Commenter:
W. S. Lee, Fairfax County Election Officer
Material Omissions on Envelope B
Delete B.2. Since B.1 pertains to the requirement to include the full name, having B.2 requiring the first name is superfluous.
Delete B.3. Since B.1 pertains to the requirement to include the full name, having B.3 requiring the last name is superfluous.
Change C.2 to be “The voter has used his middle initial instead of his full middle name AND/OR the voter has used his first initial instead of his full first name;”. For example, the former president George W. Bush, the FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, and the guitarist B.B. King.
Change C.3 to be “The voter used a derivative of his legal name as a first name AND/OR a middle name (e.g., “Bob” instead of “Robert”);” For example, Abe Lincoln for former president Abraham Lincoln and Norm Schwarzkopf for retired general Herbert Norman Schwarzkopf.
Add after C.3: “The voter omitted the first or last part of a two-part (hyphenated or unhyphenated or linked with ‘de’) surname;” For example, Jacqueline Kennedy or Jacqueline Onassis for former first lady Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis.
Add after C.3: “The voter omitted his name (generational) suffix;” For example, James Earl Carter for former president James Earl Carter, Jr..
Change C.4 to be “The voter did not provide his residential street identifier (Street, Drive, etc.) AND/OR the voter did not provide his apartment/unit identifier (Apt. 1, etc.);”.
Add before C.6: “The signature of the voter was omitted and a ‘Request for Assistance’ was attached indicating that the voter is unable to sign; or”
I would like to emphasize that the statement standards for UOCAVA voters (absent uniformed services voters and overseas voters) and the statement standards for non-UOCAVA, state prescribed voters (all others who are eligible/entitled voters) should be the same. (On the UOCAVA statement, there are fewer fields to complete.) Nevertheless, if the state’s Envelope B requirement remains codified then the preceding suggested changes to the proposed text on material omissions would make the code less ambiguous.
By reducing the ambiguities, the spirit of the law (eligible/entitled voters can vote) and the letter of the law (fulfilling ballot submission requirements/instructions to vote) should converge. Also note that even with (only) these changes, there are more possibilities for further reducing ambiguities, such as for compound first names (e.g., Maria Isabel) or for numerical dates (e.g., 10/11 – was the year omitted or was this October 2011 and the day was omitted?).
