Form:  The new format for the application to register to vote has some flaws.  The new form is higher by about one inch.  This doesn't sound like much but this creates a filing nightmare.  The taller application will quickly rip or become bent.  It will also create difficulty in finding application behind the taller applications.  In order to get the form somewhat close to our current application size we would have to bend the signinature portion backwards; other cards will get stuck in the fold.

Question # 6 Previous registration is now a part of the permanent application.  We will now need to copy the complete application black out the protected information before notifying other states that the voter has moved.   Some states require the notice to be mailed. This will be time consuming when registration volume is high.

Regulations:   Line 11 B page 1.  The application can not be denied even with the omission of the following: Gender, Social Security Number, U.S. citizenship, felony question, mentally incapacitated.  Now it states that if the voter signs the application (affirmation)  that  is enough to allow them to be registered.  Most people who are registering NEVER READ THE AFFIRMATION SOME DON'T UNDERSTAND ENGLISH and would be signing this section not understanding that false information is punishable by a felony and large fines.

Line 41 C.  Pertaining to middle name if the voter doesn't provide one or fails to indicate none the Registrar shall :

1.  Attempt to call to get the name  a.  If application indicates there is no middle name we process the application. b. The applicant indicates he has a middle name and verbally gives it to the Registrar (the Registrar then denies the application????) This is what it says so why bother calling in the first place.

2.  If the registrar is unable to contact the applicant and unable to determine if the application is complete the Registrar shall give the benifit of the doubt and process the application. So why is the registrar calling in the first place.  Please remove A and B they make no sense.

Line 11 D page 2.  A general registrar shall not change information provided by an applicant on an applicaiton for voter registration without written authorization signed by the applicant.  Wouldn't getting a middle name or checking a box indicating None be changing the application.  Registrars call potential voters for various reasons.  One being unable to read the applicants writing.  We will mark the form so that we can read the information. Should I just deny 80% of my applications due to the wording of section D?  Please remove D or word it differently.        

The PROS of the proposed form update:

#1        Residence Address clearly states “May NOT be a P.O box”

#2        Number 5 offers “NO” first and all four lines are lined up evenly

The CONS of the proposed form update:

#1        The size – if the size is truly 7.5 x 6.5, our filing cabinets will not hold them

#2        In our locality, Number 6 is cut off & forwarded to the locality in which the voter has moved from. This new layout does not allow for that.

#3        Number 6 no longer requires a SSN – helps with the clarification of cancellation

#4        The Protected Code Section does not specify that a PO box is required

#5        Spacing Issues – Particularly with Number 3 & Number 6

The Application - Format: The size of the new form is not conducive to our current filing system.  To change our filing system now is to cause a financial burden on my locality.  Information Required: Part 1 for the SSN – “Write “None,” if no number…” will cause confusion for voters.  We have never come across a situation as long as we can remember that a voter has NOT had a SSN.  Please consider striking that verbiage.

The Regulations – Part B:  omissions are not material – Having read the changes and reviewing the application we can resolve the size issue.  It would seem that as a registrar I would only need the potential voters SSN (only if he/she had one); date of birth; full name (but not really because their suffix isn’t really needed); residential address (and mailing if different) and last but not least a signature.  Well maybe a mark if sworn or strike that it doesn’t have to be sworn if the check box in 7 hasn’t been checked.

I apologize if this seems to be sarcastic but it is extremely frustrating as a registrar to take what is perceived to be a simple change (i.e. increased size of the application) but has far larger impact on those of us that have to implement those changes.

seriously?  (shaking head in bewilderment...)

I agree with all the previous comments that were made and would like to include one more issue.  The revised regulations state we should accept the application even if required fields are not filled out as long as they sign the bottom but at the top of the application, it states: "Starred (*) items are required. If you do not complete all of the items that are marked with *, your application may be denied."  These statements are contradictory.  Why make fields required when in actuality, they are not! 

there are many other issues other than the ones already mentioned in this forum.....i'm an hour late leaving now because i've been going over this and don't want to take any more time tonight to finish review and comments....regulation(s) poorly written....my apologies to the author(s), but you did ask for comments....

I was under the impression that the application and policy revisions were being conducted by a workgroup that included General Registrars (GR). I apologize for my misunderstanding. Ivory Tower comes to mind. No experienced and practicing (feet on the ground) GR would willingly accept these changes. I didn't expect that the result would be to obfuscate, rather than simplify, the form and process. What I did, and still do, expect are rational changes that make both registration and processing easier. Please go back to the design phase and get some professional input from the people that have to make this work.

Form:

   > Will require filing system modifications throughout all localities (unfunded mandate)

   > Makes compliance with other state notification laborious

   > Will require many additional processing hours (unfunded mandate) during our busiest season

   > Does not make the form any easier to understand

   > Will not result in fewer form completion or processing errors

Policy:

From Virginia Election Law:

§ 24.2-418. Application for registration.

The form of the application to register shall require the applicant to provide the following information: full name; gender; date of birth; social security number, if any; whether the applicant is presently a United States citizen; address of residence in the precinct; place of last previous registration to vote; and whether the applicant has ever been adjudicated incapacitated or convicted of a felony, and if so, under what circumstances the applicant's right to vote has been restored.

___________________________

Just because you don’t agree with a law doesn’t mean that you can write policy to eliminate it. I can ALMOSTaccept that if the voter registration requirements are prominently and clearly stated that a signature might legally suffice for the pre-requisites. However, some of the other omissions designated as immaterial (full name, gender, and ssn) seem to be in conflict with law since the law states SHALL, not “Well, only if you want to provide the information.” These changes would require a change in code, not a change in agency policy.

If these changes move forward, please include a statement that previous versions of the application may still be accepted – then ship me 500 cases, which just might see me (and my Senior Assistant GRs) through to retirement.

Otherwise, No!

1. Change Gender to Sex (Facebook allows 58 different genders or more...)
2. Social Security- Allowing someone to write NONE might encourage more instances of persons with SS electing to put none because they don't want to give.  It might be seen as a choice.  There are too few people without one to call special attention to it.
3.  Citizenship - Not requiring this to be checked is not consistent with DMV requirements; should be consistent
4. Box 7- Double standard or mistake? A new voter could check disability, not sign or make a mark and not be required to have a witness, whereas the instructions under SIGNATURE state currently registered voters with disability must sign, or make a mark and have a witness signature if a mark is made.
5.  Size of form does not conform to current standards; not all offices may have the capability to scan apps; may cause confusion and contribute to lack of uniformity in GR offices; VERIS has been known to go down during high activity and paper is the backup
6. OnVAC 20-40-70 regulations, #12 & #13 language is confusing "response affirmatively" does this mean voter left question blank?
7.  I am not in favor of being able to leave citizenship and felony blank in lieu of signing the affirmation. These are straightforward questions clearly represented.  Will slow down processing and could encourage voters/advocacy groups to promote skipping the information.

SIZE, SIZE, SIZE!!!!  FIX this to fit / match our current size.  IF you remove the "write None" wording under the SSN number you can move that section line way up. If you flip flop section 6 and 7 you will almost gain enough space that the application once again is the regular standard size.

So here are suggestions:

1. Switch / reverse/ flip boxes 6 and 7 so we can continue to use box 6 to cut off and send to other states.

2. Remove "write none" under SSN and move the section line up to gain space.

3. Remove "*" beside middle name and suffix. Should not be required.

4. Remove Check box and wording for people with physical disabilities.  Needs to be re-worded similar to our current form, with signature lines for signer or assistant.

5. Put receipt on back like current form and make the important information at the top much larger. Use layout of current form for these two sections so they are front to back.

I just reviewed the newly proposed Voter Registration Application as well as the regulations that follow. First of all, the size of the new registration forms present a problem. It is simply too large, length wise, to file with our existing registration forms without folding back section 7(Affirmation and Signature Line). If the location of section 6 (Previous Voter Registration Information) was swapped with section 7, this would eliminate the problem. If filled out, the section asking for previous voter registration info could be folded back allowing the signature line to be visible when viewing the document once it has been cut down to filing size.

