In the city where I used to live it was common practice to refer to streets simply by the name (e.g., Quest: Where is the grocery located? Ans: On Longwood.) I don't know how many locales there are in Virginia where this might also be the practice. Disqualifying someone's vote because of the omission of Ave., Dr., Ln, etc. seems unjustified. Also, it's been my observation since becoming a Registrar, that many voters get the identifer wrong - St. instead of Dr., for example. This just doesn't seem to be something that should disqualify a vote.

How does the absentee omission process goes? 

venus factor

We have households with family members sharing identical names with the generational suffix being the only way we can determine who is who. The suffix requirement needs to be there for these type of households.

As for street identifiers, we have a South Street, a South Boulevard, and a South Avenue.  In Petersburg, we can identify them based on the house numbers, but other localities may not have different numbers on similarly named roadways making identification a bit more difficult.

I agree with a previous comment that streets are often referred to by name only and not necessarily the identifier. 

Another issue that occurs in Bristol, is that USPS doesn't always use the correct street identifier to coincide with how the record appears on the planning files.  For example, USPS might list "estates" as "road" even though the road sign clearly has the abbreviation  Est., therefore, residents often use the incorrect identifier, too.

These are balllots being returned by voters who requested them.  The absentee list should have the voter's complete name and street identifier.  If the officers of election can determine from the information given that the ballot is being received from someone on the absentee list who applied for it, then they should accept that ballot.  If both Robert Smith III and Robert Smith IV live at the same address and only RSIII requested a ballot, then the ballot being returned by Bob Smith can be properly identified as his.  If both voters requested ballots and only one has been returned, then it cannot be identified.

Similarly with street name identifiers, if Robert Smith, whose voting address is 100 Main Street, has requested a ballot, then the ballot being returned by Bob Smith, 100 Main, is identifiable, unless, of course, Robert Smith from 100 Main Road also requested one.

If the voter can be identified as someone on the abdsentee list, the ballot should be accepted.

 Agree with prior comment regarding use of Final Absentee List to help identify name or street identifier if needed. The ballot packet includes a VERIS generated label on the return envelope. While some voters may not return their ballot in the envelope provided, the majority do.  This label can also act as a tool for identifying the voter.

FWAB material omissions: Many of our military or overseas voters have been residing overseas for many years. It is hard enough for them to remember their U.S. residence address less much the correct street identifier. Additionally, military members will often have only minutes to complete a FWAB before being deployed. Not enough time to cross every “T” or dot every “I” or in this case, make sure they’ve put their street identifier. It just doesn’t seem right for these voter’s ballots to be rejected due to lack of or incorrect street identifier.  

.

The right to vote should not depend on nit-picking, typo, or other rules unrelated to the honest identification of the voter. Requirements for street identifiers, initials, generational markers, full legal names etc. should not be used to disenfranchise a citizen of this country. Several highly qualified, in-the-trenches commentators have mentioned that individuals request absentee ballots and military voters may have special circumstances. These questions are easily resolved by a registrar and agents who are committed to allowing all valid voters to vote. These questions are also easily left unresolved if the purpose is to streamline a process committed to disenfranchise voters, or values efficiency over effectiveness.

Voting is a basic right in our democracy. It should not be denied for other than substantive reasons.

Street identifiers and generational identifiers do not need to be material.Voters have already given all the detailed information on their address and name identifiers when they qualified to receive the ballot. This is then printed on a return label which the majority uses to return the ballot. So why nit-pick the information when we receive the returned ballot. The Federal Statement of Affirmation for military/overseas voters only requires the voter signature, witness and date.  In my personal opinion, the information has already been given to qualify for the ballot, so to return it, this (signature, witness and date) should be sufficient. Street identifiers and generational identifiers should not be material.

 As I understand it, the SBE has proposed that additional information as be considered as "material" and required for absentee ballots to be counted, specifically, a “generational suffix,” 1 VAC 20-70-20.B.3, and “residential street identifier," identifier.  1 VAC 20-70-20.B.4.

These changes are unnecessary and will result in the failure to count legitimate votes.  Although, for example, Arlington has a 5th street and a 5th road, it is unlikely that there are voters named John Smith who reside on each of those streets and have requested an absentee ballot.  In fact, the absentee ballot return envelope includes the full name and address.   In the few cases where there are questions, the registrar can resolve them and make sure that people can exercise their right to vote, without overly-detailed and non-substantive restrictions.

