notably did not include internet-based ballot return among its recommendations because, as it concluded, “there remain significant security, privacy, and ballot secrecy challenges.” These agencies are not the only independent experts to opine on the issue. The Department of Defense has stated it “does not advocate for the electronic transmission of any voted ballot, whether it be by fax, email or via the Internet.” The United States Select Senate Committee on Intelligence concluded in a 2020 report that “States should resist pushes for online voting,” because “no system of online voting has yet established itself as secure.” And a Working Group from the Center for Security in Politics at the University of California, Berkeley formed to determine “the feasibility of technical and implementation standards that would enable safe and secure digital remote ballot marking and return of these ballots” instead concluded “the current cybersecurity environment and state of technology makes it infeasible for the Working Group to draft responsible standards to support the use of internet ballot return in U.S. public elections at this time.” For at least a decade, our foreign adversaries—including Russia, China, and Iran—have launched cyberattacks targeting the United States’ digital election infrastructure. They have done so in the 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022, and 2024 federal elections, with the goal of undermining confidence in our elections. At the same time, federal agencies have cut back on cyber and other election security support for local election offices. Additionally, there is an active movement within the U.S. to undermine confidence in our elections. Within this context, it is unwise for Virginia to adopt the use of electronic ballot return. PLEASE READ ENTIRE LETTER ATTACHED OPPOSING HB493. - Lawrence Norden, VP, Elections & Government

Written Testimony in Opposition to HB493 Chair Cole and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on HB493. We recognize and agree with the intent of HB493 but cannot support the approach and method that HB493 would provide. I serve as the Senior Advisor on Election Security for Free Speech For People, a national, non-profit non-partisan legal advocacy organization dedicated to defending our democracy and our Constitution. As part of our mission, we are committed to promoting, through legal actions and advocacy, secure, transparent, trustworthy, and accessible voting policies for all voters. We work directly to improve access to the ballot for all voters. For example, we launched a legal challenge to voter registration restrictions in Arizona, resulting in tens of thousands of additional voters being able to register to vote. But we also work to ensure that all voting methods will reliably, accessibly and securely record all votes as intended, and count all votes as cast. There’s no question that voters with print disabilities face unique challenges in returning an absentee ballot and that there should be exploration to address those challenges. But we vigorously oppose the electronic return of voted ballots because ballots transmitted electronically, by email, fax and online ballot portal, are all at high risk for privacy risks, manipulation, and fraud. At a time when election confidence is under attack, employing dangerously insecure electronic ballot return will degrade not just the security of Virginia’s elections, but also confidence in elections and trust in government. FULL WRITTEN TESTIMONY AVAILABLE IN ATTACHED WRITTEN TESTIMONY STATEMENT

OPPOSED - HB493 - FULL STATEMENT ATTACHED I am writing to you on behalf of Common Cause. Common Cause’s mission is to uphold the core values of American democracy by creating an open, honest, and accountable government that serves the public interest, promotes equal rights, opportunity, and representation for all, and empowers people to make their voices heard in the political process. We are a nonprofit, nonpartisan membership organization with approximately 20,678 members in the Commonwealth of Virginia. We respectfully requested that you read our entire letter in opposition to HB493 which contains linked cited sources. Sincerely, Susannah Goodman Policy Director, Voting and Fair Representation Common Cause

NO on HB 493 Internet or Online Voting cannot assure voting safety. Only those who would desire and benefit from lesser means of voting security would vote for this. Think before you vote the appearance of voting for LESS voting security.

I am opposed to any all bill that make it easier to cheat in elections like these bills being presented. I am opposed to any and all bills that make same sex marriage acceptable. I am opposed to any and all bills that allow full term abortion and allow minors to have abortions with out the parents knowledge. I am opposed to any and all bills that would allow minors to undergo transgender surgery . I am opposed to any and all bills that will raise taxes while the politicians are trying to give themselves a 150% increase no that is not acceptable.

