Please vote yes on SB1157. After Virginia Beach moved local elections to November a couple of decades ago, turnout improved and people paid more attention to local issues. Our elected bodies became more diverse. Sadly, my friends in Norfolk and Chesapeake pay more tax money to hold low turnout May elections and frequently have little choice on their local ballots. Separate local elections are a barrier to voting for people with busy lives and limited means. The Commonwealth neds to encourage voting and remove barriers. Consolidating elections in November will help. Thank you for all you have already done to mak voting easier!

Re: SB1097, witness signatures have on real purpose other than as a means of disqualifying ballots. They should be eliminated. Re: SB1157, moving Municipal elections to November would greatly increase turnout. that is always a benefit to the proper exercise of democracy. The election date should be moved. Re: SB1245, Absentee balloting is being done successfully throughout the nation. It should be no excuse, with easy ability to drop off a ballot before or on Election Day.

To ensure that as many voices as possible are heard, to ensure that costs are contained, and to ensure that ALL citizens are involved in this Democratic process, the Local May elections should be moved to November when all other elections are held. Thank you, Dr. Charlotte Worley

I signed up to speak and didnt get a link yesterday email finds you well! The Hampton Branch NAACP urge you to please support SB117. Times have changed and the next generation of voters are more astute to local, state and federal issues and not interested in voting multiple times in a year. Historically,turn out is always low in local elections. Localities will ultimately save up to 100k a year by not having a May election. The additional funds could help increase resources for November elections. We are reminded that the current council were elected by the low voter turn out electorate. Times have changed.

The City of Williamsburg urges you to vote against moving all locality elections to November. SB 1157 will forever alter the relationship the local elections in Williamsburg have the electorate. The City has long believed that having independent local elections from national elections is crucial to keeping the focus on local issues of concern. The City values its commitment to non-partisanship. We do not include party affiliation on our local ballots, and the candidates run without party identification. The City does not involve itself in national stage political issues that often have partisan drivers. Moving the local elections to November provides the opportunity for the City’s need for elected officials motivated by a desire to serve the community to be overshadowed by partisan issues. Proponents of the November local election model offer that it will enable less likely success for incumbents and will increase voter turnout. It is likely that voter turnout would increase, but it would not be due to greater interest in local matters. It would be a reflection of how the state or national races drive greater voter participation and mobilization by the parties to stimulate voters. This past May the City of Williamsburg held an election that resulted in a multi-term incumbent loss. This is attributable to the candidates diligently educating the electorate on the issues of importance and having their dedicated attention to encourage participation in the election. Competing with national platforms will make it more difficult for local candidates to focus on local issues and for voters to be informed. Voters driven by party concerns will likely be less informed about local issues and ill prepared to make local candidate comparisons based on platforms. Having an informed electorate is important to our form of government, especially at the local level. Another argument posed for moving May local elections to November is a cost savings for the localities and state. While, it is true that fewer voting events mean less cost for the locality and state, the City of Williamsburg believes that the May local election's cost is well justified to be sure that the issues of most relevance are the basis for the vote. Please vote to keep local elections a local decision. Virginia has not benefited from “one size fits all” legislation in the past, and this will be another example. Localities deserve the autonomy to regulate local elections. Thank you for your time and consideration of this important issue. Douglas Pons, Mayor, City of Williamsburg

Good Afternoon Honorable Delegates, The Ashland Town Council urges you to deeply consider some very real side effects with SB1157 in mandating local governments move our elections from May to November. It is my understanding that those supporting this bill are doing so because it may have the effect of increasing voter turnout. We believe that is not a good trade-off as it works against good public policy. More turnout, a noble goal, but this particular bill has unintended consequences that we believe outweigh whatever gains to voter turnout this bill may be achieved. The Town of Ashland is a democratically voting blue dot in what is otherwise a staunchly red conservative community of Hanover County. Even within that dynamic I was unanimously chosen by my democratic leaning peers on Town Council to serve as Mayor even though I tend to lean more to the conservative side of things. The reason I was chosen as Mayor, and the reason we accomplish so much for our community is because partisan politics play absolutely zero role in how we operate local government. We don’t run for office with an R or a D in front of our names; instead we run as neighbors and friends all debating how to make Ashland a better place to live and work. We genuinely believe the partisan politics that play out in such an ugly way on the national and state level has no place in local government. Unfortunately, by moving elections to November to coincide with national and state elections the State will force the introduction of some of the poisons of strictly partisan politics into our local elections. We know that many in our nation simply vote an all Republican or Democrat ticket rather than evaluating whether a candidate is trustworthy, open minded, or willing to compromise. These are the types of characteristics candidates for local office in Ashland are evaluated on and not positions on immigration, second amendment rights, or abortion. Please help us keep it that way by opposing SB1157. A small, but important other part- Party's want to field good candidates, ones that will not embarrass. Local elections is a 'vetting process' of sorts to help Party decisions when endorsing or funding candidates. This bill eliminates this helpful process. If you need evidence of additional support for this position, please read this letter submitted to the Richmond Times Dispatch from Mayor David Meyer of Fairfax City and Mayor Linda Colbert of the Town of Vienna. They clearly outline additional rationale for opposing SB1157. If you need additional support for policies and legislation to increase voter turnout we are here to work with you in that effort. We believe this noble goal can be achieved without the introduction of partisan politics into local government.