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

The lack of a suffix or a correct street identifier on the self-completed envelope should have no bearing on the electoral board’s ability to identify the voter, especially since every return envelope includes a VERIS generated label with the voter's identifying information.

The 2014 General Assembly passed legislation that was signed into law that excluded middle names or initials from being considered material omissions based on the premise that they were not critical in the ability of an electoral board to determine the voter’s identity. The electoral board can match the voter information on the returned envelope with the list of voters who requested an absentee ballot to confirm the identify of the voter who mailed back the absentee ballot.

The items considered under this proposed regulation change are no different - these changes are unnecessary and could result in the failure to count legitimate votes. As long as the electoral board can identify the voter who is submitting the absentee ballot, that vote should be counted.

I join the other comments that omission of a street identifier or a name suffix should NOT be considered a material omission.  From nearly 20 years experience in dealing with absentee ballots, I can say that neither of these details being omitted has ever caused a voter identification issue.

Thanks.

These changes are unnecessary and will result in the failure to count legitimate votes. Although, for example, Henrico has a Fulham Drive, Fulham Circle and Fulham Court, it is unlikely that there are voters named John Smith who reside on each of those streets and have each requested an absentee ballot. In addition, the absentee ballot return envelope includes the full name and address. In the few cases where there are questions, the registrar can resolve them and make sure that people can exercise their right to vote, without overly-detailed and non-substantive restrictions.

These changes are unnecessary and only serve to potentially prevent legitimate votes from being counted. The lack of a suffix or street identifier on the return envelope should have no bearing on the registrar's ability to determine the identity of the voter, especially since every return envelope includes a VERIS generated label with the voter's identifying information. 

The voter name (to include generational suffix when registered at the same address), voter signature, witness signature, and date on Envelope B should always be considered material. 

The voter has previously signed a voter declaration/affirmation that includes a registration address when the voter applied to vote absentee.  Since the voter has already provided a full registration address on the Virginia Absentee Ballot Application and 99% of the domestic ballots are returned in an envelope affixed with a Virginia Election Registration Information System-generated address label, the repeat of the address on Envelope B should not be considered material.  Eliminate the street address with street identifier as a material omission.

The League of  Women Voters agrees with previous commentators, especially those responsible for managing Virginia's elections, who noted that the additions to material omissions which would invalidate a ballot are unnecessary and would limit a persons right to vote.  Truthfully, they come across as needless nitpicking and likely fodder for TV commentary on Virginia's laws and regulations.

On a practical level, many generational indicators are not really a part of a persons name, and in any case, are not used in the course of everyday living.   One group that could be especially affected by this are college students who form a large segment of absentee by mail voters.  The same situation is true of street indicators.  While using "street," "place," "court," etc. might be useful in calling a taxi, it is not necessary to decide whether to accept a ballot.  Many persons don't know what their street indicator is because it is never used.  Further, a voter's eligibility is ascertained when her application for an absentee ballot is received and again when the returned ballot is received by the elections office. A missing "Ave. or Pl." shouldn't be cause to reject a voter's ballot.

It is time that more attention be paid to ways to extend the franchise, inform the voters, and increase voter turnout than to find ways to keep eligible citizens from having their votes counted.

There is no need for the generational identifier or street type, especially if the absentee ballot application includes the last four digits of the applicant's social security number. Those four digits will distinguisg one person from another at the same address and will also serve to distinguish between applicants who happen to have the same name but live on xxx street or xxxx court or xxx road.

Making the street identifier a material omission is not necessary and will cause some AB to be rejected even if there is no confusion about the street. I see no reason why this should be a material omission and it will just cause unnecessary confusion and lead to the invalidating otherwise acceptable ballots. There is enough other information to determine the validity of the voter without including this "gotcha".

Simply to reject a returned absentee ballot due to lack of the street type (identifier) or a name suffix is truly unfair.  We have confirmed, prior to mailing the ballot, that the person is in fact a registered voter and eligible to receive the ballot.  We place a computer generated label on the envelope for return of the ballot.  By scanning this into the computer, we have determined from whom the ballot was received.

As has been stated, sometimes the post office uses a different street type than the county GIS (mapping office).  When this happens a decision must be made by the local voter registration office as to which one is correct and should be entered into the street file.

When we have two people from the same household (one Jr. and one Sr), there is a slim chance both have applied for absentee ballots.  If this happens, a simply signature comparison can be done quickly if there is a question.  If both applied, most likely both will be returned as well.