Also, the layout of this form may make it hard for a voter to visually locate each section. There are 7 sections. Section 1 and 2 are read from top to bottom. When you reach section 3 and 4 they are read from left to right. Finally, sections 5,6, and 7 are read from top to bottom. The first time I reviewed this application format, I completely missed section 4 because I naturally wanted to continue to read from top to bottom despite the numbered indicators prompting me to change directions. I realize section 4 is not a required field, however, it does provide the registrar's office with valuable information that I would hate to see omitted due to a formatting issue.

Finally, the regulations that accompany the new form present some confusion as well. On page1, sections 11-13 of the Proposed Revisions to Voter Registration Application Regulations are considered non material omissions IF the applicant has signed the affirmation. This means that a voter would now be able to submit an application, formerly considered incomplete, and the registration office would be required to accept it as long as they've signed the affirmation.

I'm wondering what the purpose of including sections 11-13 is if they are technically allowed to be left blank as long as a signature is present. I understand that if an individual has been convicted of a felony or has been declared mentally incapacitated they must list the date that their rights were restored in order to register. However, it just seems a bit pointless to mark these sections on the actual application with an asterisk indicating that they are "required" when we will process their application without this information, providing the applicant signed the form.

I realize a change like this is complicated, however, I hope these points will be considered before moving forward with the updated registration form.

There is basically nothing about this new form that I like.  I do not see how any of these changes make it either easier to fill out, or easier to process.  Like the other comments, the size alone is enough to send it back to the drawing board. And where is the "For Office Use Only" that was on the back?  And why are the instructions on the last page?  People tend not to read instructions to begin with, and clearly placing them on the back of the application/or on Page 2, just makes it that more likely that no one will read them.  What exactly about the current form's ( SBE-416.2 Rev. 7/14 ) basic information really needed to be changed?  Clearly the Identification Requirement information at the top of the form needed to be updated.  And the Protected Voter Code from the current application could probably be placed better.

If the main intent was to include the Affirmation Statement in lieu of the Registration Statement, then simply place that on the current form and be done with it.

I agree with all of the comments above I would also like to point out that it appears they put the voter instructions on the back of the registration form, looking at the "cut here line".  If that is the case we will no longer be able to make notes on the back of the cards.  This is the only way we can keep track of any changes such as address change, name change, precinct, denial date and reason, deceased, out of state, the list goes on.   If this is not the case I would like to see what the back of the form will look like.

Items of real concerns:

• Size of application is too large for the locality's current filing system
• #6 - location is not appropriate due to our locality cuts off the information and mails to other states as needed; must consider relocating the placement of #6 on the application
• Affirmatively indicating that the applicant is not a felon in Box 5 if the applicant has signed the affirmation is not material
• Affirmatively indicating that the applicant has not been previously adjudicated to be mentally incapacitated in Box 5 if the applicant has signed the affirmation is not material
• Concerning middle name attempts---accept, deny or cannot determine if application is incomplete then give the benefit of doubt to the applicant and process---- ?????
• Must have the section "For Office Use Only" added to the back of the voter registration application; this section is definitely needed for every locality's office use
• Must keep the placement of last name, first name and middle name on the application so when the application is filed you can thumb thru alpha cards and see the names of individuals in a consistent manner
• List of content placement on the application needs to be kept to the order of keying the alpha card in VERIS.
• Please consider eliminating in Box #7 the check box ----by checking this box, I affirm both that I am an individual with physical disabilities and the Affirmation statement above; eliminate the line for "Signature of individual acknowledging the mark of above. Not required except for certain applicants with physical disabilities. See Instructions. This gives more opportunities for errors when filling out the application. Form needs to be more simplified; sometimes less is better.
• Background of application does not need to be highlighted in blue. The blue is distracting.
• Please consider doing more revision of VA -NVRA -1 07/15 in order to simplify its format as being both user friendly as well as office friendly.

While appreciate the time and effort on someone’s part to make all of these changes I do not see any benefit to them forth citizen or the registrar community at large. I am not going to re-state the many issues that have been stated before. I will however mention that this seems to be an attempt to update a form that was working perfectly well for everyone as far as I know. Please do not try and fix what is not broken. When you do you end up with this "update" and quite frankly sad attempt at a voter registration form.

As far as the Application Regulations, again I will not restate the correct observations of my colleagues, but will again say that it would appear that these were written by someone who has never processed a voter registration application ever. Please revisit this with input from the GR community.

I think Jason's subject line pretty much says it all. Please try again. My colleagues have already given many thoughtful responses.  For my two cents: size matters and we need a an "Official Use Only" place to write precinct assignment, etc. I do like the attempt to clarify the difference between residence address and mailing address.

New Voter Registration Application –

The size of the application does not match the current or past application sizes and will not fit into current locality filing systems.  To properly fit, the application will have to be folded increasing the possibility of being damaged in the filing system.

Not all localities have the ability to scan documents, which appears where this may be headed.  Will the Virginia Department of Elections be providing scanners to localities?  Should this be the direction we are headed, it seems the Virginia Department of Elections should be providing guidance on how to transition over from paper files to scanned files (best practices).  Many localities do not have the resources to convert existing records and will have to work with both.  We are already dealing with transfers from jurisdictions already scanning documents or not printing online applications.

The previous voter registration information section is no longer in an area that can be removed from the voter registration application.  Code Section 24.2-418 requires the GR to retain the portion of the application relating to the previous registration or a copy and to send the original or copy to the other state where the applicant formerly resided.  The new format will ensure each locality is retaining this section and it can be kept with the voter record.  Either way (previous or new), a copy has to be made.  It would be nice if the previous registration information was captured in VERIS and a report could be generated for sending to other states.  The previous registration information in VERIS would have to be set up to accept basic information as some applicants can’t remember complete addresses, etc.

Non-material omissions –

While the “Affirmation” statement specifically mentions affirmation of citizenship, felony conviction and/or adjudication of incapacity, not all people read before signing.  “Is this our problem?”  Yes – this could lend itself to records with non-citizens, felons, etc.  However, the National Form does not specifically ask about felony conviction or adjudication of incapacity, but allows for the signing of the document using the statement “I have reviewed my states instructions and swear/affirm that:  I am a United States Citizen.  I meet the eligibility requirements of my state and subscribe to any oath required.”  If one does not mark the box for citizenship, felony conviction or adjudicated to be mentally incapacitated, can legal action be taken based on them signing the application should it be determined they are not a citizen, have been convicted of a felony and/or have been adjudicated to be mentally incapacitated?

Middle name –

If the applicant does not include a middle name and does not indicate NONE, the registrar shall:

Attempt to contact applicant and obtain middle name or lack thereof

If applicant indicates they have a middle name – deny the application

But if unable to contact the applicant to determine if the application is incomplete – applicant is given the benefit of doubt and we process the application

Really!  This doesn’t seem fair.  If you answer the phone and provide the missing middle name, we deny your application.  If you don’t answer the phone, we process your application any way.

What is considered an attempt?  Phone, Email, Mail

What if no phone number or email address has been provided?

Seems like an area that could potentially be handled differently throughout the Commonwealth….

Change is inevitable and an open mind helps.  It would be nice if the Virginia Department of Elections shared some of the thought process behind the new Voter Registration Application and the reasoning for the changes in advance of the comment period.

Proposed Regulations:  National Voter Registration Application does not specify the felony and mental competency questions, and we are required to accept that form; therefore, I can see where SBE is coming from on that issue.  I do see a lot of denials because registrants skip one of the questions and answer no to having their rights restored instead of answering the questions themselves.  Majority are from DMV.  My Commonwealth's Attorney will not attempt any investigation for false statements on applicants using the National Application because the felony question is not specified.  Regarding the absence of a signature from an applicant with physical disabilities, I don't think it unreasonable to think at some point someone would be available to enter their information as a witness.  If the applicant electronically enters and prints out the application, someone is going to have to get it in an envelope and mail it. Instructions for signature requirement are confusing.  I do not have a problem giving leeway on the middle name if other identifying information is on the application.  With heightened awareness on scam phone calls, trying to obtain information for fraudulent means, I do not call my applicants.