I request that you vote AGAINST HB493. This is only one of several bills that will reduce verification of overseas civilian voters. HB493 (https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20261/HB493) , allows UOCAVA voters to vote electronically. (Note in HB493,  see lines 44-45 in the pdf: "When this statement has been properly completed and signed by the registered voter, his ballot shall not be subject to challenge pursuant to § 24.2-651."). This will reduce security of the ballot. The risk of HB493 is augmented by HB640, under which challenges are now required to be filed in the Court and not with the Registrar. Under the proposed HB640 (https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20261/HB640 ), overseas civilians' registrations will not be susceptible to challenges.  The risk of HB493 is augmented under HB111 (see pdf lines 62-70 https://lis.blob.core.windows.net/files/1082433.PDF), which states the registrar can't cancel a UOCAVA voter's registration if that voter shows up in another state under the Driver License Compact, further augmenting the risks of HB493. Furthermore, HB213 further augments the risks of HB493. By repealing 24.2-453, HB213 will remove a crucial qualifier for overseas civilian voters. Virginia already does NOT require prior residence in the state. Without the requirement for an affirmation that the overseas voter resides there for employment or as a dependent of someone who is there for employment, anyone can vote as an overseas civilian with no proof of prior residence or any excuse for overseas residence. In conclusion, please vote NO on HB493.

HB493 endangers election integrity by mandating the Department of Elections to implement a system for certain qualified absentee voters (e.g., those with disabilities) to receive, mark, and cast ballots electronically via the internet—exposing the process to hacking, cyber threats, malware, or foreign interference without foolproof safeguards like verifiable paper trails. This online voting expansion risks undetectable fraud, errors in transmission, or voter coercion in unmonitored settings, complicating audits and eroding public confidence in secure, transparent elections. Traditional absentee methods with physical ballots better protect against manipulation; prioritizing digital access over robust security invites abuse in critical races.

The League of Women Voters of Virginia respectfully submits statements with respect to four of the bills before the Voting Rights Subcommittee of the House Privileges and Elections Committee. The bills are: HB 493 - Oppose HB 640 - Support HB 1014 - Support HB 1244 - Support The full statements are found in the attachment.

Electronic ballot return (including mobile, email, fax, or website portal) fails to confer trust that each vote is counted as cast. The security risks associated with electronic ballot return are severe, well-documented, and broadly acknowledged by the federal government’s top security agencies and the nation’s leading cybersecurity experts. At present, no known technology can secure ballots returned over the internet.

Oppose Democrats and Socialists forcing gerrymandering in Virginia. We know that the left is trying to get power. We know the illegal aliens are one source for getting democratic votes. What happened to following the Rule of Law in America and following it without causing chaos, lockdowns, destruction, propaganda, riots, censoring, spying, fraudulent schemes, mail in ballots, and other forms of corruption?

I am opposed to any all bill that make it easier to cheat in elections like these bills being presented. I am opposed to any and all bills that make same sex marriage acceptable. I am opposed to any and all bills that allow full term abortion and allow minors to have abortions with out the parents knowledge. I am opposed to any and all bills that would allow minors to undergo transgender surgery . I am opposed to any and all bills that will raise taxes while the politicians are trying to give themselves a 150% increase no that is not acceptable.

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 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.

I request that you vote AGAINST HB640. HB640 requires challenges to be filed in the Court and not with the Registrar (at the polling place). This imposes an inequitable burden on voters who could challenge another voter in person, but who lack the resources to challenge in Court. The principle of challenging in-person at the polls is a common-sense and long-held right of the voter. HB640 reduces voter rights. In conclusion, please vote NO on HB640.

The League of Women Voters of Virginia respectfully submits statements with respect to four of the bills before the Voting Rights Subcommittee of the House Privileges and Elections Committee. The bills are: HB 493 - Oppose HB 640 - Support HB 1014 - Support HB 1244 - Support The full statements are found in the attachment.