Please vote yes to move our local elections to November.. not only will it save money $$ ! The turnout from November elections is definitely needed. Case in point -- Chesapeake School Board. Chesapeake spent nearly $146,000 for the May 2020 election, in which only 21 percent of registered voters showed up. Have a great day!

Please consider voting yes on SB1157. The remaining localities that hold May elections are doing a disservice to their communities, as these elections result in a clear reduction in voter turnout. The numbers are astounding. For example, in May 2016, Hampton’s local May elections saw only 16.8% voter turnout, while November elections in Hampton the same year for federal offices saw 65.6% turnout. Similarly, May 2018 local elections had only 14.3% turnout, while November 2018 had 53.1% turnout. We can increase civic participation, reduce voter suppression, AND save taxpayer money by moving local elections to November. Please vote yes on this bill.

Good day, I am told that many Blacks and other people of color do not engage as much in the early voting cycles, which is a blessing for certain political groups and presents a challenge for other political groups. While it seems that there is a concern that our Republicans benefit from having different election dates, and our Democrats may benefit from a same-day election, I firmly think that the citizenry would benefit from having a single time period to focus on. The policy decisions made by our political public servants impact everyone, and the deciding date(s) should be designed in a way that seems to attract the greatest amount of voters. Additionally, this move will save Virginians funds that might be better spent on other opportunities. Vote to support SB1157. We are paying attention and well react accordingly. Seko Varner

VIRGINIA FIRST CITIES - WRITTEN COMMENTS TO S.B. 1157 (SPRUILL) NOVEMBER ELECTION BILL I am commenting on behalf of the Virginia First Cities Coalition (VFC) in opposition to SB 1157. Our coalition of 16 member cities has 7 members that currently hold their city council/school board elections in May. These members are Danville, Hampton, Lynchburg, Newport News, Norfolk, Staunton, and Williamsburg. These cities want to make decisions about their elections and keep their local election schedule exactly where it is --- in May. Our remaining members have made conscientious, community-engaged decisions to amend their charters and change their election dates to November. This worked well for them. The one thing that all 16 of our members are agreed on is that SB 1157 be opposed because it overrides our local charters. This is the primary reason why Virginia First Cities feels very strongly that SB 1157 belongs in the Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns, as this is the proper committee of jurisdiction for bills affecting city charters. Many of our members with May elections have expressed their strong belief that local elections should be focused on non-partisan local issues. May elections do provide a much better opportunity to focus in on local governance issues and concerns and not be usurped by what is happening in the national and statewide political arena. The Code of Virginia does allow citizens the ability to request a local referendum to choose when elections are held. Senate Bill 1157 is a state mandate that ultimately takes control from citizens and elected officials closest to the citizenry. We have witnessed a refreshing approach in the last two sessions to the so-called “Christmas tree bills” and a relaxing of the Dillon Rule, allowing local governments to opt-in or opt-out of a variety of legislative efforts. We were, quite surprised that SB 1157 would summarily, in one fell swoop, say that we cannot have May elections --- that they must be held in November. We feel assured that if there were a groundswell of citizens wanting this change, local governments would be responsive. Nine members of Virginia First Cities have changed their dates. However, for the seven cities that have not, we implore you to please allow them to retain the authority to move to November elections if it is what their citizens want. We ask that you please oppose SB1157.

The local elections should be moved to November. This will help cut down funding for the city as well as increase voter turnout. In addition, it will give minorities and the elderly in the community a chance to register and vote.

