A find the changed 1VAC20-60-30 to confusing and contradictory.  Section A is about observers (the term I'll use to refer to "representatives of candidates and political parties authorized to observe the election"), Section B is about voters, then it switches back to being about observers again in Section C, and then back to voters again in Section D.  That makes it hard to follow.  Additionally, it provides no guidance on voter use of cell phones.  Section B refers to "cameras or audio or visual recording devices" and section D refers to all electronic devices.  It isn't clear to me whether a policy barring all use of cell phones by all voters is allowed (as long as other electronic devices are allowed).

Also, Section C and the second paragraph of Section A seem to be on essentially the same topic: just more detail in Section C as to the standards that should be used in Section A?  Why are these in separate sections?  Additionally, Section A prohibits observers from using the camera function on a phone, but the clause of Section C "regulate"ing the use of a camera (old clause iii) is being removed.  This seems counterintuitive if not down right contradictory.  The more I read it, the more Section C seems problematic.  I recommend it just be removed; Section A's grant of discretion to the majority of the officers of the election seems sufficient. 

As to the substance of the policy, assuming I am reading it right, observers are allowed to use cell phones but not allowed to use cameras.  Conversely, voters can use cameras, but it isn't perfectly clear if they can use cell phones.  Seems unnecessarily inconsistent, but maybe there is a good rational behind it.

Section B used to apply to all people other than observers, now it just applies to voters.  This means there does not seem to be a policy applicable to anyone else in the polling place:  media, officers of the election, people assisting voters, children of voters, etc.  It would seem to me there should be a policy that applies to them, too.

Lastly, regarding 1VAC20-60-50, I believe language "who may be members of the same party" would best be replaced with "who represent the same party" to better align with the first sentence and with §24.2-115.