New Voter Registration Application:  The final application needs to remain consisent with the size from the last 50 years and the "For Office Use Only"  needs to remain on the back.  Our file cabinets were purchased and maintained for the approximately 8" x 5" applications and even DMV has made allowances over the years to keep it sized correctly height wise even if we have to trim off the sides.  We may be considered old fashioned to like having a hard copy in locking file cabinets, but many of us remember VERIS being unavailable for weeks due to VITA outage and know electronic scanning isn't going to answer all our issues. There are many times I have been able to answer a voter's question by going to the file cabinet before we can get the computer and VERIS unlocked and operational.  If the blue tint is part of the planned new application it needs to go away.  Most voters are not going to waste color ink, and the light gray when printed in black and white makes it difficult to read the application. There is a lot of wasted space on the new planned application.  Items 3 and 4 are least important and not required information, but they are given prominence.  Item 6 for previous voter registration information needs to be moved to a detachable part of the application.  We are required by law to send it to other states. Making copies of  the entire application will be costly, not just for paper but postage as well. I have had 20 or more cancellations going to neighboring states at one time.   To save the state money, just have the application in plain black and white (like DMV).  The current red is nice but expensive. 

First of all, thank you for the effort put into updating the application - the format seems easier to read.  Some suggestions:

1.  We are required to file the previous voter info to other states, so this section needs to be easily cut off the form. With the new form, we would be have to cut off the signature section too, so our suggestion is to move Section 6  to Section 1 and change the wording to: "Are you currently registered to vote?" instead of 'Previous Voter Registration', followed by the yes/no selections. This wording seems clearer to the general public and would be less likely to be missed.

2.  SSN should not include the option of 'none'. We fear that voters will not include the SSN for privacy issues which will then cause denials. The denial letter that VERIS prints out could explain the procedure if the voter truly has no SSN.

3.  Mailing address needs to be directly under the residence address line to keep voters from skipping over it.  The protected voter options can shift to the right.

4. We STRONGLY recommend keeping the permanent record as 8" x 5".  By eliminating the italicized words under SSN, and shifting the Previous Voter Reg. Info to #1, you are left with an application that can be cut to 8 x 5, which we tested by rearranging according to our recommendations stated above, and the voter's name appears in about the same position it currently does, which makes it easy to locate in the drawers.

5. For the Protected Voter information I would recommend that the wording for the PO Box be put back into the instructions under the Protected Voter Requirements instead of the Address Requirements.

6.  We are not clear about what the back of the form will be.  We recommend having the same basic design for the backs as our current applications have for office use.

Which intern developed this form?  No one that deals with these forms everyday would have designed it this way.  Obviously ELCT has decided to do everything on its own without working with General Registrars.  This forms creates several issues for localities:

Form:

   > The form is too large for our present filing systems.  The localities will be forced to purchase new filing systems (unfunded mandate)

   > Sending cancelation notices to other states would become extremely difficult.  You would hav to copy entire page instead of sending cut-off portion of present form.

   > As A. J. Cole mentioned it will require many additional processing hours (unfunded mandate) during our busiest season.

  > #6 should be below signature line.

Plus, ELECT is supposed to follow the law  and not do its best to get around it.

I agree that this is would be a cost savings for ELECT but not for the localities. It needs to be revised in a manner that is user friendly for the applicant as well as the registrar that has to process and file it. Like they say, "It looks good on paper" but when you actually have to do something with it...well that is a different story.

This form does not meet the requirements of common sense, much less the law. The General Assembly has mandated the requirements for the application and expects those requirement to be kept, or else the requirements would be changed.

But the other part of this has not been address, the VA Costitution, Article II, Section 2:

Applications to register shall require the applicant to provide the following information on a standard form: full name; date of birth; residence address; social security number, if any; whether the applicant is presently a United States citizen; and such additional information as may be required by law. All applications to register shall be completed by or at the direction of the applicant and signed by the applicant, unless physically disabled. No fee shall be charged to the applicant incident to an application to register.

I agree with most comments made regarding the proposed new registration form.  It certainly appears that based on the comments that, at the very least, these concerns need to be addressed before this form is sent to the printer and shipped to the localities.

1. Restore the traditional size. Filing would be a nightmare if the size were changed.  Registration cards have been the same size for many years, our systems accommodate them perfectly, leave it alone, please.

2.  Remove the nonsense under the SSN, it will create problems where there are none. It will also save space on the form.

3.  The "Protected Voter" info is going to confuse the average voter, put it back near the signature line where it appeared in the past.

4.  Items 6 & 7 need to be flipped.  No explanation needed.

5.  Remove the color, place a box in bold lines around the form.

6. Put the receipt on the reverse like the old form, and restore the "office use only" portion on the back. .

**Thanks for adding "Today's date" to the oath area, for some reason people often write their birthdate in it!**

I don't want to speak for the GR community, but I believe an explanation for the need to replace the existing application would go a long way in calming my own ire toward this new one. I actually think this application will work IF the size issue is resolved. So, how do we cut 1.5" off of this one to make it fit our standard files:

1. On question 1, replace SSN "None" language (and the line) with a check box and the word "None" placed beside the words "Social security number". Space savings: .25"

2. On question 2, remove "See instructions" in both cases. Reasonable people will know to "See instructions," unreasonable ones won't be convinced by the suggestion. Space savings: .125"

3. On question 3, move "E-mail address" above the line (or shorten the line and put it next to it). Space savings: .125"

4. On question 5, "mentally incapiciated" qestion could be a single line. Move "If YES" language and date boxes up to the first line. Form is redundant (asks same question twice). Space savings: .125"

4. On question 6, remove "If Yes, ..." bold-italic line. The applicant just checked "Yes" above, seeing the line there should be enough prompt to fill in the blanks. OR move the "If Yes" language up to the first line after "Previous Voter Registration Information) Either way, space savings: .25"

5. Removing the question numbers themselves (they don't mean anything to the applicant) allows you to  reduce the top/bottom padding for each box and would save another .100" to .125" inch per box. Space savings: ~.660"

Total space savings with all of these changes: 1.535" (Room to spare!)

OR: You could also shrink the from 1.25" simply by moving question 6 below question 7 for ease of separation by GR staff and then you'd only need to find an additional .25" from one of suggestions above to get back to the original form size.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Good luck!

As a new Registrar with only 16 months of experience, I would like to make the following comments:

SIZE - It does concern me that the new form is a size that is not suited for our current filing system. Even though the new form would be a cost savings for the State, it would be very costly for my office. We would incur the expense of a new filing system to include filing cabinets, labels, labor, etc. I know there is a future option to scan the applications which would eliminate the physical filing. The applications would be stored in VERIS, BUT what happens when VERIS is down and we have a voter issue that requires the need to look at our alpha files for verification. I always feel better having a paper backup. My concern with this paper size change is it is just reallacting expenses to localities instead of the State. As you know we are all under budget restraints.

INFO - It is very important to have a form that is user friendly, but also provides information that allows a person to be registered accurately. I feel it is important to have the full SSN so that a person can be verified properly. Without verfying information you could end up with inaccurate information, duplicate voters, possible felons, etc. Our goal is always to have all voters registered accurately and properly and to accompllish that goal we need to have information for verification. We also feel that a phone number should be required so that information can be verified if needed.

Thank you for allowing me to voice my concerns.

I'd like to piggy-back on all of the comments my brilliant colleagues have taken the time to detail below.  PLEASE do not proceed with this proposed application without taking these points into thoughtful consideration.  I feel that a "GR Work Group" is in needed to revise this draft.

**No SSN# needed...REALLY???  (shaking my head)

Overall, the negatives outweight the positives.

Remove verbage under SS#- Write "None" if no number has ever been issued.  More citizens than not have been issued a SS#.  If this verbage is there, many citizens may choose to write "NONE" even if a SS# has been issued.  If NONE is indicated, will it be up to the registrars to do some sort of verification that a SS# has not been issued?  Move Mailing Address under Residence Address.....mailing address seems to get lost on form where it is currently positioned.  #6 should not be in body of application....needs to be able to be torn off to be used to notify other states when a voter has transferred into VA.    Having a back to application is a must to document voter changes, etc.  Size of application does not work....leave as current size.  I am in agreement with ALL comments previously posted that I did not cover here.  Thank you in advance for your consideration of all of the comments posted when revising the application.  In all honesty, I think the current application works well.