I am in agreement with other comments, lack of a street type (identifier) or a name suffix should not be a material omission on Envelope B for absentee ballots.  We have finally removed some of the other common oversights voters make when completing Envelope B to ensure we are counting ballots, not rejecting them.

I oppose the State Board of Elections proposal to invalidate an absentee ballot that does not contain the street identifier or a name suffix.  Personally, I do not use a suffix on a routine basis (Ms., Mrs., etc.) and am shocked that my absentee vote could be considered invalid if I omitted this information under certain circumstances.  In addition, from personal experience in Fairfax County, the street identifier is inconsistently recorded in real estate databases.  In some cases, my road will be listed as Street, ST, Lane, or LN - which makes me wonder how this information will be verified and whether this could invalidate my vote.

The changes to the voter identification and absentee ballot rules in recent years disproportionately affect young voters and low-income voters.  While these changes may appear to be "minor," Virginians should be mindful of our Commonwealth's history in the 20th century and refrain from passing laws and rules that disproportionately invalidate votes from certain groups of voters.

These changes are unnecessary and will result in the failure to count legitimate votes. Although, for example, Arlington has a 5th street and a 5th road, it is unlikely that there are voters named John Smith who reside on each of those streets and have each requested an absentee ballot. In fact, the absentee ballot return envelope includes the full name and address. In the few cases where there are questions, the registrar can resolve them and make sure that people can exercise their right to vote, without overly-detailed and non-substantive restrictions.

I strongly oppose the proposal to invalidate absentee ballots that do not include a generational identifier or a street designation.  The generational identifier is available elsewhere on the form or envelope.  And the street identifier is only significant if there are two or more street names and addresses with different identifiers (e.g., 2000 North Avenue and 2000 North Street) within the same zip code, which is extraordinarily unlikely; and even if that were to happen, the name of the voter would clarify which person is voting.  I consider these proposed restrictions to be additional efforts to disenfranchise voters.  While they have less impact than the literacy tests and poll taxes of years gone by, they are motivated by the same false premise of "protecting the integrity of the voting process"  that "justified" those restrictions.   The Board of Elections should focus on issues that actually have an adverse effect on the integrity of the voting process rather than trying to take steps such as these.  

I worked for may years as an Elections Officer in Fairfax County and never encountered any problem about a street identifier or confusion about the proper identification of which generation in a household  was voting.

I believe that adding such obstacles to voting is unnecessary and further restricts the franchaise.

I have also worked for some 17 years helping Americans living abroad to vote absentee. This is a considerable electorate and adding the street ientifier and generational identification requirement would make access to the ballot box by overseas voters even more difficult than it is already.

The State Board of Elections should be searching for ways to expand the franchaise to strengthen our democracy rather than impose obstacles to citizen participation in our governance.

Weather the voter enters "street", "avenue", etc. should not be used to invalidate their absentte ballot.  What has changed to make that a reqirement?  I am against the changes to Absentee Voter Ballots requirements.

Sorry,but i see nothing wrong in requiring this information.  A person should be identified as jr., sr., whatever.  Exact address ia important.

I object to the proposed rule regarding both the generational data and the inclusion of street identifiers, such as Avenue, Drive, Road, ...  in the rule. 

Generational data is not required as the probability of two people of the same name living at the same address and both of them voting by absentee ballot in the same election is rare.  It would be even rarer if there were more than two of the same name in the household.  If both voted by absentee then the generational designation is not relevant. 

The proposed requirement for making the inclusion of Avenue, Road, or Drive on the ballot is merely an attempt to disqualify a ballot for failure of completing a ministerial task.  The name and address of the person who has applied to vote absentee is already in the database. 

Voting is a Constituional right.  Government should be taking steps to increase voter turnout, not discouraging and attempting to disenfranchise people who have made an effort to fulfil their citizen responsibiities.  Study after study after study shows that voter fraud is exceedingly rare, to the point that it is almost non-existent.  These attempts to take a legitiamte vote away from a person exercising a constitutional right is shocking to the citizenry. 

I oppose any changes to make it harder for absentee voters to have their votes counted.  These two changes have the result of making it harder for legitimate registered voters to have their absentee ballets counted.

Please do not make generational suffix or residential street identifier omission or inaccuracies material.  There are other ways to validate an absentee ballot so it passes the reasonableness test as communicated by registrars and registered voters with election officer experience (see other comments on this online town hall for more information).