Virginia 2020 session, our legislators passed major voter reform legislation: “No excuse” Absentee Voting, Election Day as a state holiday, and automatic voter registration. It was my understanding that we had an issue that needed to be addressed: encouraging voter participation in our democratic process. All too often as voters, we hear the mantra - “local elections matter”, but do they when we have several localities across the state where less than 15% of the electorate vote in May elections? By voting against SB1157 you are suggesting low voter participation is not an issue; because a year ago when faced with other voting obstacles this state legislature voted to correct those deficiencies. The fundamental principle of a democracy is for the people by the people. When we look at data that shows less than 15% of the electorate vote in May in comparison to 60% of the electorate in November, how can we truly say local elections meet the standards of a democracy. Do local elections really matter?

SB 1157 would move Virginia’s anti-democratic, low-turnout May elections to November. This would save taxpayers money, make voting more convenient and less confusing for voters, and encourage massively more people to participate in local elections, since November turnout is far greater than May turnout. This is also a social justice issue, since the fraction of voters who turn out in May tend to be whiter, wealthier, and older than November voters. Sadly, many local elected officials are advocating against this bill because it would make their re-elections more competitive. Please side with the PEOPLE in your district over the POLITICIANS in your district and vote for SB 1157! SB 1157 is supported by the VA NAACP, the VA League of Women Voters, the Virginia Civic Engagement Table, and voting rights organizations such as the Fair Election Center and the Advancement Project.

SB 1157 would move Virginia’s anti-democratic, low-turnout May elections to November. This would save taxpayers money, make voting more convenient and less confusing for voters, and encourage massively more people to participate in local elections, since November turnout is far greater than May turnout. This is also a social justice issue, since the fraction of voters who turn out in May tend to be whiter, wealthier, and older than November voters. Sadly, many local elected officials are advocating against this bill because it would make their re-elections more competitive. Please side with the PEOPLE in your district over the POLITICIANS in your district and vote for SB 1157! SB 1157 is supported by the VA NAACP, the VA League of Women Voters, the Virginia Civic Engagement Table, and voting rights organizations such as the Fair Election Center and the Advancement Project.

SB1157: I support changing local elections to November to increase turnout and make local officials more responsive to their constituents. SB1245: Absentee voting should be encouraged and expanded. The cure process for any errors should be streamlined and highly accessible. SB1246: Absentee ballots should be processed as soon as practical.

As a long time poll worker I can attest that elections held in May serve no purpose in furthering voter participation. When a candidate can win with just 5 to 10 percent of a city voting it amounts to little oversight by the citizens they are supposed to speak for. The costs ara extremely high to run the elections based on per vote amounts. I also know that the city councils and school boards are going against most of the board of elections including in Newport News. We rely on the board of elections to recruit and man the polls and only they know the resources they need to run more than one election. The general assembly should listen to the boards and the many volunteers called upon to run the very scared act of voting .

VRAV is very much in favor of Sen. Morrisey's Bill. This is one more step in easing prohibitive restrictions in employment of a General Registrar whose situation may have changed since initial employment, and to further help the Electoral Boards find and retain high quality people to administer a localities Elections.

As discussed in previous subcommittee testimony on the companion House bill, while we appreciate the intent of this legislation, we are concerned about its application in practice, in particular the litigation to which it potentially exposes counties. More detailed comments have been circulated in a letter to Committee members.

Chair and members of the committee, my name is Donald Craig. I am the co-chair of the Voter Access Committee of the League of Women Voters of Virginia, which has 14 Local Leagues, and members throughout Virginia. The League supports SB 1395 The right to vote is fundamental to our democracy. In Virginia, decades of disenfranchisement of Black and Brown voters reverberate to this day. We owe it to future generations to remove barriers to voting. When the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act in 2013, many states moved quickly to pass discriminatory voting laws, such as overinclusive voter roll purges and burdensome ID laws. Until and unless the Voting Rights Act is restored, we need a way to ensure new elections laws and practices will not negatively impact the rights of minority group members to vote. As a substitute for the federal protections that were stripped away, we ask you to cosponsor and pass SB1395. This bill is important to address a hole that has opened in voter protections, and we support the bill.

This bill should be amended to clarify that voters may only be removed when ALL the fields identified in statute match the voter list. Otherwise there is a risk of erroneous removals because many voters share a last name and birthdate.