First I would like to address the size of the new proposed voter registration application. It will not fit in the in the current file drawers. I believe that will be the case with most if not all offices. I am not sure what kind of savings this is for ELECT, but it will be a huge cost for localities that already have file cabinets that the current size application/alpha card will fit in. Many localities have purchased the sleeves that the alpha card will slide into to protect them. They could probably be folded, but that will take more time and the current files can get caught up in the folds and create more problems.

There are several boxes that could be eliminated if applicants cannot be denied if they leave them blank. Just include them in the affirmation.( By signing the affirmation below, you confirm you are a US citizen, you are not a felon/or your rights have been restored,  and you have not been previously adjudicated to be mentally incapacitated. The box for Gender should be eliminated as well if they cannot be denied for not providing that information. Why take up the space for boxes?

Under the line for middle name it should say “required or write none”; otherwise, localities are supposed to attempt to contact the applicant. If we can’t reach them by phone, then I guess we send a letter along with a new application in the event they do have a middle name and have to fill out another application and then we wait for a response. If we can reach them by phone, and they indicate they have a middle name, we have to deny the application and send them another one. If we cannot verify they do or do not have a middle name, we cannot deny the application and have to assume they do not have a middle name. That is a lot of time and money to just accept the application anyway.

An applicant cannot be denied if their mailing address is different from the residence address. Does this mean they can use another physical address because the old form says it must be a post office box. This is a huge reoccurring problem when you have people registering and have no physical mail box in front of their residence, cannot afford to buy one to put up and cannot afford to pay for a PO Box. If we tell them they cannot have their mail sent to their friends’, neighbors’, parents’ or one of their children’s “physical” addresses are we not telling them they have to spend money to be registered to vote?

 I agree with several other Registrar’s that the previous voter registration information is certainly in an inconvenient spot on the application. I am not sure why it is included at all if it is immaterial and we cannot deny an application if it is not provided.

Please take into consideration the extra work and money it is going to cost in processing the proposed application. None of us have money in the budget for anything extra as it is.

I hope that ELECT will "go back to the drawing board" on the new registration application and utilize input from a  workgroup of stakeholders.

in addition to all of the valid comments posted by those who have posted.....this is my third post - sorry...did i mention how much $$ i spent on the purchase of a nice weight vinyl "sleeve" in which we insert each of our active alpha cards??  it is so nice not having to thumb through the paper cards and wear them out even faster....the new form would not fit in our "vinyl sleeves" and having them makes such an improvement in the appearance and handling of our files as well as preserving the original alpha card.....would it help for us all to make an appearance at the next meeting?

The design presented by the Dept. of Elections is definitely flawed. Size and color are two big no-no's right off the bat. ELECT needs to consider the advice of those that have commented and make a few common sense corrections.

Relying on the old adage “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, as my guiding light, I would respectfully suggest that the proposed new Virginia voter registration application form will create more problems than it will solve. The only consistent, repeated problem that our office sees with the current Virginia voter registration application form is that, for some reason or another, a significant number of applicants tend to miss the very first question – i.e. the question that asks if the applicant is a U.S. citizen? – and many applicants accordingly leave this blank, and this requires us to deny these applications.

 As far as all of the rest of the current form, the applicants generally seem to understand it, and provide the necessary information, and so I am not sure that it is a good idea to change the whole form all around as is proposed. In addition, the proposed new form would apparently make the original “alpha card”, which we store in our files, larger than the current 5” x 8” form, which would require all registrars’ offices to change their methods of storing the forms. We would be intermixing 5” x 8” forms with larger forms, which would create lots of practical difficulties with respect to filing and retrieval of the alpha cards.

 If other localities are truly experiencing significant problems with the current form – other than the main problem that I have outlined above (i.e. applicants missing the citizenship question), then I think it would be good for us to hear about them, as a justification for changing the current form.

 However, if, as I suspect, other localities are experiencing one major problem and one major problem only, with the current form – i.e., applicants missing the citizenship question – then I would suggest that a very simple alteration of the current form – enlarging and bolding the print on the citizenship question – would remedy this issue, without creating different problems that would give us trouble down the road.

 In addition to practical concerns regarding the proposed new Virginia voter registration application form, I have some serious concerns with respect to the accompanying proposed new regulation regarding non-material omissions to voter registration applications – 1VAC20-40-70. The new proposed regulation would require registrars to accept a voter registration application, notwithstanding that the application did not:

 A) provide the applicant’s Social Security number;

B) affirmatively indicate that the applicant is a US citizen;

C) affirmatively indicate that the applicant is not a convicted felon;

D) affirmatively indicate that the applicant has not been adjudicated mentally incapacitated.

 On the one hand, Va. Code §24.2-418 (A) gives the State Board the authority to prescribe the form of the Virginia voter registration application. On the other hand, Va. Code §24.2-418 (A) also affirmatively and unequivocally establishes the parameters of the Virginia voter registration form, as follows:

 “The form of the application to register shall require the applicant to provide the following information: full name; gender; date of birth; Social Security number, if any; whether the applicant is presently a United States citizen; address of residence in the precinct; place of last previous registration to vote; and whether the applicant has ever been adjudicated incapacitated or convicted of a felony, and if so, under what circumstances the right to vote has been restored.”

Va. Code §24.2-418 (A) (emphasis added).

 Under familiar principles of Virginia law, an agency’s regulatory power is circumscribed by legislation.*

 With respect to the proposed regulation regarding non-material omissions on a voter registration application form, the Virginia code section authorizing the State Board to adopt a form for the voter registration application form specifically sets out requirements of that form – these are not voluntary or optional, but are plainly mandatory – and among them are the requirement that the form require the applicant to provide a social security number, affirmatively indicate whether or not the applicant is a US citizen, affirmatively indicate whether or not the applicant is a felon, and affirmatively indicate whether or not the applicant has been adjudicated mentally incapacitated. Notwithstanding these mandatory and unequivocal directives of the statute, the proposed regulation, in conjunction with the proposed new Virginia voter registration application form, would abandon each of these requirements. Accordingly, it seems to me that the proposed regulation would not withstand judicial scrutiny.

 The inclusion, in section 7, of the proposed new registration application form, of the pre-printed “catchall” language – stating that the applicant affirms citizenship, non-felon status, and non-incapacitated status – would not appear to cure these problems, because the provisions of §24.2-418 (A) require the applicant to address “whether” he/she is a US citizen, a convicted felon, or adjudicated mentally incapacitated – which clearly calls for a considered “yes” or “no” response, and which does not seem to be met by the blanket preprinted affirmation contained in section 7. Alternatively, if the blanket preprinted affirmation contained in section 7 is sufficient to meet the requirements of §24.2-418 (A), then this begs the question of why the proposed new application form should include the citizenship box in section 1, or any of section 5 (regarding felony conviction and/or adjudication of incapacity) at all?

 If registrars were to be required to process voter registration applications under the proposed new regulation and form, and if a subsequent judicial challenge to the regulation and form determined that the regulation and form were void because they ignored the statutory requirements, then there would be resulting chaos, where registrars tried to go back through their prior acceptance of voter registrations to determine whether they had accepted some applications notwithstanding the plain mandate of the code requirements, and whether those applications were retroactively void. There seems to be little to recommend this Russian roulette approach, and a lot to be said for sticking with the current form, just modified slightly so as to bring the citizenship question more to the attention of the applicants.

 If there exists a body of evidence that affirmatively indicates that, because of the current form of the Virginia voter registration application, Virginia voter registrars have been consistently and wrongfully denying voter registration to qualified applicants, then I could understand the need for some revision to the voter registration application form. However, the only denials of registration applications that my office sees on a fairly regular basis are denials because the applicant neglected to respond to the US citizenship question. I think that this issue could be much more easily resolved – and resolved while maintaining the statutory requirements for Virginia registration applications – by simply enlarging and bolding the print on the citizenship question on the current form, to more forcefully bring that to the attention of the applicants.

