The goal is to positively identify the voter.  Uniformity and equality are essential in voting. These criteria are missing in this discussion of what is material or not material in counting absentee ballots.

When voters apply for an absentee ballot, it is confirmed that the requestor is a registered voter eligible to receive an absentee ballot. Labels with needed information are affixed to the mailing envelope and return envelope. When the voted ballot is returned, this information is checked and voting credit is given. This is true for a stateside voter and a UOCAVA or overseas voter. How then is the "B" envelope with the signature of the voter and witness of a UOCAVA voter accepted and the "B" envelop of a non-UOCAVA voter with the same information not accepted? These voters are held to a different standard.  Why is information that the registrar's office put on the envelope not enough information to count the ballot of the non-UOCAVA voter? This is not uniform, fair or equal. The only material inofrmation of the "B" envelope is the voter's name, signature and the witness's signature. The address, etc., is not material since it is on the envelope already.

I do hope we will finally make the process of voting absentee uniform and equal for all.

In item C #6, I think a voter providing a derivitive of their name should NOT be considered a MATERIAL omisson.  If the voter writes "Bob" instead of "Robert" and all other information matches the AB application and and registration record, I believe this voter matches up with that record.

In item C #6, I think omitting the year in the date should NOT be considered MATERIAL omisson.

If the envelope contains this year's ballot and the outer envelope is postmarked this year, I do not believe that omission of the year on the date of the voter's signature is material.