We support SB1422 to purge the voter rolls of deceased individuals on a weekly basis, this will give our voter registrar the ability to update the roles in a timely fashion while not being overloaded with monthly reports t We Oppose SJ272 which lifts restrictions for those who have been convicted of a felony or adjudicated to be mentally incompetent. There is a process for restoration of rights for felons who have served there time, allowing a blanket gift of voting to felons serving time for violating the rights of others in unconscionable as is allowing mentally incompetent person to vote. There is nothing more important right now than to ensure election integrity.

I write to oppose the repeal/revisions to Section 15-A of Article I of the Constitution of Virginia concerning marriage. My objections pertain to the decreased clarity in the revision around the question, “What is marriage?” If the Commonwealth claims to have interest in recognizing marriages (and not recognizing other arrangements that are not marriages), then some basis for this distinction must be given. How do we know if we are treating all marriages equally without defining what constitutes a marriage and what doesn’t? If marriage is fundamentally a pursuit of happiness contracted through mutual consent of the parties, with no special status in itself, then what compelling interest does the Commonwealth have in protecting or recognizing any marriage at all? If it does have special status, what is the basis for that status? What makes marriages different from any other kind of relationship or union is that the unitive element is sexual and comprehensive (as opposed to being, say, on the same basketball team, business partners, or even close friends). Once we introduce the element of sexuality, we have to acknowledge that every child born must have a father and a mother; this is not the result of a contract, a claimed right, or a law, but a biological necessity. This sets heterosexual unions apart from any other arrangement. Because children are themselves vulnerable and subject to the decisions of adults, the Commonwealth has a compelling interest in ensuring the safety and wellbeing of children at the hands of those adults. The obligations imposed by the Commonwealth on parents who raise children go far beyond a contractual agreement between consenting adults pursuing happiness; there are obligations that exist as a direct result of sexual union, consequences that are not biologically possible in any non-heterosexual arrangement. Even if a couple is infertile, their union is still ordered toward the producing of children, even if none ever result from their sexual activity, whereas a homosexual couple’s union can never be so ordered, even in principle. Because of this, it is not within the law’s power to change what constitutes a marriage. If what makes a marriage is sexual union, then heterosexual unions deserve special status because of the natural consequences of their sexual activity within that union. If the basis for what constitutes a marriage is anything else, including a mere contractual agreement to pursue happiness, then what is the Commonwealth’s compelling interest in recognizing that at all, let alone in the constitution? Finally, to the common objection: “How does two people getting married affect you or your marriage?”, I answer that enshrining a definition of marriage other than the one currently in the Virginia constitution obscures the necessity of marriage to be defined on the basis of sexual union (since it would make the contractual pursuit of happiness the de facto basis, in the absence of a more stringent definition). Enshrining a different definition would both ignore and obscure the biological fact that a child always has a man and woman as biological parents. Finally, because there’s no way for the state to be neutral on the question of marriage, a definition must be given that is necessarily exclusive of someone’s views. If the state enshrines a definition that is contrary to natural facts, it ceases to be a useful instrument and reflection of reason, which is inherently anti-democratic.

I am writing today in opposition of the repeal and revisions to section 15-A of Article I of the Constitution of Virginia (SJ 270). I would like to state, first and foremost, that I am not in opposition to the redefinition of marriage due to malice for a particular person or group of persons. Further, I am not opposed to it because of mere personal preferences. In order to ask the question “what is marriage?”, which is the very question we are asking here today, it is useful to first ask the question “what is marriage for?” If marriage does not serve a purpose of some kind, the state would have no interest in protecting it. If it does have a purpose, which I think most of us would agree it does indeed, we must ask “what is this purpose?” Why is it that the state must take an interest in a personal relationship at all? After all, the state does not take a direct interest in “best friend” relationships, or “mentor-mentee” relationships, or “co-worker” relationships. These relationships all entail mutual involvement of human persons, similar to marriage. If the state does not take an interest in these, but it does take an interest in the marital relationship, we must ask why. Frankly, what makes marriage unique is that it is the relationship that involves the sexual act. But marriage being unique is not enough. We must ask why the involvement of the sexual act should mean that the state should have an interest in the relationship that houses this act. The hererosexual sexual act, by nature of what it is, is ordered towards a child’s conception. Not every such act will result in the conception of a child, but every act is so ordered, by nature of what it is. Marriage exists because conception, and even birth, is not the end of the story. Due to the rational nature of the human person, a human child takes a great deal more nurturing and care than any other living thing on earth in order to grow and develop. Further, they require more than just food, water, clothing, and shelter. They also require a special environment to grow in knowledge of themselves and others. They need a family. Marriage is a unique human relationship because it includes the sexual act and is ordered towards not only the conception of children, but also the raising of children. The order of marriage rises from the order of the sexual act itself, not the other way around. The ends of marriage and the ends of the sexual act are inextricably tied. Now, this does not mean that every marriage will result in children being brought into the world. But, similar to the marital act, every marriage is so ordered, by nature of what it is. Marriage is the institution that exists for the safeguarding of the act that leads to the conception and rearing of children and this is why the state has the right to take an interest in this relationship at all. In summation, the institution of marriage is unique from other human relationships because it is ordered towards the conception and raising of children. This end or purpose of marriage is precisely the reason why the state has an interest in such an institution to begin with. To redefine marriage as anything other than between one man and one woman undermines not only the very nature and purpose of what marriage is and what it is for, but also any reason for the state’s interest in such an institution.