I am opposed to any all bill that make it easier to cheat in elections like these bills being presented. I am opposed to any and all bills that make same sex marriage acceptable. I am opposed to any and all bills that allow full term abortion and allow minors to have abortions with out the parents knowledge. I am opposed to any and all bills that would allow minors to undergo transgender surgery . I am opposed to any and all bills that will raise taxes while the politicians are trying to give themselves a 150% increase no that is not acceptable.

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.

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

Please support HB1014. A 2020, JLARC study found that about twelve thousand adult Virginians have a guardian. https://jlarc.virginia.gov/landing-2021-virginias-adult-guardian-and-conservator-system.asp Some of these people do not have the mental capacity to understand voting, but many of them do. Many of them have political opinions they want to express, and want to vote as part of participating fully as Americans. Passage of HB1014 will address these unfairly disenfranchised citizens.

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

At the House Privileges and Elections subcommittee meeting on January 28th, questions arose about HB 1014. I am a retired attorney. Since 1983, I have had over 2000 guardian/conservatorship cases, serving as a petitioning attorney for local departments of social services, community services boards, and other public agencies, representing parents or children petitioning for guardianship for a family member, serving as a guardian ad litem for alleged incapacitated persons, and occasionally serving as attorney for alleged incapacitated persons. Guardian/conservator hearings are brief and seldom contested. The hearings address whether or not the individual is incapacitated, and determine what specific measures should be taken to assist with that incapacity. Unfortunately, some lawyers and judges are in the habit of issuing plenary court orders that automatically revoke the respondent’s right to vote, without any consideration of the actual abilities of the specific individual involved. HB 1014 corrects this practice, ensuring that the court makes specific, individualized findings as to whether or not an incapacitated person under guardianship has the capacity to vote. This issue can and will be addressed in the initial guardianship hearing, even if the hearing remains brief and uncontested. Guardian/conservatorship is not permanent. It is designed to assist, not constrain, an incapacitated person. If an individual’s condition improves, or if the individual seeks a modification of the guardianship order and any limitations of any kind, including reversal of an incorrect revocation of their right to vote, the court will revisit this issue, as it would any other facet of alleged disability. This is not an additional burden on the court. It is the job of the court to afford full due process to the alleged incapacitated individual, and to revoke voting rights only in those cases where an individual truly lacks the competence to vote, as expressed in the Constitution of Virginia. HB 1014 sets out specific standards to ensure that incapacitated individuals in guardian/conservatorship proceedings receive the required due process to which they are legally entitled under current law. It improves the present practice in some courts, and clarifies and guarantees the existing rights of the disabled under current law. I respectfully request that the General Assemby pass this important bill.

This change risks allowing votes from people with severe cognitive impairments (e.g., advanced dementia), who may be vulnerable to influence, coercion, or exploitation by caregivers or others—effectively enabling forms of proxy voting or ballot harvesting without adequate safeguards. Strongly oppose.

The League of Women Voters of Virginia respectfully submits statements with respect to four of the bills before the Voting Rights Subcommittee of the House Privileges and Elections Committee. The bills are: HB 493 - Oppose HB 640 - Support HB 1014 - Support HB 1244 - Support The full statements are found in the attachment.

I am opposed to any all bill that make it easier to cheat in elections like these bills being presented. I am opposed to any and all bills that make same sex marriage acceptable. I am opposed to any and all bills that allow full term abortion and allow minors to have abortions with out the parents knowledge. I am opposed to any and all bills that would allow minors to undergo transgender surgery . I am opposed to any and all bills that will raise taxes while the politicians are trying to give themselves a 150% increase no that is not acceptable.

My friend Karen Tefelski was dedicated to the legislative process as a lobbyist for 30 years. She voted religiously whenever the opportunity came up. She got very sick last year and thought she had more time to get to her voting precinct. Unfortunately, her illness progressed very quickly and she missed the opportunity to enter an absentee vote. When she decided to move from the hospital to hospice in her final days, on the way to hospice, her caretaker stopped at her voting precinct so that Karen could vote, because it was that important to her. The absentee ballot never came, even after she passed. I support this bill because it will give people who desperately want to vote the opportunity to do so even if they miss the window for absentee voting because of illness and hospitalization. Everyone's voice should be heard and every vote should be counted, no matter the medical circumstances.

