Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed change to 1 VAC 20-70-20, which pertains to material omissions from absentee ballots.

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 an Absentee Ballot

The street identifier on an absentee ballot 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.

Not only is there (usually) a label that the statewide voter registration system has produced that includes the voter's name, address, and voter registration number. Even when this label is not returned with the ballot, a non-UOCAVA voter has also provided his or her name and residential address information that provides evidence, beyond any shadow of a doubt, information to local election officials who the voter is. To reject a ballot solely because of the lack of a street identifier would lead to the totally unnecessary rejection of absentee ballots.

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