Respectfully submitted,

 Richard J (Jake) Washburne

General Registrar, Albemarle County

 * See, e.g., Mirant Potomac River, LLC v. Commonwealth, Record No. 2067-08-2 (Va. App. 6/23/2009) (Va. App., 2009):

   "On review, the interpretation which an administrative agency gives its [law] must be accorded great deference." Jackson v. Marshall, 19 Va. App. 628, 633-34,  454 S.E.2d 23, 26 (1995) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). However, when the question before us is solely a matter of statutory interpretation and whether the administrative agency's regulation complies with that statute, we will not afford such deference to the agency. Id. at 634, 454 S.E.2d at 26 (stating that "[c]ourts must construe and determine compliance with the statutes governing adoption of administrative regulation irrespective of the agency's construction, and not merely rubber-stamp an agency determination. Agency action, even when supported by substantial evidence, must be set aside if judicial review reveals a failure . . . to comply with statutory authority." (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). Indeed, "[w]hen the legislature delegates authority to an administrative agency to promulgate regulations, those regulations must neither exceed the scope of the authority delegated nor be inconsistent with it." Avalon Assisted Living Facilities v. Zager, 39 Va. App. 484, 508,  574 S.E.2d 298, 309 (2002). Thus, a question of statutory interpretation and regulatory compliance with statutory authority involves a pure question of law, and, therefore, on appeal, we review it de novo. Va. Cellular v. Va. Dept. of Taxation, 276 Va. 486, 490,  666 S.E.2d 374, 376 (2008) (citing Ainslie v. Inman, 265 Va. 347, 352,  577 S.E.2d 246, 248 (2003)).

The current registration form is fine. All GR staff are accustmed to the layout / ease of assisting citizens, they fit in our registation holders and can be copied with ease.  The only item that would be helpful to update is number 1 - citizenship.  Make sure that's prominent and leave the form alone please.

Let me begin by saying the size of the application will be a  problem!  The size of the form we have used for the past 27 years I have been in this office, has always remained the same size even with design changes.  A New filing systems will be very costly at a time our county has just purchased new voting equipment. 

If it is Elect's intent that all Voter Registration offices will be scanning application, therefore filing will not be a problem; first of all we do not have that ability and secondly having had issues with VERIS at very crucial times, I would never feel comfortable not having hard copies of Alphas to access when necessary!

I find the instruction to the applicant on the new form confusing  (i.e. signature instructions) nor do the instructions to the applicant in anyway match the proposed way in which we are to process the application!

 If we are not going to require a person to mark that they are a citizen or not, give us a SS#, tell us whether they have been convicted of a felony or have been adjudicated,  we will end up with a very large amount of non-citizen, adjudicated and felons on our Voter Registration rolls, because we are assuming they read the "Affirmation" before they signed.  The reason I say this is in watching people fill out applications over the years, once we stopped having to say the "Oath" to folks before they signed, very few ever  read the "Statement or the Affirmation" they just sign.

Moving the previous up into the body of the application will require us to make copies of the whole application, redacting SS# and DOB prior to mailing to other states.  Another problem I have with sending the entire application is that we will be giving other agencies current residential information on our voters who will be unaware we are doing so.  All the loosing state needs is a voter's prior residential information.

What we have been using has worked why is there a need to redesign the form or the way we process the applications.  If colored ink is an issue, black and white is just fine, that is how most of our DMV and mail in applications come to us now. 

1) §24.2-418 states that, "Each applicant to register SHALL provide...the information necessary to complete the application to register".

 The Code section goes on to state, that the application shall require THE APPLICANT to provide the following information:  "Full name, gender; date of birth; social security number, if any: whether the applicant is presently a United States citizen; address of residence in the precinct; place of last previous registration to vote;and whether the applicant has ever been adjudicated incapacitated or convicted of a felony, and if so, under what circumstances the applicant's right to vote has been restored."

§24.2-418 continues with the following statement, "...the registration application shall not be pre-populated with information the applicant is required to provide."

By placing the statement in the oath that the applicant meets the requirements, the form is certainly pre-populated with almost half of the information the applicant himself is REQUIRED to provide.

The omission any of the information required of the applicant, by the Code of Virginia, must result in a denial of application. To do otherwise, or pass an agency regulation that not only allows the omission, but requires acceptance of an applicant who has NOT stated that they are a citizen, Not a felon, or NOT incapacitated, or checks a box that they have no social security number is a serious threat to the integrity of the Commonwealth's voter rolls. Not to mention simply illegal.

This application, and the applicable regulation is an attempted end run around the Code. When the Code no longer requires these things, I'll be on board.

2) Standard Agency guidance has also required the denial of any application which does not include any of the information required by law.

3) 99% of the Election offices in the Commonwealth file applications as an 8x5 card. Even the National form is an 8x5 standard.

4) If previous Voter registration information were at the top or bottom, the remaining info would fit on an 8x5 field.

Please consider these corrections:  Top of form--Also, 17 year olds may register and vote in special elections and any primaries if they will be 18 by the next general election per 24.2-403.  Also, the form is too tall and too wide for our filing system--would be a huge cost to change.  Also, "none" for SSN is rare enough to omit (registrars will know what to do) to help the individual fill app. out correctly.  To save space, omit #4--put at bottom of form.  Also, swap #6 with #7 so #6 can be cut off and sent to previous state.  Also, need the preprinted info on back of form, which saves registrar time.  Thank you.

 The proposed changes to the Virginia Voter Registration Application Form will create a litany of problems for Registrar Offices across the state as noted below:

1. The size of the application is too large for storage in our cabinets.  We understand that ELECT wants Voter Registration Applications scanned into the VERIS system, however, this process is not feasible for all localities due to time, personnel, cost and resources required.  What do you do with an application that is too big to fit in your cabinets as a back-up even if you can scan to VERIS?  What happens when VERIS is not operational?  Registrars need to be able to easily locate an alpha card for viewing information and/or providing information to a third-party as required by law when requested.  If we are unable to locate the information, we open ourselves up to litigation.  As Norfolk was originally involved in the lawsuit regarding requests for inspections of cards, we are well aware that this can and will happen.

2. The Previous Voter Registration Information should not be in the center of the application.  It needs to be separated so it can be sent to other localities/states as required to notify of cancelation of prior registration so an individual is not registered in more than one state (which is illegal).  By having this information on the main application, it would require copying with redaction of SSN and DOB information to forward to the other state.  This is an additional cost of time, personnel, and resources that we cannot afford.  Not every state is participating in ERIC, so ELECT forwarding information to other states will not necessarily work.  It would still be the responsibility of the local registrar to send this information.

 In the workgroup that was originally formed by several Registrars, members of ELECT, and other parties, the proposed Draft of the New Voter Registration Application Form placed the Previous Voter Registration Information first on the application (Question #1).  This helped to alleviate persons from missing the all to familiar Question #1 on the current application regarding Citizenship.  Most applicants currently skip Question #1 (Citizenship) and proceed to completing their Social Security Number.  By placing the Previous Registration Information at the top of the application, it completes three (3) things:

              - The required previous voter registration information is completed

              - The Citizenship information is not missed and will be completed by the applicant

              - The size of the application will be reduced to adequately fit in storage cabinets of General Registrars across the state.  Consider that a WIN-WIN for all!

3. Please remove "NONE" under Social Security Number.  Most applicants have a SSN.  This is a person's unique identifier.  By having this on the application it will create problems.  People will not put their SSN on the application because they think it is not required or they are concerned about protecting their information and do not want to furnish.  We see this now in local registrar offices.  It should not be optional.

4.  The directions are in conflict with state law.  Virginia Code § 24.2-418. Application for registration - states:

A. Each applicant to register shall provide, subject to felony penalties for making false statements pursuant to § 24.2-1016, the information necessary to complete the application to register. Unless physically disabled, he shall sign the application. The application to register shall be only on a form or forms prescribed by the State Board.

The form of the application to register shall require the applicant to provide the following information: full name; gender; date of birth; social security number, if any; whether the applicant is presently a United States citizen; address of residence in the precinct; place of last previous registration to vote; and whether the applicant has ever been adjudicated incapacitated or convicted of a felony, and if so, under what circumstances the applicant's right to vote has been restored. The form shall contain a statement that whoever votes more than once in any election in the same or different jurisdictions shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony. Unless directed by the applicant or as permitted in § 24.2-411.1 or 24.2-411.2, the registration application shall not be pre-populated with information the applicant is required to provide.

 By removing this "requirement," we are in violation of Virginia Law.  It cannot and should not be done.  Furthermore, by accepting the applicant's signature, as opposed to the applicant completing the required information, there would be extreme difficulty in prosecution for false statement.  Any defense attorney will say "it was an error" "he/she did not mean to sign it"  "he/she did not read it"  "how many times do you sign something before reading it."  When an applicant must attest to questions and then affirm them with a signature, as required by law, it helps to eliminate this defense.  As the Commonwealth's Attorney's Office represents our city regarding prosecutions of false statements and illegal voting, and has the highest success rate in doing so, changing these requirements would essentially tie our hands behind our back.

