Voter Registration Application:

Consistent with comments from many of my colleagues, I do not agree with the proposed resizing of the application.  The new forms will not fit in our card file cabinets.  Even if we purchase new filing cabinets, the size is unusual and will be a problem to keep in order.  Also, the difference in size will not allow it to be intermingled with existing voter registration cards.

The portion of the card for previous registration needs to be at either the top or bottom of the application to allow for easy separation and notification to other states.

Agency Regulation:

The requirement to attempt to contact an applicant by phone when we cannot change any information on the application is not an efficient use of resources.   For an applicant who indicates a middle initial without providing the middle name, written authorization to make a change is required, so the application should be denied and a new application mailed to the voter explaining the issue.  If they have no middle name, they will still need a new application so they can check the box on the application indicating “none” or can call us to confirm that they have no middle name… we cannot mark that change for them.  Written notices to the voter provide a paper trail documenting your communication with the voter.

The option for checking “none” for the social security number will result in problems.  If we search VERIS and find a voter in another locality where all else matches, do we deny based on the fact that our current signed application indicates they do not have a social security number?  I fear many will check none just because they do not want to provide the number.

§24.2-418 requires the voter to provide specific information.  If the General Assembly desires to change those requirements, so be it, but I don’t think we should water down the requirements by creating work-arounds in the form of agency regulations.