The League of Women Voters of Virginia (LWV-VA) appreciates having the opportunity to comment on the proposed new voter registration form and the accompanying regulations changes.  We support changes that: provide cost-savings for the registration process across the board; clarify and simplify the paper forms; take into account the increasing role of technology that is reducing the need for the paper forms; and address—primarily-- the needs of the voters and the problems that have been identified by organizations such as the LWV as they have helped in voter registration outreach activities.  In doing this, greater attention needs to be paid to find accommodations to use during the transitional phase of Virginia’s voter registration modernization efforts.

The Form

Cost saving:

Although we do not know specific costs, it is obvious that use of a one sheet/two-sided form that does not use colored ink is less expensive than the current four sided form on heavy stock using red ink and providing a lot of white space.  This will certainly affect the ability of the Virginia Department of Elections (ELECT), State Board of Elections (SBE) and local Offices of Election to make and pay for the copies needed by Virginians seeking voter registration.  While many local offices have noted their budgetary problems, they are probably no worse proportionally than those of ELECT. 

Eliminating list of election offices:

In general, the proposed registration form is a significant improvement over the current one in regard to its clarity, ease of updating, and elimination of wasted space.  Although having a list of mailing addresses of all Virginia election offices as part of the current form is a helpful feature, it is an unnecessarily costly one in view of today’s wider availability of such information.  When many of Virginia’s local LWVs and other organizations conduct voter registration outreach activities, they also hand out local information that provides this information.  The problem of not listing physical addresses when offices use a different mailing address came to light when the Virginia photo voter ID was introduced last year.  Including both would require a longer list.   Eliminating the list will require inclusion of information directing the registrant to an easy look-up location.

We believe that anyone who has ever participated in a voter registration outreach event would have something to say about one or another of the changes – or lack of change – to items on the form and its instructions.  We will not attempt to provide a complete list, but point out the need to review the form, its instructions, and the regulations for simplicity, clarity and consistency.

Citizenship question #1:

Registrars have told us many times that the most overlooked question on the form is no. 1; perhaps the new design will eliminate that problem. 

Address confusion in section #2: 

Another problem that LWV members have found is that many registrants put different addresses in the spaces for residence and mailing addresses, including students who provide their college residence address, but also their home address “just in case…”.  The revised form and its instructions are of no more help than the current one in this regard.

Previous Registration: Current section #7:

Another commonly overlooked question  is no. 7 (on the current form – “Previous Voter Registration Information), which appears to be an afterthought on the current form and, as we heard at a meeting of the SBE several years ago, one whose completion has not been uniformly required throughout the Commonwealth.  It appears reasonable that the affirmation oath be at the end of the form. Wherever it is located, we believe that the instructions should ask that the (former address) information be provided “to the extent available.”  The information should be acceptable if there is evidence that the registrant has made a good faith effort to recall and list the address of their previous registration.  Many registrants can’t recall specific addresses from the past if they have moved multiple times since then; and many parts of Virginia have a very mobile population.   This suggestion is consistent with information in the ELECT online voter registration training module.

Affirmation Oath location:

It appears reasonable that the affirmation oath be at the end of the form

Primary Purpose of changes:

Whatever changes are actually made on the form and its instructions, we believe that the primary purpose should be to assist the voter in providing the information necessary to become a registered voter in Virginia. The proposed changes are neither all good nor all bad; attempts need to continue to accommodate valid needs of many of the Commonwealth’s election offices in serving its voters. 

The LWV-VA is concerned that the many comments submitted to date seem to ignore this purpose and concentrate on the real or assumed effects of changes on current office operations.  While this is a valid concern, it should not be the primary one.  The chief concern should not be to retain practices and procedures that were useful in a paper-driven world but are no longer valid in an era of quickly changing technology.   We have not heard any registrar say that they don’t appreciate the improved ability to read names and other information when a person uses the Commonwealth’s online voter registration application (OVR).  And as the use of OVR increases, the need for the 50-year old filing cases that registrars are using will soon be eliminated. 

The LWV-VA believes that a greater effort needs to be made by both ELECT and local election offices to prepare for and accomplish the transition from what worked in 1965 to what will work today, in 2025, and thereafter to help all eligible citizens register to vote and participate in our democracy. 

The Regulations

We appreciate the attention that has been paid to revising the material omissions list to exclude those that are covered by the Affirmation.  The proposed changes accompanied by the revised affirmation statement that enable the registrant to meet the Code requirements by her/his signature are generally reasonable and certainly user friendly.   While forms are needed to standardize the submission of information required to register to vote, the failure to complete a required item that is covered by the affirmation statement should not cause the entire application to be rejected.  Here again, we believe that the problem will diminish if not disappear as the use of OVR increases. 

Some of the proposals will bring “peace of mind” to those participating in third party registration drives who worry that they may have missed something that would cause a registrant to lose her/his opportunity to vote.  Although ELECT and SBE need to check the internal consistency of the revised regulations as well as the document’s consistency with the form and its instructions, the proposals demonstrate the primary attention that is being given to help Virginia citizens register and vote.  The LWV-VA certainly supports this purpose and aim if not every nuance of the proposals.