I have been a resident of Virginia since attending the University of Virginia beginning in 1973. I chose to remain in Virginia as a gay man because of my faith at that time that the essential conservative nature of the state would constrain state action to regulate my private life. I have been in a committed relationship with my now husband, a native Virginian, for the last 35 of those years. I stuck with Virginia through the radical changes in the treatment of my privacy by my adopted state. I have endured decades of vilification of my very existence from the Commonwealth, including the 2006 constitutional amendment. I have incurred considerable expense over many years to protect my rights and my property by actions that no married couple in the Commonwealth need do to protect their property and rights, only then to be told that even that would not protect me. No meaningful apology or remuneration has been forthcoming from the Commonwealth. It continues to be deeply hurtful to me that this hateful provision remains on the books even though made moot by the United States Supreme Court years ago and is no longer supported by a majority of the citizens of the Commonwealth according to many reliable polls. I want an apology for the unequal treatment I have endured for nearly 50 years while a tax paying citizen of the Commonwealth. The closest thing the Commonwealth can do to meaningfully atone for the wrong that it has done to my life is to remove these provisions from the Constitution which demean me and my marriage. If the Commonwealth is to renew its hateful treatment of my marriage in future, it needs to be made difficult by requiring a new Constitutional amendment and the deliberative due process that would be attendant to that. It is wholly unacceptable to me that the Commonwealth could potentially disrespect me again using this invalid Constitutional provision to threaten my financial security and my existence. I want the apology that I am due, and I want the security I deserve. I cannot imagine that any citizen of this Commonwealth with self-respect would want any less.

I have been a resident of Virginia since attending the University of Virginia beginning in 1973. I chose to remain in Virginia as a gay man because of my faith at that time that the essential conservative nature of the state would constrain state action to regulate my private life. I have been in a committed relationship with my now husband, a native Virginian, for the last 35 of those years. I stuck with Virginia through the radical changes in the treatment of my privacy by my adopted state. I have endured decades of vilification of my very existence from the Commonwealth, including the 2006 constitutional amendment. I have incurred considerable expense over many years to protect my rights and my property by actions that no married couple in the Commonwealth need do to protect their property and rights, only then to be told that even that would not protect me. No meaningful apology or remuneration has been forthcoming from the Commonwealth. It continues to be deeply hurtful to me that this hateful provision remains on the books even though made moot by the United States Supreme Court years ago and is no longer supported by a majority of the citizens of the Commonwealth according to many reliable polls. I want an apology for the unequal treatment I have endured for nearly 50 years while a tax paying citizen of the Commonwealth. The closest thing the Commonwealth can do to meaningfully atone for the wrong that it has done to my life is to remove these provisions from the Constitution which demean me and my marriage. If the Commonwealth is to renew its hateful treatment of my marriage in future, it needs to be made difficult by requiring a new Constitutional amendment and the deliberative due process that would be attendant to that. It is wholly unacceptable to me that the Commonwealth could potentially disrespect me again using this invalid Constitutional provision to threaten my financial security and my existence. I want the apology that I am due, and I want the security I deserve. I cannot imagine that any citizen of this Commonwealth with self-respect would want any less.

Please support this bill -- it is incredibly important for my family, and to my mind, all families in Virginia. As a parent, I know that this will be supportive of my child. As a citizen, I know that this is the right thing to do --- equal rights for all. Thank you.