The State Board of Elections should be seeking ways to encourage more citizens to register to vote, vote, and have their votes counted.  The basic right of our democracy is for all citizens to exercize their right to vote.  This board should do all it can to encourage voter turnout, and the absentee ballot is a key way to increase voter turnout, especially for the college students, military and elderly.

Stop this proposed unnecessary and restrictive regulations that interfers with the right to vote.

Not including the generational suffix or the street identifier should not be considered "material".  The ballot was mailed to a particular person because he/she filled out an application.  It was an approved application, or they would not have received a ballot.  To then require the recipient of the ballot to repeat what has already been noted is unnecessasry because it has already been found to be accurate.  These votes should be counted.

My particular street name is too long to fit on any form with boxes.  It is 20 characters long without putting DRIVE after it.  I am accustomed to writing my street name WITHOUT the street identifier.

Also, many if not most roads only have one identifier with that street name.  And for those which have 2 identifiers with the same name, the resident knows this and would include it on the ballot.  They know this.  For those who know that there are no other streets with the same name, it would be unnecessary to inlude this identifier.  The voter who knows he need to include it will do so; for others it is immaterial.   In either case, the person's identity is clear.

I receive mail at my address without the identifier.  The letter carrier knows where my street is.  No one who writes to me has to include DRIVE behind the name of my street.  Neither should I have to include it in my address on the mailed-in ballot.

Here are some alternatives:

1. Why don't you create the outgoing address as one which can be peeled off and affixed to the ballot,
2. Or why don't you include a second label inside the envelope for use on the ballot
3. Or why don't you preprint the persons name and address on the ballot for the voter to use.  

This issue can so easily be resolved with better mailing practices.

Details such as street name or a suffix should not invalidate a vote.  It takes a bit of trouble to get an absentee ballot, so the person obviously wants to vote.  We should be facilitating the process, not hindering it.  Fraud has not been an issue in the past; witness the many recounts of contested elections that have not turned up fraud.  Thus the purpose of the restrictions seems to be to limit the right to vote.

I must report that the US Post Office and Fairfax county, Virginia do not agree on my street address!  The post office says it is Trinidad Street; the county says it is N. Trinidad ( not north, just N.)

so which will be my correct address for voting?!

will my absentee ballot be invalidated if I use one and not the other?!

this proposed restriction on street name is just outrageous!

This has been a bogus issue for many years. Every person who receives an absentee ballot has applied for it!  The information on the inside and outside envelope is the accurate information of the voter.  GR's: Are your records incorrect? If so, why?  Certainly not the voters' faults. If you can't keep track of Jrs, Srs, I, II or III, it is your fault. I simply cannot believe how many times I see that as an excuse for denying AB voters.

The MAJOR QUESTION IS:  Why should the standards for overseas absentee vorting and in-country absentee be different? One time you vote absentee because you are away from home, but not overseas.  You must include all kinds of of information on the inside envelope which, by the way, is on the label, for your vote to be counted. The Next year you are overseas!  You apply for an absentee ballot and when you send it back all that is needed is your signature and the signature of a witness. The label on the inside and outside envelope is the same as last year!! Just amazing. Please give me an argument to that.

Don't make these ridiculous changes to absentee votes. If people don't fill in the extra boxes, their votes wont' count. This is government interference at its worst, and won't prevent voter fraud. Especially since there isn't any.

This is a Republican excuse to invalidate legal absentee votes. The poor vote absentee very often, and they don't want Democratic votes to count.

Shame on youy.

Generational Identifiers are unnecessary and increase the chances that a typing error will invalidate a vote.  This is completely unfair and unnecessary.

I object to the proposed restrictions on absentee voting in Virginia. Generational or street identifiers should not be considered "material ommissions" especially when these can be verified by the General Registrar's review of the absentee ballot application.

I find the recent proposed actions of VA Elections officials to be unAmerican and destructive to democratic freedom. My family and I believe these changes are intended to prevent fair elections; these changes represent political desperation to deliberately hold back the representation of  diverse groups.

There is clear research data to show that fraudulent voting is almost non-existent, thus this and other recent voting changes are partisan causes.  I am insulted by limits imposed to reduce the number of voting days!  Likewise requirements to document residencies or even birth certificates are evil techniques that pollute the elections.

Arrests should be made upon election officials and self-appointed challengers who deter and complicate the exercise of free elections. State representatives who participate in these changes should be fired. This is an evil cause!

