An Act to amend and reenact §§ 24.2-103, 24.2-109, 24.2-671, 24.2-675, and 24.2-678 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 24.2-1001.1, relating to elections administration; duties of local electoral boards; certification of election; grounds for removal; civil penalty.
HB78 revises Virginia’s election administration framework by expanding and clarifying the State Board of Elections’ supervisory role over local electoral boards, general registrars, and election officers. The bill directs the State Board, through the Department of Elections, to identify and address major risks to election integrity, issue rules and instructions, and ensure uniform and lawful election administration across the Commonwealth. It also requires the Board to post its rules online promptly and to provide instructions or information to political parties and candidates on request at cost.
The bill strengthens training and certification requirements. It requires annual or more frequent training for electoral board members, establishes a certification program for general registrars with a 12-month deadline after appointment or reappointment, and mandates standardized training for officers of election, including online training materials. The State Board must also review registrar certification every four years and update officer training materials every two years after a federal general election.
HB78 amends several provisions in Title 24.2 of the Code of Virginia governing election administration, including the powers and duties of the State Board of Elections, training and certification of election officials, and enforcement mechanisms. It adds a new section authorizing the State Board to seek removal proceedings against electoral board members or general registrars who fail to perform their duties in accordance with law, and to pursue mandamus, prohibition, or other relief to ensure elections are conducted as required. The bill also imposes a staff neutrality rule barring Department of Elections employees from serving as party officers or participating in candidate campaigns, thereby tightening conflict-of-interest restrictions in election administration.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the measure appears to be framed as a good-government and election-integrity bill focused on uniform administration, training, and accountability. The language emphasizes legality, purity, and standardized procedures, suggesting support for stronger state oversight of local election officials. No contrary sentiment is documented in the provided context, but the bill’s enforcement provisions indicate a serious approach to compliance and administrative discipline.
The most notable points of potential contention are the expanded authority of the State Board over local electoral boards and registrars, including the ability to initiate removal proceedings for failure to discharge duties or neglect of ministerial obligations. Critics could view this as increased centralization of election control and a possible reduction in local discretion, while supporters would likely characterize it as necessary accountability. The bill’s explicit focus on election integrity, mandatory training, and staff political neutrality may also draw attention from those concerned about administrative burdens or the scope of restrictions on election officials.