Good morning, My name is Gina Koke. I am a close, personal friend of the late Karen Tefelski. Prior to her passing, Karen was a Virginia General Assembly lobbyist and Executive Director of VaACCSES, an organization dedicated to the furtherance of the rights of those with disabilities. I knew Karen for many years. When she became ill and was subsequently diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2023, we became close allies in the fight for her life. She had spent most of her adult life as a fierce advocate for people with disabilities. As she faced the ravages of cancer head on, she inevitably experienced ever increasing weakness and pain. In spite of this she continued to participate in meetings at General Assembly and speak on behalf of the needs of others as much as she could tolerate. She was a powerful advocate and well known for her lovable candor. Her illness sometimes made it impossible for her to leave her home or the hospital for days or weeks at a time but she persisted. During the month of October 2024, Karen received the sad news that her fight was almost over. She was immediately concerned about so many things, including the need to vote in the 2024 election. A friend immediately helped her request an early voting ballot. But as the days passed, the ballot failed to arrive. On October 29th, her oncologist made arrangements for medical transport to take her to end-of-life care at a hospice home in Bon Air, Virginia. Karen refused that transport. She said she needed to vote. While I gathered her things and prepared to move her to the hospice home, she insisted that another friend drive her to the Ashland precinct where she voted curbside one last time. She was very sick and very frail, yet she insisted on making this one last contribution to the fight for the rights of others in which she so staunchly believed. (see photo) On the afternoon of November 6th, 2024, the nurse called me over to the bedside and told me Karen was in the process of leaving this earth. I prepared myself emotionally and spoke to her even though she appeared insentient. I played the live broadcast of the election activities and talked to her about the polls getting ready to close. I told her I was so relieved that she was able to cast her vote. Although the nurses expected her to pass quickly, she lingered on until late that evening when the election was announced. I turned to her and told her the results and within minutes she passed away. I have remarked numerous times that I believe she held on just to hear the results. Karen’s life was dedicated to service in the disabilities community and in the political realm. She knew the power of the democratic process and believed in the good that could come from it. This bill speaks to the importance of the right to vote even in the midst of dark conditions. It highlights the human condition which often includes unforeseen circumstances. This bill seeks to provide a way where there would seem to be no way. It allows people dealing with the tribulations of life to take a moment and express their love for this country and their desire to participate in it. I wholeheartedly supported this bill on behalf of my friend, Karen Tefelski and all of those who will need its support in the future. I encourage all of you to see this bill through to a successful end. Thank you.

The League of Women Voters of Virginia respectfully submits statements with respect to four of the bills before the Voting Rights Subcommittee of the House Privileges and Elections Committee. The bills are: HB 493 - Oppose HB 640 - Support HB 1014 - Support HB 1244 - Support The full statements are found in the attachment.

Please support House Bill 1244. This bill is deeply personal to many in Virginia’s disability and advocacy community. It honors the life and legacy of Karen Tefleski, the longtime Executive Director of vaACCSES, who was a fierce advocate for people with disabilities, public policy, and the democratic process itself. Karen believed strongly in the importance of voting and civic participation. In October 2024, Karen was hospitalized. Even while hospitalized, Karen continued meeting with colleagues to discuss disability services, funding, and public policy. Voting remained important to her, and several advocates worked closely with a Delegate and staff to determine how she could still participate in the election. Under existing law, the only option available was an absentee ballot. Despite repeated checks of her mailbox, the absentee ballot never arrived. Ultimately, Karen was fortunate enough to complete curbside voting on the day she was transferred from the hospital to another care facility. Karen passed away just two days after the 2024 election. Had curbside voting not been an option, Karen likely would not have been able to vote due to the restrictive timelines and lack of clarity surrounding emergency voting under current law. HB1244 addresses these gaps by modestly extending the emergency voting timeline and providing clearer direction for voters when an absentee ballot is not obtained. For the disability community, the aging population, and individuals facing unexpected medical emergencies, these changes are not theoretical—they are essential to ensuring equal access to the ballot. HB1244 strengthens Virginia’s commitment to fair, accessible elections without compromising election integrity. This bill is a fitting tribute to Karen Tefleski’s lifelong advocacy and unwavering belief in civic participation. Those of us who worked alongside her, and the many individuals and families served by organizations like MVLE, respectfully ask for your support of HB1244 in honor of her memory and legacy.