The criteria should always be that as long as the ballot can be attributed to a voter it should be counted.  In probably over 99% of cases where a street suffix or a generational identifier has been ommitted, the voter can be indentified through other means. 

If there are two people with the same name in a household and they both requested ballots and one did not put the suffix on it, but the other did.  It is obvious which is which.  If neither did, and they both return, it is irrelevant.  In the really unlikely case that two people with the same name apply for ballots and only one returns it and that person ommits the generational identifier and it cannot be ascertained through an identifier on the return label code, the registrar can compare the signatures.

Similiarly, the chance that two people with identical names on two streets with the same name, return their ballots and both ommit the street suffix and the county not does not have the ability to indentify them through return labels and signatures is so remote as to be irrelevant.

As long as a ballot can be traced back to the original voter in some way it should be counted rather than rejected based on sweeping, arbitrary rules.

Details such as street name or a suffix should not invalidate a vote.  It takes a bit of trouble to get an absentee ballot, so the person obviously wants to vote.  We should be facilitating the process, not hindering it.  Fraud has not been an issue in the past; witness the many recounts of contested elections that have not turned up fraud.  Thus the purpose of the restrictions seems to be to limit the right to vote.

July 20,.2014

The SBE has proposed two unnecessary and restrictive regulations involving a generational suffix (Jr., Sr., I, II, etc.) and a street identifier.

A generational suffix is not currently required, but would be required if the voter of the same names are registered at the same residence and the identity of the voter cannot be determined. The proposed regulations also require the street identifier. Failure to include an identifier such as “Lane” or “Drive” will invalidate the ballot.

We strongly object  to these changes because the information distinguishing the voter from another is already on the return mailer, which should be sufficient.

A voter's failure to include a generational or street identifier should not be considered "material omissions" especially when these sources of confusion can and should be clarified during the General Registrar’s review of absentee ballot application. Failure to determine the generational suffix or the street name type during the application review process should be considered the fault of the General Registrar, not the voter.

These two proposed regulations should be rejected.

Sincerely

Richrd J.Bochner

Eleanor B. Bochner

9402 Colonade Drive

Vienna, VA 22181

(Registered Voters in the Commonwealth of Virginia)

Who would have ever thought when naming a child or living in your home would be an impediment to voting? Any means to restrict voters is a defeatist approach. The responsibility should be on the system (people and technology) to go over and beyond to embrace the public for doing their civic duty by voting.  

The proposal to reject absentee ballots is simply another way to strip the franchise from qualifying individuals.  It should be the REGISTRAR's responsibility to confirm the information -- not the absentee ballot voter.  The required information is ALREADY ON THE MAILING LABEL to the voter -- it is ALREADY AVAILABLE.  Please reject these proposals.  We need to make it EASIER to vote, not HARDER.  Thank you.

Oppose absentee voting changes

We are doing just fine with the current voting regulations. Stop adding regulations that increase the requirements to a citizen's right to vote.

Requiring election/registration officials to verify generational and place-name identifiers on a returned absentee ballot could create a moral issue. What if if is clear beyond any doubt -- especially since the envelope supplied with the actual absentee paper ballot re-confirms identity -- that the voter is indeed the person he/she claims to be. Yet the generational or place-name identifier hasn't been added. Would you, as election/registration official, deny that vote, knowing that the correctly-identified person is voting? For a nit-picking and non-sensical reason, a vote would have been been unjustly denied. .

The social security number -- or other unique numerical identifier provided by government -- is more than adequate for identification of an absentee voter, here in Virginia or overseas. 

As a parent, I have facilitated the absentee voting of my college age children in VIrginia for 9 years.  As an election volunteer, I have worked side by side with many of the other commentators with more experience in absentee balloting and partisan monitoring of elections, both on election day and during the caucus. Currently I work as a bipartisan volunteer, each election day. obtaining answers to voters' questions on election procedures, and helping voters to fill out provisional ballots. 

With respect to place name identifiers, I note that Fairfax County refers to my street as an "RD" -- if I fail to capitalize these letters, or fail to remember not to type in either "ROAD" or "Road" or even "road" my search for the comparative real property assessments of my neighbors fails. Even if I did not include the type of street, my search fails for there is another street with the same name, but ending in "Court" or "CT". 

Also, within my family, I note that there is a disagreement about who should or should not use the numerical numbers after their names -- my father voted in my precinct for two years. Some in our family argued that he was a IV, and his great nephew a VI?  Some say he was a III.  And does it matter that the spelling of his name changed over just 100 years -- some spelled "Mac" and others "Mc".  I am thankful that he did not choose to add a numerical suffix to his name when voting absentee from his assisted living. 