 We agree that voter registration should be easier for all eligible persons.  However, this proposed draft and instructions create a nightmare for the registrar community and applicants.  Denials for incomplete applications will increase, costs in postage and manpower spent will increase, and voter frustration will certainly increase.

 The original group that worked diligently on a new Virginia Voter Registration Application Form produced a draft that was much better than what is being presented now.  Our workgroup consulted with organizations who are involved with persons with sight disabilities on the design implications of the form.  Our draft was forwarded to Edgardo Cortes and other members of ELECT for review.  Now, a newly designed application that is too big, with a "blue background" (which is not needed) has been produced.  A black & white voter registration application form is fine.  Current forms received from DMV and from third-party groups for the most parts are on black & white paper due to cost.  Why wasn't the original draft proposed by our workgroup considered?  Why was no feedback given from ELECT regarding our draft?  If ELECT wanted to propose a new application than what was originally discussed and presented, why did they not consult with Registrars and others from the original workgroup?

 For these, any many other reasons previously stated so eloquently by my constituents (especially AJ Cole and Jake Washburne), I respectfully request that the members of the State Board consider the originally proposed Virginia Voter Registration Application Form by the workgroup.  We are happy to provide a copy of our draft.  If that will not be considered, our recommendation is to leave the current registration form alone and not approve these proposed changes to the application. 

 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal.

A few thoughts re the proposed change:

1. Making the form larger will present major problems for filing the applications.  Was there any consideration given to that?

2. With the Affirmation as it stands, if the applicant does not answer the questions of citizenship, felony and mental incapacitated statuses, their application can not be denied.  Isn't the reason behind asking these questions is for the Registrar to be able to check the applicant's status in these areas to ensure that the applicant is eligible to vote?  These should be non-optional questions, and blanks should result in the application being denied with a letter being sent, along with a new application, to the applicant explaining the reason for denial and giving them a chance to re-apply.

3.  Providing the option for "none" in lieu of a SSN is going to result in many individuals assuming SSN is optional and thus they may check the none box simply because they do not wish to provide a SSN.  A FULL SSN should be required.

4. Moving the Previous Voter Registration Information to the middle of the form forces us to keep this informaiton on file.  Why would we want to?  At present, that information is at the bottom of the form, and once we provess the application, it is discarded.

5.  If the board deems it necessary to make changes to the application form, the current form can be tweeked for improvement:  make the Citizenship and Age questions larger and more obvious so that they are not missed so much.

I honestly can not see why the board wishes to change the current form, which works very well.   The proposed new form does not afford any advantages from where I sit.

The new proposed instructions attempt to negate safeguards provided in the voter application.  The first item to be checked on a voter application is citizenship.  However, applications are NOT to be denied if it is LEFT BLANK!  The box indicating a felony conviction also can be LEFT BLANK.  Although the affirmation signed at the bottom attests that they meet the requirements for citizenship and the lack of a felony conviction, these new instructions effectively eliminate a double check that these requirements have been met.  And why would an applicant leave blank the very first item on the application that asks if they are a citizen?  You can see the potential for voter fraud, abuse and mistakes.  Furthermore, the omission of the SSN prohibits registrars from checking to see if the applicant is a convicted felon.

I agree with the previous comments that the proposed changes do not offer any improvement to the current form.

Above all other reasons against the proposed revision is changing the size of the form. 

This change would require the purchase of new filing cabinets to accommodate the size of the new form. 

Filing the proposed new form with the existing cards will create sloppy files and filing errors.

Removing the Previous Voter Registration Information from the middle of the proposed form would help keep the form the current size.

The option for "none" in lieu of a SSN should be removed.

Is the back of the card being eliminated?  Where will changes and notes be documented?

If making the form one color (black) will reduce costs, make that the ONLY change to the existing form.

General comments: I strongly believe it is important to write instructions in a clear, concise manner and write as if you were simply speaking to the reader rather than using bureaucratic language.

Application form instructions:

Instructions section: 

1. Currently:

You can apply to register to vote online: elections.virginia.gov/register. Use this form to register to vote in Virginia or report a change in name or address. If you are already registered with your current name and address, you do not need to re-register. You are not o­ffcially registered to vote until this application is approved. You should receive confirmation of your voter registration status in the mail. If you do not receive confirmation within thirty (30) days after submitting this form or have questions, please contact your local voter registration o­ffce or the Virginia Department of Elections toll free (800) 522-9745 • TTY 711. You may check your voter registration status online at vote.virginia.gov.

 Recommended:

You can apply to register to vote in Virginia or report a change in name or address either online at www.elections.virginia.gov/register or by using this form. If you are already registered with your current name and address, you do not need to re-register. You are not registered to vote until this application is approved. You should receive confirmation of your voter registration status in the mail within 30 days. If you do not, or if you have questions, contact your local voter registration office or the Virginia Department of Elections toll free (800) 522-9745 • TTY 711. You may check your voter registration status online at www.vote.virginia.gov.

 Notes:

• The original first two sentences are confusing and unclear.
• You’re either registered or not registered. You’re not either “officially” registered or “unofficially” registered.
• I suggest that “www” be used before URLs to differentiate them, or underline the URLs without adding the www.
• If someone can read this form and instructions, then they can read the numerals 30 as well, so also don’t need to see the number spelled out! Grammar rules stipulate that numbers over ten should be written as numerals.

 2. Currently:

Attention: Overseas citizens, uniformed service voters, qualifying spouses and dependents: those individuals may register and request absentee ballots using a single federal form, the Federal Post Card Application (FPCA), available at www.fvap.gov.

 Recommended:

Attention: Overseas citizens, uniformed service voters, and qualifying spouses and dependents may register and request absentee ballots using a federal form, the Federal Post Card Application (FPCA), available at www.fvap.gov.

 Notes:

• The double colons are awkward and not necessary.
• “Single” before “form” could be read to mean that all family members may register on a single form, and is not needed in the sentence since “form” is singular.
• Because “qualifying spouses and dependents” is a single phrase, “and” is needed before “qualifying” in the list of the UOCAVA voters.

 3. Currently:

WARNING: INTENTIONALLY VOTING MORE THAN ONCE IN AN ELECTION OR MAKING A MATERIALLY FALSE STATEMENT ON THIS FORM CONSTITUTES THE CRIME OF ELECTION FRAUD, WHICH IS PUNISHABLE UNDER VIRGINIA LAW AS A FELONY. VIOLATORS MAY BE SENTENCED TO UP TO 10 YEARS IN PRISON, OR UP TO 12 MONTHS IN JAIL AND/OR FINED UP TO $2,500

Recommended:

Warning: Intentionally voting more than once in an election or making a materially false statement on this form constitutes the crime of election fraud, which is punishable under Virginia law as a felony. Violators may be sentenced to up to 10 years in prison, or up to 12 months in jail and/or fined up to $2,500

• Text in all-caps is difficult to read--more difficult than normal sentence text, and nowdays is interpreted at yelling. Since our goal should be to communicate effectively and remove or minimize obstacles between the information and our audience, I strongly suggest that text in all caps should be avoided on all SBE forms, except of course for acronyms. Bold or color other than black is sufficient to attract attention.
• A UOCAVA voter of course may vote as many times as he/she wants, using FWABs. What are UOCAVA voter to think when they read this statement -- that they are breaking the law by submitting a ballot issued to them as well as a FWAB?

 Address Requirements:

1. Currently:

All applicants must provide a street address/description of their physical dwelling place for residence address in Box 2. If that address is not serviced by the U.S. Postal Service, the applicant is authorized to list a mailing address. Overseas citizens, uniformed service voters, qualifying spouses and dependents may also list a mailing address. No other applicant may include a mailing address unless the applicant qualifies as a protected voter. See below. A qualified protected voter is required to list a post o­ffice box within Virginia as a mailing address in Box 2, please see below.

