when we have trained Officers of Election that they can not complete ballot for voter who has left DRE machine and then when using Optical Scan they can cast if ballot rejected because of overvote does not make any sense.  I will be using Optical Scan machines in November and have used in Primary for 6/11  I am very concerned about this type of statement.  Why not have voter cast ballot and if rejected because of overvote give the voter the opportunity to have that ballot voided and then THEY not OE cast it?.

D. If any voter's ballot was

Not so cast by or at the direction

of the voter, then the ballot cannot be cast by any officer of

election or other person present.

Notwithstanding the

previous sentence, if a voter inserts a ballot into an optical

scanner and departs prior to the ballot being

returned by the

scanner due to an overvote, the officer of election may cast

the ballot for the absent voter.

therefore---

If a voter walks away ( without casting the vote) on a DRE machine the ballot is not cast.  (because you can not prove the “officer” did not change the vote)

What keeps an officer from making another mark on the paper ballot?

In other words it can’t be proven the vote was not changed.

It does look like the 2 vote problems ( DRE vs Optical Scan ) are treated differently.

Both deal with a ballot cast without knowledge of said voter.

Has the procedure for the “ DRE voter who walks away without casting a vote”

changed ??

Section E is critically needed to clarify when an AB is considered to have been cast if the AB vote is not made in-person.  Section E as written states that the AB is cast once the voter relinquishes control over the ballot.  To further clarify its impact, I would suggest that the following sentence be added at the end of Section E: "Since the ballot has been deemed to have been cast as specified, the voter has exercised his right to vote.  Any subsequent decision to accept or reject the ballot made by the Election Officers at the Central Absentee Precinct is therefore irrelevant to the voter's right to vote."

This will prevent a situation that has occurred in Fairfax County where an AB is rejected during the CAP processing and the voter, having been notified by a partisan observer at the CAP of this rejection, attempts to vote (either a regular or provisional ballot) at his polling place during Election Day.  Under this proposed regulation, such an attempt would be considered as attempting to vote twice and therefore cannot be allowed.

Approval of this change would appear to enable a voter to vote for two candidates for the same office. In one scenario suggested, the voter votes for two candidates, inserts the ballot into the optical scanner (OS), and then leaves. The OS then rejects the ballot because of the overvote. An officer of election then notices the rejected ballot. He MAY override the overvote and have the ballot cast counted for both candidates.

My preference would be for the officer of election not cast the overvote ballot, but to place it aside, and return it on Election Night to the General Registrar. The Electoral Board would then deal with the overvote ballot during the canvass process as prescribed in the Code 24.2-663.