Chair and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony in support of House Bill 1244, patroned by Delegate Bonita Anthony. HB1244 proposes meaningful updates to §24.2 705 of the Code of Virginia, reinforcing and modernizing the Commonwealth’s emergency absentee voting process. This bill ensures that voters who unexpectedly face hospitalization, illness, family emergencies, or delays in receiving their absentee ballot are not denied their right to vote. I want to share a brief personal experience that illustrates why HB1244 is so important. In a recent election, a colleague, Karen Tefelski was hospitalized before Election Day. She had applied for an emergency absentee ballot, but it never arrived. Her health continued to decline and on her way to the hospice house, a friend was able to take her to vote. However, had she remained hospitalized, this would not have been possible. She valued her right to vote and always encouraged others of the importance of casting your vote. Watching someone who had every intention of voting almost lose that opportunity due to circumstances entirely outside of their control was deeply frustrating and felt fundamentally unfair. It also made clear how easily other Virginians, especially seniors, caregivers, and those with health challenges, could find themselves in the same situation. HB1244 directly remedies this gap by allowing a voter to obtain an emergency absentee ballot when they have applied for an absentee ballot but have not received it within four days of the election and are unable to vote due to hospitalization, illness, or family emergency. Why HB1244 Matters HB1244 improves emergency absentee voting, balances access and integrity. It expands eligibility where necessary but preserves safeguards such as: • A required voter signature under penalty of perjury, • A witnessed form, and • Prohibitions on representatives with conflicts of interest. This thoughtful structure ensures that emergency absentee voting is available to those who truly need it while guarding against misuse. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Committee to support and advance HB1244. Thank you for your consideration and your service to the Commonwealth. Respectfully, Deanna Rennon, BS

Please support this Bill Karen Tefleski, the long time Exec Director fo vaACCSES was a fierce supporter / lover of our elections processes and voting in person. On Election Day she would help her older neighbors by driving them to the polls to vote. On Election Day she would be intently following election results with her ‘graph paper grid’ even when there were websites the rest of us were using to follow the results. On October 22, 2024 Karen was in the hospital for what was the last time. As always Karen thought she had more time. More time to work on budget amendments, more time to meet with legislators and other advocates, and more time to go and vote. Even while in the hospital Karen was meeting with people to discuss disability issues and funding. A few of us knew how much voting meant to Karen and we worked with a Delegate and his staff trying to figure out how to support her. The only option due to how election laws were in place was to get an absentee ballot. She could not do anything else due to the various deadlines/ timetables in place. Every day people were checking Karen’s mailbox, and it did not come. I, Joanne Aceto, drove her to do curbside voting the day she was going to transfer from the hospital to another facility. I was honored to assist her and the Elections staff were very thoughtful and helpful as Karen completed her ballot in the car. To this day we do not know if the absentee ballot ever arrived at her house. Karen was lucky enough to be able to do the curbside voting but had that not been an option she probably would not have been able to do emergency voting due to the time frames that were in place. Karen passed away 2 days after the 2024 election. This bill is to honor Karen. It adds a bit of time to the emergency voting timeline and states that if the absentee ballot is not obtained what the voter can do. Those of us who knew Karen and how much voting meant to her would appreciate any support you can provide with this bill which honors her memory and legacy.