I write to oppose the repeal/revisions to Section 15-A of Article I of the Constitution of Virginia concerning marriage. My objections pertain to the decreased clarity in the revision around the question, “What is marriage?” If the Commonwealth claims to have interest in recognizing marriages (and not recognizing other arrangements that are not marriages), then some basis for this distinction must be given. How do we know if we are treating all marriages equally without defining what constitutes a marriage and what doesn’t? If marriage is fundamentally a pursuit of happiness contracted through mutual consent of the parties, with no special status in itself, then what compelling interest does the Commonwealth have in protecting or recognizing any marriage at all? If it does have special status, what is the basis for that status? What makes marriages different from any other kind of relationship or union is that the unitive element is sexual and comprehensive (as opposed to being, say, on the same basketball team, business partners, or even close friends). Once we introduce the element of sexuality, we have to acknowledge that every child born must have a father and a mother; this is not the result of a contract, a claimed right, or a law, but a biological necessity. This sets heterosexual unions apart from any other arrangement. Because children are themselves vulnerable and subject to the decisions of adults, the Commonwealth has a compelling interest in ensuring the safety and wellbeing of children at the hands of those adults. The obligations imposed by the Commonwealth on parents who raise children go far beyond a contractual agreement between consenting adults pursuing happiness; there are obligations that exist as a direct result of sexual union, consequences that are not biologically possible in any non-heterosexual arrangement. Even if a couple is infertile, their union is still ordered toward the producing of children, even if never result from their sexual activity, whereas a homosexual couple’s union can never be so ordered, even in principle. Because of this, it is not within the law’s power to change what constitutes a marriage. If what makes a marriage is sexual union, then heterosexual unions deserve special status because of the natural consequences of their sexual activity within that union. If the basis for what constitutes a marriage is anything else, including a mere contractual agreement to pursue happiness, then what is the Commonwealth’s compelling interest in recognizing that at all, let alone in the constitution? Finally, to the common objection: “How does two people getting married affect you or your marriage?”, I answer that enshrining a definition of marriage other than the one currently in the Virginia constitution obscures the necessity of marriage to be defined on the basis of sexual union (since it would make the contractual pursuit of happiness the de facto basis, in the absence of a more stringent definition). Enshrining a different definition would both ignore and obscure the biological fact that a children always has a man and woman as biological parents. Finally, because there’s no way for the state to be neutral on the question of marriage, a definition must be given that is necessarily exclusive of someone’s views. If the state enshrines a definition that is contrary to natural facts, it ceases to be a useful instrument and reflection of reason, which is inherently anti-democratic.

This bill highlights the fact that the actions mentioned will go into effect as soon as the bill has passed, including working towards freeing those incarcerated for marijuana charges. This is very impactful and has great potential. However, the longer this bill takes to pass, the more low income communities are targeted, resulting in more disproportionate arrests and prison sentences. What time line can the committee provide in terms of how quickly those imprisoned will be freed? In theory it sounds great to free everyone once this bill is passed, but what does this process really look like? Who will be freed first, how quickly does the committee truly expect these pardons to happen, and is there any expected resistance towards these people being freed?

Felony disenfranchisement disproportionately affects minorities and is a relic of the Jim Crow era. The right to vote is fundamental to a true democracy and should not be something that can be taken away. The first step in reforming our broken and inherently biased criminal justice system is by allowing those affected to have a say in how to improve it.

As a citizen of Virginia, I urge you to pass SJR 272 as introduced. Felony disenfranchisement is a historically racist tool explicitly intended to bar Black Americans from voting. Passing SJR 272 as it was introduced in the Senate is a more equitable and enduring solution than automatic restoration as proposed in HJ 555, which leaves this racist provision intact. 66% of Virginians are in favor of the passage of SJR 272. I urge you to listen to the will of the people and take bold action to right this historic wrong.

Hindering any citizen from voting is only limiting their capability to become a fully productive constituent. While people are incarcerated they have to pay fees every day and once home they have to pay taxes. They are held up to the financial and moral standards of being an American yet they are not allowed to have a voice in the same system they are made to respect. Sounds like modern day slavery to me.

We support SB1422 to purge the voter rolls of deceased individuals on a weekly basis, this will give our voter registrar the ability to update the roles in a timely fashion while not being overloaded with monthly reports t We Oppose SJ272 which lifts restrictions for those who have been convicted of a felony or adjudicated to be mentally incompetent. There is a process for restoration of rights for felons who have served there time, allowing a blanket gift of voting to felons serving time for violating the rights of others in unconscionable as is allowing mentally incompetent person to vote. There is nothing more important right now than to ensure election integrity.