Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed change to 1 VAC 20-45-40, which pertains to the Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot (FWAB).

I am providing commentary about two items: (1) the proposal to make it a material omission if the street identifier has been left off of the document, and (2) the proposal to make it a material omission (subject to certain limitations) if the generational suffix is left off.

Street Identifier on the FWAB

The street identifier on the FWAB should not be a material omission requiring that the ballot not be counted. The reason for this is that, provided that the voter is already registered to vote, we are able to determine---beyond any reasonable doubt---who that voter is based on the other information provided on that envelope. To require the street identifier even though we are able to determine who the voter is would be a violation of Va. Code 24.2-467. Because the State Board of Elections cannot adopt rules that go beyond the legislative scheme provided for the return of absentee ballots, requiring that street identifiers be, standing alone, a material omission would exceed the regulatory authority of the State Board of Elections.

There is, however, one exception to my comment above: if a FWAB applicant is not registered to vote, and the address provided by that applicant uses a street name that is the exact same as another street in the locality, and the ranges of addresses on that street cannot provide illumination as to which street the applicant should be registered on, then, in that case, the street identifier may be material. However, in this instance, it is an omission from the information required to register to vote, and that fundamental flaw would invalidate the absentee ballot by necessity.

Generational Suffix

The lack of a generational suffix can, standing alone, be confusing if there are people with the same name residing in the same household. However, a different way to determine this is that the CAP officers or the Registrar's Office could examine the original voter registration application or absentee ballot application to determine, with reasonable certainty, who the returned ballot belongs to. While none of these officials are experts in handwriting analysis, a standard such as preponderance of the evidence would ensure that the ballot is attributed to the correct person.

Finally, with regard to the generational suffix, it is important to bear in mind that those who have registered with the suffix "Sr." were not born with that name. There could just as easily be a regulatory assumption that, (1) where the suffix has been left off, (2) there are two voters with the same name registered at the same address, (3) who applied to vote absentee, and (4) only one of them returned his ballot without the suffix, then the ballot should be attributed to the person registered with the suffix "Sr.," as the suffix is really not a part of his legal name.

I hope this comment helps. Thank you, again, for the opportunity to comment on this proposed regulation.

W.T. Latham