I am confused by the proposed changes to 1VAC20-70-20.  I cannot determine if the intent is 1) to allow the voter to enclose the marked ballot in an envelope other than the supplied Envelope B as long as the required Statement of Voter is included, or 2) to allow the marked ballot not to to be enclosed in any envelope at all as long as it is accompanied by the required Statement of Voter, or 3) to eliminate the requirement that the Envelope B must be sealed.  Further, I do not understand the meaning of "substantial compliance" in Section C.10.   I have the following comments:

• §24.2-706 states that upon the acceptance of an AB application the general registrar will send the voter a packet of material which includes "An envelope, with printing only on the flap side, for resealing the marked ballot...."  This is not called Envelope B in the Code but we know it as Envelope B.  Will this no longer be required?  Can the voter use any envelope or none if they so choose?
• It is important that marked ballot be sealed in something when it is returned.  In §24.2-711, the procedure for processing the marked ballots states that the ballot envelope shall be opened after it has been determined that the voter is entitled to vote AB (on the AB list and in compliance with the requirements of the Statement of Voter).  The order of this process is important to ensure that the decision to accept or reject the AB is based only upon the acceptability of the ballot.  If the ballot is openly available (unsealed envelope or no envelope) and can seen by the Election Officers prior to the determination of acceptability, the opportunity exists for the Officers to be influenced by how the ballot was marked.  Regardless of the low probability of this occurring, it is senseless to open up the process to potential fraud.
• "Substantial compliance" is an imprecise phrase open to wide interpretation.  Since the intent of 1VAC20-70-20 is to provide a precise interpretation of  §24.2-706 and specifically the requirements of the Statement of Voter, to introduce an imprecise phrase would have a deleterious effect on the entire regulation.  If the intent of these changes is to eliminate the requirement that the Envelope B must be used, then C.10 should say that "the substitute Statement of Voter must include all the required voter information, as interpreted by this Regulation."

This is in addition to earlier comments

Omission of the date of the voter's signature is NOT a material omission on an FWAB; therefore, it should not be a material omission on the B Envelope for the absentee voter.

We sign and seal many forms and envelopes during the election process to ensure the intergity of the electoral process. The absentee ballot is no different. If the Envelope B containing the ballot is not sealed, the information provided on the envelope is of no use - we don't know for sure who put the ballot into the envelope.

Best to leave the law as it is.

We sign and seal many forms and envelopes during the election process to ensure the intergity of the electoral process. The absentee ballot is no different. If the Envelope B containing the ballot is not sealed, the information provided on the envelope is of no use - we don't know for sure who put the ballot into the envelope.

Best to leave the law as it is.

My suggested amendments for 1 VAC 20-70-20 are as follows:

1. Delete the requirement in (B)(7) that the voter "provide the date on which he signed Envelope B." This is unnecessary and does not appear to be required by Va. Code 24.2-707. While the statement in 24.2-706 indicates that there is to be a line for the date in the Statement of Voter, 24.2-707 does not require that the date be included by the voter, while it does require that the voter and the witness sign the Statement of Voter on Envelope B. The absence in 24.2-707 is telling. This part of the regulation has real-life consequences: in the June 2013 primary, one voter's ballot was rejected solely because she had not dated the Envelope B. The ballot was otherwise fine.
2. Deleting paragraph (B)(9) and adding proposed (C)(10) are good changes! The issue with sealing the ballot is especially problematic for UOCAVA voters who received their ballots by email. It can also be an issue for non-UOCAVA voters, as we have no way of determining if the voter sealed Envelope B and, because of faulty glue, it subsequently became unsealed. The proposed changes are good because they comply with the election laws of Virginia, and they err on the side of the voter.

The purpose of these standards is to assist election officials in establishing what is, and is not, material in detemining whether a voter is qualified to vote in an election. While completion of Envelope B (statement of voter) does provide information to determine these qualifications, sealing the envelope does not seem to offer anything material in determining that voter's eligibility. W.T. Latham has provided a very clear insight into the issue voters, whether UOCAVA or Domestic, can face with sealing Envelope B.  I agree that deleting (B)(9) and adding proposed (C)(10) ar good changes.

The date of the voter's signature (B)(7) also seems unnecessary. Suggest deleting.

The Fairfax County Electoral Board and the Fairfax County Office of Elections strongly support the proposed regulatory changes whcih would establish a "substantial compliance" rule in regard to the Absentee Ballot Envelope B.  These changes will help to ensure that no voter is inadvertently disenfranchised.