Recommended:

You must provide a street address or, in the absence of an address, a description of your physical dwelling place, for residence address in Box 2. If your residence is not serviced by the U.S. Postal Service, then you are authorized to also list a mailing address. Overseas citizens, uniformed service voters, and qualifying spouses and dependents may list a mailing address. Otherwise, you may only include a non-resident mailing address Box 2 if you qualify for protected voter status, and list a post office box within Virginia. Please see below.

 Comments:

• The first instructions address the reader personally, as “you.” I suggest that is best and that we continue in that style. Additionally, it’s important to be consistent throughout the document.

(To be continued!)

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.

I know others have voiced these misgiving as well, but I would like to add my list of NO's to the proposed application and the proposed changes to 1VAC20-40-70:

NO becuase important identifying information can be left off the application.

NO becuase people can commit voter fraud easily, or maybe they are not intentionally fraudulent and maybe just forgot to check some boxes. But how will the GR determine that? Too many maybes.

NO becuase it will make many localities change their filing process and equipment.

NO, a big NO, becuase it does not have to be signed. A checked box is not an affirmation. Will a checked box hold up in court?

NO becuase this does not make the application process any easier for the honest applicant, but it does make it much easier for the fraudulent applicant.

NO becuase it contradicts 24.2-418 , and we are sworn to uphold the Code of Virginia.

Let's go back to the drawing board on this one, please.

First, thank you for aligning the "No" and "Yes" check boxes on the proposed application in Section 5.  This will avoid any confusion or oversight on the part of the applicant for incorrectly checking a box.

Maintain the 8x5 size for file consistency to avoid expensive adjustments due to a different size application.

Print in black ink (bolding where appropriate) on white background to reduce cost.

As previously suggested, place the "Previous Voter Registration Information" at the top or bottom portion of the form for easily detaching for use as notification to another State of being registered in Virginia (avoiding duplication or voter fraud).

• Which allows the size of the application to remain 8x5

Unsure if there are any planned changes indicated for the section/area on the back of the application, in case there are this is vital for "Office Use Only" indicating changes/updates.

• Irony, transition to Optical Scan Voting Machines for paper trail, not retaining space on the back of the application would be comparable to removing a record "paper trail".

I cringe thinking the possible wording of an option/misconception for the applicant to omit the SSN being indicated on the Voter Registration Application.  This is a priority for entering in VERIS to locate possible duplication.  Without the SSN, whenever there is a name change or someone decides to note their nickname instead of their given legal name, there would be a duplication and opens the door to possible voter fraud.  Also this allows VERIS to notify when there is a transfer within the State.  Allowing only four digits narrows down the number, however, it does not resolve the overall concern for unknown duplication, notification of voter registering in another locality, and being removed from the previous localities voter roll.

In addition to fixing all of the other details on the draft voter registration form that the Registrars have described, please design a form that produces the same size form that is currently kept on file in the Registrars' offices. 

The file cabinets that are used to file the registration forms are expensive pieces of office equipment that have a specialized function, and so are not easily resold.  Differing the size of the form will require the purcahse of new cabinets by localities.  Meeting records show that the motivation for redesigning the form was a cost savings to the state.  It's all taxpayer money, and if new office cabinetry must be purchased, it seems there is a need to measure any true cost savings to the taxpayer if the new form requires the purchase of new cabinetry. 

In addition, the proposed form will result in a mixture of sizes of voter registration forms between the forms already maintained by the Registrars and the new forms as they come in.  The mixture in sizes will create nothing less than a filing nightmare.  The larger forms will be subject to fraying as the forms are handled in the filing system while searching for the smaller forms that will be hiding behind the bigger forms. 

Please go back to the drawing board and consider consulting with a form design specialist.

Also, please restore the function of the registration form to serve the purpose of notification to another state where the voter was registered by mailing the card at the bottom.  Again, the state is off loading unnecessary and burdensome costs of letter generation onto the localities.

We are greatly diappointed to learn of the impact of the legislation that stripped issuance of voter ID/precinct location cards that can be easily kept in voters' wallets.  Asking a voter to keep track of a letter instead of a voter card is impractical.  I hope the election community will work hard to change this law.

Thank you for providing this forum to express our concerns. 

T

CITY OF FAIRFAX ELECTORAL BOARD

July 1, 2015

COMMENTS CONCERNING PROPOSED

VIRGINIA VOTER REGISTRATION APPLICATION (VA-NVRA-1 07/15)

AND

REVISIONS TO VOTER REGISTRATION APPLICATION REGULATIONS (1 VAC 20-40-70)

July 1, 2015

We offer a number of comments and concerns about the referenced proposals.

The first and foremost is about the regulation section B. 8, 11 ,12 taken together which require that a signed but otherwise deficient application be accepted by the General Registrar. A major concern here is that the “AFFIRMATION” asks for a signature indicating that the applicant “meet Virginia’s requirements for U.S. citizenship…”  Requirements for U.S. citizenship are federal requirements.

Next we find that the Registration Application form begins with the statement “Starred (*) items are required.  If you do not complete all of the items that are marked with *, your application may be denied.”  However 1 VAV 20-40-70 requires the General Registrar to accept applications on which the starred (*) items are left blank.  The Commonwealth requires but also does not require the requisite information???

B. 4. Allows an application to be submitted but not dated.  The General Registrars are thus prevented from assessing the order in which applications are completed and submitted.

And 1 VAC 20-40-70 B. 7, 14 and 16 taken together require that and applicant with a disability must so indicate or not and must have a witness to their mark or not!

We further point out that the instructions to the voter VA-NVRA-1 07/15 in Address Requirements are quite specific as to Box 2 yet B. 3.e General Registrar to ignore the requirement.

We ask that these problems be dealt with prior to the Department and the State Board proceeding with these propsals.

ype over this text and enter your comments here. You are limited to approximately 3000 words.

VR Application form instructions recommendatons, part 2:

General: Simplify and humize! And be clear and accurate. I read this week that 50% of adults in the cannot read above an 8th grade level.

1. Protected Voter Requirements

Currently:

To legally qualify to non-publish your residence address on voter lists, you must meet certain statutory requirements. Your application must claim one of four reason codes, applicable to you or a member of your household: ·

• LEO: active or retired law enforcement officer, judge, U.S. or Virginia Attorney General attorney;
• CPO: have a court issued protective order for your benefit;
• TSC: have evidence of filing a complaint with law enforcement that he/she is in fear for his personal safety from another person who has threatened or stalked him/her;
•  ACP: registered with the Virginia Attorney General’s Address Confidentiality Program.

Suggested:

 Protected Voter Code

Your residence address will be published on authorized voter lists unless you are legally able to claim one of these four reason codes:

• LEO: retired law enforcement officer, judge, U.S. or Virginia attorney general attorney;
• CPO: have received a court-issued protective order for your benefit;
• TSC: have evidence of filing a complaint with law enforcement that you are in fearyou’re your personal safety from another person who has threatened or stalked you;
• ACP: registered with the Virginia Address Confidentiality Program.

If so, enter the appropriate three-letter code in the boxes provided.

Comments:

It is important always to use the same words and phrases in instructions as are used on the form. Hence “voter code” in the section title rather than “voter requirements.” Again, titles are not capitalized unless used immediately before the titleholder’s name.  (Note “court-issued” is hyphenated.)

2. Mailing Instructions

Currently:

• Mail your completed application to the voter registrar for the county or city where you live.
• Must be postmarked at least twenty-two (22) days before the next Primary or General Election in which you plan to vote.

Suggested:

• Mail your completed application to the general registrar for the county or city where you live.
• The envelope must be postmarked at least 22 days before the election in which you plan to vote. Visit www.elections.virginia.gov [underline URLs for clarity] for deadlines, addresses, and information.

 Comments:

Thereis no need to use both figures and text to effectively communicate a number! Numbers 10 and above are expressed in numerals

 3. Signature

Currently:

A signature is required from each applicant for voter registration unless the applicant is an individual with physical disabilities. An applicant with physical disabilities must indicate her status in Box 7 if the application is not signed. Currently registered Virginia voters with physical disabilities must sign the form or, at minimum, include a mark and indicate physical disability status on the application. If a registered voter with physical disabilities provides a mark in lieu of a signature, then a witness must sign the application.

