COMMENTS ON THE STATE BOARD OF ELECTION’S PROPOSED REGULATION AND VOTER REGISTRATION APPLICATION FORM 1 VAC20-40-70

SUBMITTED BY VRAV REGION THREE REPRESENTING:

Counties of Caroline, Charles City County, Cumberland, Essex, Fluvanna, Goochland, Hanover, Henrico, King and Queen, King George, King William, Lancaster, Louisa, New Kent, Northumberland, Orange, Richmond, Spotsylvania, Stafford and Westmoreland

Cities of Fredericksburg and Richmond

A volunteer group of the General Registrars representing the Region Three of the Voter Registrars’ Association of Virginia met on Thursday July 23, 2015 to consider the changes to the Virginia voter registration application and the Voter Registration Application Regulation and Form Update (1VAC20-40-70).  The review was conducted from their perspective that the best election administration meets that critical balance between simplicity for the voter and the preservation of the integrity of electoral process; too much emphasis on one can harm the other.

The resulting comments offered for consideration by the State Board of Elections is broken into two parts:  the application; and, the proposed regulation.

COMMENTS ON THE APPLICATION FORM

1. Completed voter registration applications in almost every locality in the Commonwealth are kept in file “drawers” specifically designed to hold the application form.  These drawers are five inches high by eight inches wide.  They are this size because, for at least the past 30 years, that portion of the voter registration application retained by the General Registrar is exactly this size. 
   
   The proposed application would be too large to fit in these drawers.  As a result, the General Registrars would either have to do a lot of manual cutting and folding to make these applications fit into existing filing systems, or would have to buy new filing systems.  However, if new filing systems were purchased to fit the proposed application form, then the old size applications on file would not readily fit the new system.
    
2. A number of years ago, the previous registration portion of the voter registration application was at the bottom of the form.  Because of the location after the signature line, a number of voters either missed that portion of the application or assumed that, because it was after the signature line, it was optional and did not complete that part.  As such, there was a high rate of denial for this omission.  Upon the request of the NAACP, Richmond Crusade for Voters and other voter interest groups, the previous registration portion was moved to the top of the form, before the U.S. citizenship question.  The result was a reduction in denials for missing previous registration information because the information was readily seen.  It also had the second benefit of reducing denials for not checking the U.S. citizenship box, which is easily overlooked on the current form. 
   
   It is recommended that the previous registration portion of the voter registration application be moved back to the top of the form, rather than in the middle of the form as currently proposed.  This will help with the re-sizing the document to fit the files as well as with voters missing that portion of the application as well as questions that immediately follow that portion. 
   
   The previous registration portion of the proposed application does not include the voter’s name.  However, we recommend that the voter’s name be included because there can be name changes between the voter’s old registration and new registration.
    
3. The font on the application needs to be more readable.  The font should be made as large and as “clean” (e.g. Arial font versus times new roman font) as possible for voters with visual and reading difficulties.
    
4. We strongly recommend that the directive “Write ‘None’ if no number has ever been issued” be removed from the proposed form.  It is a very rare occurrence when a voter does not have a social security number and invites voters who do, in fact, have a social security number to not provide one.  The value of the social security number in file maintenance is such that it should be provided when available.
    
5. The instructions to the protected voter no longer include the directive that a P.O. Box be provided.  Having the P.O. Box mailing address for these voters is essential to suppressing their residence address on public documents.  However, unless instructed to provide the P.O. Box mailing address many of these voters will not know that they need to do so.
    
6. The color format of the current voter registration application easily lends itself to black and white copying and, thus, reduces costs.  The light blue background of the proposed application does not lend itself readily to black and white copying.
    
7. The check box on item 7 of the proposed application form which states “By checking this box, I affirm both that I am an individual with physical disabilities and the Affirmation Statement above.”  Is unnecessary.  If the applicant can check this box, the applicant can make their mark.  Conversely, if they cannot make their mark, then it is unlikely that the voter themselves (rather than a second party) checks this box.  In the latter case, the voter has then not affirmed anything; the second party completing the application has done so.
    
8. The current voter registration application has space on the back which is used for notations by the General Registrar (e.g. social security numbers verified by the General Registrar that are different from that which the voter put on the application).  The proposed application eliminates that space.  It should be returned.
    
9. In 2014, there was a group of General Registrars that worked with the Virginia Department of Elections to revise and simplify that form.  Their work was completed just before Mr. Piper left.  We strongly recommend that the form proposed by that group be adopted rather than the proposed version before us today.
    

COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS
 

In general:  While the work group had some concerns about the voter registration application, our greatest concerns were about the proposed regulations which set forth what would be considered a material omission from the application and what would be considered an immaterial omission.  We noted that §24.2-418 of the Code of Virginia mandates that a voter provide certain information in order to register to vote.  However, the proposed regulations counter those specific mandates in several instances.  The work group feels and strongly urges that the regulations be revisited and revised to be in accordance with the specific mandates of the Code of Virginia.
 
Specifically:

1. The proposed regulation would make it a non-material omission if the voter did not answer the questions about U.S. citizenship, felony convictions and mental incapacity.  These are all critical to determining the voter’s eligibility to register to vote.  Experience with the national form which relies solely on an affirmation statement to determine the answers to these questions has shown us, however, that voters do not read the affirmation form.  Thus, requiring the General Registrar to accept applications without this information provided is likely to lead to persons who are not eligible to vote being registered to vote.  Until the databases that help screen for citizenship, felony convictions and mental incapacities are more reliable, it is strongly recommended that this information be considered a material omission for first time registrants.
    
2. The instructions on the application which show items being asterisked
    
3. The signature or mark should be a material omission (see comment #8 under the application form).
    
4. The failure to provide a social security number should be a material omission.  However, accepting the application if the voter writes “none” in that field is acceptable, so long as the instruction to the voter that they can write “none” is removed.  See comment #5 under the application form.)
    
5. The regulations, in having an “affirmation” that the voter is eligible, sets up an inherent conflict between the affirmation and if the voter also checks “no” to the citizenship question, or “yes” to the felon or mental incapacity questions.  It also might be considered “pre-populating” the application by asking the questions and having the affirmation statement.
    
6. Item F of the proposed regulation could conflicts with item B 15 in regards to whether the witness signature is material or not.
    
7. Item C1b. appears to conflict with C.2. and may preclude the General Registrar from being able to get the voter’s middle name and/or suffix from other reliable sources (e.g. DMV files).
    
8. Item D. appears to disallow the General Registrar from making corrections without the voter’s written authorization to do so.  Often corrections must be made to voters’ applications (e.g. social security numbers transposed, missing middle name, missing apartment number), which the General Registrar can readily gain from other reliable sources (including speaking with the voter via telephone).  To require that each and every “change” requires the voter’s written authorization would be administratively burdensome and may slow down a voter’s registration.  In peak years, the slowdown of the registration may even result in the voter not being registered to vote in time for the election.
    
9. Under the Code of Virginia, the General Registrar and the courts are the only entities that can determine whether a voter registration application should be accepted.  Item G. under the proposed regulation interjects the Department of Elections staff and the Electoral Board into this decision making process where there is no statutory authority for such.  This section should be eliminated to remove reference to the electoral board altogether and urge, rather than mandate that the General Registrar consult with ELECT when in doubt about whether an application should be accepted or rejected.
   We thank you for your consideration of these comments.