Also, had he chosen to use his professional title, "Dr.", to distinguish him from others in his teaching profession who did not hold this degree, would he have been held to that usage as well when voting? After he moved to Virginia, away from his university home town, he chose not use "Dr" because he could be confused with others who hold medical degrees. Other professions, like law, use different forms of address with each other than they expect outside of their professional sphere, for example, when voting. However, some acquire these prefixes during government service, and do not lose these names when leaving the position for which the title was conferred. Should everyone who has ever been required to use the prefix "The Honorable" be expected to use this when voting? That would be a long list, indeed. 

Perhaps it would be interesting to compare voting requirements in other countries where the right to vote arose, and may still arise from inherited political rank and land ownership, matters of heritage and lineage respectively.  Although my relatives arrived from 1639 to 2008, I believe that the even the most recent arrivals, some of whom are still earning their right to vote, may be just as offended as I am by requirements to vote that relate to land rights and lineage.  Blood and tea were spilled to avoid these limitations on full participation in one's governance.     

There is no dispute that lines need to be drawn, and that these standards need to be fully and frequently communicated to election officials, candidates, and even volunteers like me and all of the others who have commented.  However, our responsiiblities to vote, and our volunteer opportunities to assist others in voting, need to be facilitated by regulation, not made more difficult by unnecessary and ambiguous standards of voter identification that relate to the past and not the present.   

On election day, imagine explaining to someone who is trying to vote that they don't know the name of the street on which they live -- lived, or will be living -- correct me if I am wrong but I recall that all three are accceptable addresses if their is a valid contract.   And I do not want to be the one to tell a voter and namesake of any age that they should change their name because it is confusing to the election board, particularly after the loss of a loved one, or the birth or even death of a child.   

Please recall the naming customs of our forebears, in this country and others, for centuries, who often used the same names more than once for children in the same family -- often names were used multiple times to show kinship with fathers, grandfathers, stepfathers, uncles, etc. [male references are used to reflect the time before universal suffrage].  This was also a time when children died young, and parents who survived, would marry a relative. Cousins named for the same grandfather would become step-siblings. Even in our own times, an uncle/aunt could be younger than a nephew/niece with the same name, and living in the same household. When does the nickname "Jr." become part of a legal name, and not an "inside" joke? A sartastic retort along the lines of "Buddy Three-sticks".  

I am not speaking to the naming traditions of cultures, other than my own, but there may be even better examples of how generations may be confused, and the same person may be asked to vote more than once, or denied the right to vote, because of similar names and/or similar addresses.  The correct response is not for the election  board to ask the voters to change their names, or their addresses, but for the election board to rely on a different identifier, one supplied by government, and not the family or individual.

In summary, the electoral process needs constant attention in response to societal changes, but the board is not using technology to its full advantage in addressing the problem identified -- voter identification. Our governments already provide the technology necesary to align voters with their addresses and their voting records -- we do not need additional voter details related to historically defeated principles of lineage andheritage to ensure the validity of the vote in the 21st century. 

I would prefer that the time of the board be spent in other matters -- it took two years for one of my adult children to be removed from the roles after leaving Virginia and registering in another state. It took another two years for me to remove a fictitious name from the AB list -- a name that was a combination of a family name, and a surname of the adult male in the household.  I am often required to respond to this name, and could have changed my legal name to this one, without any challlenge from anyone including the courts, that I was doing so with any fraudulent intent.    

When invited to file an absentee ballot in this name, however, I called the election board to ensure that there had been no confusion with another person by the same name who actually did live in the County, a fact that I quickly determined with the internet.  However, this fictitious person lived on (at my address) in political databases. Because she did not have a voting record, or an email address, I received a lot of phone calls.  What was at first amusing became a matter of concern because of the actions of the board. I could still vote under my legal name, but would the real person have been denied the right to vote because she had the "wrong " address -- or would the SSN be used to determine who should vote where.  How long would it have taken -- two years? Would we each have been allowed to vote during this time period?

The SSN -- or other unique, numerical government identfier -- is necessary, and more importantly, it is sufficient.    

I believe the proposed changes are unnecessary, and will result in invalidating many absentee ballots, thus denying many citizens their voice without good cause.  We should be looking for way to expand the franchise and encourage citizens to participate in the electoral process - not finding yet more ways to eliminate otherwise valid votes.