Suggested:

You must sign or mark this form, or it will not be accepted. If you have a physical disability that prevents you from writing your signature, the box in section 7, below the signature line, must be checked. If you make a mark instead of a signature because of your disability, a witness must sign on the second line.

Comments:

If a person without a physical disability makes a mark (perhaps because he is illiterate or has a mental disability), is a witness also required? When does a mark become a signature? How do voter registration staff differentiate between a mark and a signature?

Why would only “currently registered voters” (who are completing the form generally to change a name or address) have to follow the two last lines of the original instructions, and not citizens registering for the first time? The Va. Constitution makes no such distinction. (Boy, what a confusing set of instructions.)

It is important to be consistent with terms. Don’t refer to a section on the application as a “box” when those “boxes” contain actual boxes for applicants to check. "Secton" is a better term.

Again,speak to the applicant, thus using “you” in instructions.

4. Privacy Act Notice:

Currently:

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution of Virginia (1971) requires that a person registering to vote provide his or her social security number, if any. Therefore, if you do not provide your social security number, your application for voter registration will be denied. Section 7 of the Federal Privacy Act (Public Law Number 93-579) allows the Commonwealth to enforce this requirement, but also requires that you be advised that state and local voting officials will use the social security number as a unique identifier to ensure that no person is registered in more than one place. This registration card will only be open to inspection by the public if the social security number is removed. Your social security number will appear on reports produced only for official use by voter registration and election o­fficials, for jury selection purposes by courts, and all lawful governmental purposes. Whether you register to vote and the office where you submit an application are confidential and will be used only for voter registration purposes.

Suggested:

Privacy Notice

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution of Virginia (1971) requires you to provide your Social Security number (SSN), if any, when you register to vote. If you do not, your voter registration application will be denied. Section 7 of the Federal Privacy Act (public law lumber 93-579) allows the Commonwealth to enforce this requirement. State and local voting officials will use your SSN only as a unique identifier to ensure that voters only are registered once. Your registration card only will be available to inspection by the public if the SSN is removed. Your SSN will appear only on reports produced for official use by voter registration and election officials, jury selection by courts, and other lawful governmental purposes. If you decline to register, if your registration application is denied, and where your application was submitted are confidential.

 Comments:

Simplify!  And be clear and accurate.

The notice is about privacy policies, not the federal privacy act. Hence the title change.

The last line in the original statement: “Whether you register to vote and the once where you submit an application are confidential and will be used only for voter registration purposes.” That you registered is public information, that you were denied or that you declined is confidential.

 5. Identification Requirement

Currently:

Identification Requirement

All voters are required to present one (1) acceptable valid photo ID when voting in-person. Acceptable forms of photo identification include Virginia DMV-issued photo IDs and driver’s licenses; U.S. Passports; employer-issued photo IDs; student photo IDs from a college or university located in Virginia; photo ID cards issued by the United States, the Commonwealth of Virginia, or a local Virginia government; and Virginia Voter Photo ID Cards. All of the acceptable forms of photo ID can be used up to a year after the ID has expired. If you do not have an acceptable forms of photo ID, you can also apply for a free Virginia Voter Photo ID Card at any local Virginia voter registration once throughout the year, even on Election Day. Once you complete and sign the Virginia Voter Photo ID Application, your Virginia Voter Photo ID Card will be mailed to your address on file in the Virginia Voter Registration System, which takes approximately two to four weeks. You may also be eligible to  receive a Temporary Identification Document to use in the election while your permanent ID card is processed through the mail. For more information on voter photo IDs, visit: elections.virginia.gov/voterID or call toll free at: (800) 552-9745.

Suggested:

Photo ID Required to Vote

You are required to present a photo ID when voting in person. Acceptable forms of voter ID include: a Virginia DMV-issued photo ID or driver’s license; a U.S. passport; an employer-issued photo ID; a student photo ID from a college or university in Virginia; a photo ID issued by the U.S., Virginia state or local government; and a Virginia voter photo ID card. All may be used for voting for one year after the date they expire. If you do not have an acceptable form of photo ID, you may apply for a free Virginia voter photo ID card at any voter registration office in the state during business hours, even on Election Day. It will be mailed within a month to your voter registration address on file. Additionally, you may be issued a temporary identification document to use in an immediate election while your permanent ID card is being processed. For more information on voter photo IDs, visit www.elections.virginia.gov/voterID or call toll free, (800) 552-9745.

Comments:

The title should more clearly tell the reader what the text below it will cover and why it is important to him/her.

Again, anyone reading the text to this point will understand the word "one" and not require a numerical confirmation.

“In-person” is only hyphenated when used as an adjective.

The Democratic Party of Virginia Voter Protection Council commends the Virginia Department of Elections ("ELECT") for all of the excellent work it has done to promote free and fair elections in Virginia. We particularly thank ELECT for its efforts to simplify the voter registration process with its draft voter registration form and corresponding regulations . Virginians deserve a common sense registration process free of traps and barriers to the ballot. We believe that ELECT's new voter registration forms will help all voters across Virginia, regardless of party.

We would, however, like to make one recommendation to the draft registration form. Under the draft form, gender identification is not a material omission. We agree with this change, especially since the federal registration forms do not require voters to select a gender. Since the draft forms make gender identity optional, we believe that the form should be changed so that voters can write in their gender. The form should read Gender: ___________ rather than provide a box to check.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your draft registration form and related regulations.

Sincerely,
Matthew Weinstein and Georgina Cannan
Co-Chairs, Voter Protection Council, Democratic Party of Virginia

My comments concern the readability of the form. Ten percent of adults, even with corrective measures, have difficulty reading the printed word. So we must make the form readable to minimize mistakes, and ensure that the form does not look too daunting.

Enlarge the size of the type throughout.

Use Verdana or Helvetica for ease of reading

Do away with unnecessary italics and parens of further explanations

Avoid columns (hard to visually track)

All caps in the WARNING statement of the instructions too difficult to read, Sentence case better.

No light blue background. Makes it harder to read. Black on white is best

Is the top area about the basicvoter registration requirements before the real form necessary? Use the basic Instructions to cover these topics. Lessen the complexity of the age requirement and put it in the Instructions too.

Why include the contrapositive of the instruction about the need to complete everything with asterisks at the very top of the form? Unnecessary. The first sentence is sufficient.

Section 1:

1. Isn’t Sex the preferred term here instead of Gender?
2. Handle the exception about not having a SSN in the Instructions—whatever they may be. Too much space awarded to this exception. Everybody has to read this for the single person who it relates to?
3. Enlarge MM DD YYYY to fill boxes, screened back. They are now too small. People will write over the screened letters. Other cultures write dates DD MM YYYY.

Section 2:

1. Other cultures do not always understand the term “Last name”. Males and females from same family might put different names in this spot. How about “Last name/Family name”? This needs to be vetted.
2. “I am required or authorized to provide my mailing address.” ?? Doesn’t this apply to everyone? Just confuses the form.

Section 4:

1. Why does this area of the form exist at all?  The primary purpose of this form is to register voters. It should not provide for other service in my opinion.  Remove it so that it does not constitute another column, which adds to the complexity and “unreadability” of the form. Questions should be listed vertically only, no separate columns if possible..
2. Second area of section 4: doesn’t this apply to the address area? Why separate? Why necessary? (I am unfamiliar with this topic.)

Section 5:

1. Felony and mental incapacity yes/no boxes should follow the question directly, not form a separate column. Hard to visually track as to which yes/no box to check.

Section 6:

1. The words NO and YES don’t seem to follow the structure of the form. Instead:

/  /  I am not (underlined, not bold) registered in any other state. Skip to next section.

/  /  I am registered with aother name, or at another address (underlined, not bold) in Virginia, or in another state with details below. I authorize cancellation of this previous registration.

1. Include a name field as well, as people use this area to update the registration for name changes.
2. Where is the SSN?

Section 7:

1. Check box that you have physical disabilities comes out of left field. And that you agree with the affirmation statement? What do physical disabilities have to do with any of thi?. Do all people with physical disabilities have to answer this question? Do you instead mean “If you are unable to sign this form….”?? As it is written, it’s an affront to people with physical disabilities. It’s none of anybody’s business
2. “Today’s Date” would be better placed in large letters underneathe the related boxes.
3. Explanation for other signature confirming the “Mark” way too small, long.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the form.

Janice Yohai