The standards as proposed do not allow absentee voters equal protection under the law. A higher burden is placed on domestic absentee voters than on UOCAVA voters ( absentee overseas voters.) We must  treat the voter who votes absentee in the same election with the same timetable and the same ballot equally. There is no reason that the Commonwealth of Virginia shouldn't comply with the federal standards.  When a voter applies for an absentee ballot, the information is verified that the voter is a registered voter. The same standards apply to a UOCAVA voter as a domestic voter. All checks and balances are in place for both. The difference is only the information required to provide on the B envelope.  We know who the voter is by the label on all returned ballots whether they are domestic or UOCAVA voters. 

In the last sentence of 24.2-651, it is clearly stated that a properly signed envelope should not be challanged.

Any ambiguity in the law is resloved in the favor of the voter according to constitutional law.

I agree that the standards for UOCAVA voters (absent uniformed services voters and overseas voters) and the standards for non-UOCAVA, state prescribed voters (all others who are eligible voters) should be the same.  Nevertheless, if the state’s Envelope B remains codified then the following are suggested changes to the proposed text on material omissions:

Change C.1 to be “The voter has omitted his middle name when he commonly uses his first name OR (and not AND) the voter has omitted his first name when he commonly uses his middle name.”.  For example Richard Nixon for former president Richard Milhous Nixon and Ross Perot for former presidential candidate Henry Ross Perot.

Change C.3 to be “The voter has used his middle initial instead of his middle name AND/OR the voter has used his first initial instead of his first name.”.  For example, the former president George W. Bush, the novelist F. Scott Fitzgerald, and the guitarist B.B. King.

Add after C.3: “The voter has omitted the first or last part of a two-part (hyphenated or unhyphenated or linked with ‘de’) surname.”  For example, Jacqueline Kennedy or Jacqueline Onassis for former first lady Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis.

Change C.4 to be “The voter has used a nickname that is a derivative of his legal name instead of his first name AND/OR his middle name.”  For example, Jimmy Carter for former president James Earl Carter, Jr. and Norm Schwarzkopf for retired general Herbert Norman Schwarzkopf.

Change C.5 to be “The voter has not provided his residential street identifier (Street, Drive, etc.) AND/OR the voter has not provided his apartment/unit identifier (Apt. 1, etc.).”.

Add before C.8: “The signature of the voter is omitted and a ‘Request for Assistance’ was attached indicating that the voter is unable to sign.”

Change C.9 to be “The signature of the witness is illegible.”.

These suggested changes to the proposed text further reduce ambiguity with the existing stated standards.  All of these variations represents details that are not material for determining the validity of the voter’s identity but often causes time-consuming discussions during the processing of ballots.

The proposed regulation provides guidelines for a reasonable interpretation of the Code of Virginia Section 24.2-706.  The law is quite clear that the input information on "Envelope B" is required.   Thus, this regulation will assist Election Officers in processing absentee ballots in a more consistent manner and in reducing the opportunity for circumvention of the law.  The comment suggesting greater detail for non-material omissions or errors is based upon specific situations that have occurred and therefore has merit.  However, guidelines quickly become specific, narrow and inflexible rules if they attempt to cover all possible situations.  Since it is not  possible to identify all potential situations, the regulation as proposed is preferred.

The statement on "Envelope B" is a signed and witnessed oath the voters make identifying who they are and where they live and affirming their willingness to follow the process and law in voting absentee.  This signed statement is subject to the penalties in Section 24.2-1016 for false statements.  A signed statement that does not completely identify the individual making the oath is meaningless.  Information on the "Envelope A", used to return the sealed "Envelope B" containing the marked ballot, is physically separate from the oath on "Envelope B" and this information cannot be used as a source for identifying the signer of the statement.

Section 24.2-651 relates to challenges to voting in Federal elections.  By virtue of the application process for an absentee ballot, any potential challenges would occur at the time of the application before a ballot is sent to the voter.  The last sentence in Section 24.2-651 does not supercede the absentee voting requirements in 24.2-706 but it merely clarifies that the vote cannot be further challenged once the voter statement on "Envelope B" is completed and signed per 24.2-706.

This is a continuation of my previous comment.

Add after C.4: “The voter has omitted his name (generational) suffix.”  For example, James Earl Carter for former president James Earl Carter, Jr..

Even with this additional statement, there are more possibilities for further reducing ambiguities, such as for compound first names (e.g., Maria Isabel) and temporary addresses (e.g., students away at colleges).

As stated before, these cause time-consuming discussions during the processing of ballots (it seems) by some intending to follow the letter of the law and by some intending to follow the spirit of the law.  By reducing the ambiguities, the letter of the law and the spirit of the law should converge.  Again, I agree that the standards for UOCAVA voters and the standards for non-UOCAVA, state prescribed voters should be the same.  Also again, if the state’s Envelope B remains codified then the code needs to be less unambiguous so that the decisions to render ballots invalid can be made consistently and in a manner that does not slow down the process (as the volume of absentee ballots has been increasing, it would be nice if the volume of discussions decrease).

I am in agreement with the comments of Richard J. Bochner, Registered Voter, especially, the following quote (bolding is mine):

"The proposed regulations for Chapter 70, Absentee Voting, 1VAC20-70-20. Material omissions from absentee ballots, would codify material omissions that would render an absentee ballot void thereby depriving that voter the right to have his or vote counted. Because of the severity of the consequences, only genuinely serious omissions and/or errors should result in a ballot to be voided. Clearly the omission described in B4 –(The voter has not provided his house number, street name and city of residence on the B Envelope) does not rise to the level to legitimately constitute a material omission that should warrant the voiding of a ballot due to (1) the fact that the requirement to provide the legal address is inconsistently applied ; and (2) that on the domestic ballot, that same information is provided in preprinted form on the outside of the return envelope used to send the ballot back to the registrar."

I find excessive nit-picking to be offensive in the context of absentee voting, especially when the correct name and address of the voter is already pre-printed on the mailing. When faced with this kind of bureaucratism, one can only assume the purpose is to deny a registered voter his or her franchise. I would hope Virginia would be past such machinations. Therefore, keep the regulations consistent for all categories of voters, and do not treat them differently.