I am opposed to any all bill that make it easier to cheat in elections like these bills being presented. I am opposed to any and all bills that make same sex marriage acceptable. I am opposed to any and all bills that allow full term abortion and allow minors to have abortions with out the parents knowledge. I am opposed to any and all bills that would allow minors to undergo transgender surgery . I am opposed to any and all bills that will raise taxes while the politicians are trying to give themselves a 150% increase no that is not acceptable.

Hello All. My name is Heath Grishaw and I will unable to attend in person it would like to use my privilege as an American citizen to voice my concerns and support on my state that I have been blessed to live in for my whole life. Please consider these points as I am not alone in this and would appreciate to know that I have been represented accurately and fairly despite my lack of support for our new governor. I do hope Abigail hears all citizens in Virginia and represents all including the unborn. HJ1 - 1. I oppose the HJ1 bill as it has broad language that would grant a constitutional right that cannot be easily changed without proper constitutional process. Legislators and voters would be hard pressed to find an ability to protect the voices of the unborn. Meaning commonsense restrictions such as limits on abortion at later gestational stages informed consent, or protection for fetal pain could and would be pre-empted or struck down. 2. Lastly- There are already laws and medical standards in place that protect access to essential health services, including care related to pregnancy complications, miscarriage, and life-saving medical interventions. Opponents argue that this amendment is an unnecessary expansion of state constitutional protections and will strip Virginia of flexibility to respond to future societal needs. HJ14- I do agree and in favor of this amending. 1. Reduces Financial Burden on Virginians Virginia’s annual personal property tax on motor vehicles can cost families hundreds or even thousands of dollars each year, especially given the high assessed values and taxing rates compared to other states. Exempting one personally owned vehicle from this tax will provide meaningful relief for working‐class Virginians, retirees, and middle-income households struggling with everyday expenses. 2. Encourages Financial Stability and Mobility For many Virginians, cars are a necessity—not a luxury—due to the state’s limited public transportation outside major urban areas. Providing a tax exemption for one personally used vehicle will help residents better afford reliable transportation to work, school, and medical appointments without the additional strain of recurring property tax liabilities. 3. Promotes Fairness and Simplicity Currently, personal property tax relief programs vary widely by locality and often require complex qualification rules tied to vehicle value or usage. HJ14 would standardize relief by constitutionally guaranteeing that each resident can own one vehicle for personal, noncommercial use without tax. This simplifies tax planning for families and eliminates inconsistencies across jurisdictions. 4. Strengthens Economic Competitiveness Lowering the overall tax burden makes Virginia a more attractive place to live and work. Reducing or eliminating personal property tax on one vehicle helps retain residents and attract new workers and retirees, supporting local economies and housing markets.

My husband and I are extremely concerned about proposed abortion bills and legislation. We have lived in this state for many years and never dreamed of these bills moving forward and are aghast at the thought of it. We are vehemently opposed to any such passage of abortion and whole heartedly in favor of preserving and protecting all life espeically of the most vulnerable unborn life that all science now admits. Please say "no" to such bills.

I was involved in a study of this issue a couple of years ago. The concern about the maturity of 16-year-olds is exactly the same argument I heard when the 26th amendment lowering the voting age to 18 was being ratified. Many 16-year-olds work and pay taxes but have no voice in their representation. Voting in local elections develops the voting habit and helps young people understand that many important decisions affecting them are local, not national.

I am opposed to any all bill that make it easier to cheat in elections like these bills being presented. I am opposed to any and all bills that make same sex marriage acceptable. I am opposed to any and all bills that allow full term abortion and allow minors to have abortions with out the parents knowledge. I am opposed to any and all bills that would allow minors to undergo transgender surgery . I am opposed to any and all bills that will raise taxes while the politicians are trying to give themselves a 150% increase no that is not acceptable.

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!

A 16 year old's brain is not yet fully developed. What is going on here? Strongly oppose.

We should not allow 16 years old to vote They can't get Tattoos or drink but we are going to allow them to make decisions that affect the entire country. I am totally against this. This is as crazy as allowing children to decide about major surgeries that can't be undone.

I strongly oppose. 16-year-olds should not be allowed to vote.