<p class=ldtitle> A BILL to amend and reenact §§ 24.2-404, 24.2-427, and 24.2-428 of the Code of Virginia, relating to voter registration; regular periodic review of registration records; 90-day quiet period before all primary and general elections.</p>
HB28 makes several changes to Virginia’s voter registration maintenance laws. It directs the Department of Elections and general registrars to continue using the statewide voter registration system to update records, remove ineligible voters, and maintain records of deletions. The bill also changes the timing for some maintenance actions, including extending the deadline for certain removals after notice from 30 to 60 days and lengthening the response period for voters flagged as noncitizens from 14 to 28 days. It requires notice by mail, email, and attempted phone/text contact in noncitizenship cases, and it preserves existing procedures for cancellations based on death, felony conviction, incapacity, or move-related notices.
A major feature of the bill is a new 90-day quiet period before all primary and general elections during which any systematic program to remove ineligible voters based on computerized data matching or other non-individualized review must be completed. The bill defines that restriction broadly, while still allowing certain individualized or event-driven removals, such as voter-requested cancellations, recent death/incapacity/felony removals, and record corrections that do not remove a voter. It also keeps the annual or regular periodic address-review program and inactive-status process for voters who do not respond to address confirmation notices.
The bill would affect the Department of Elections, general registrars, and registered voters statewide by tightening and standardizing voter list maintenance procedures. It also expands the use of the federal SAVE Program to verify citizenship status and requires the State Board of Elections to adopt rules governing the use of immigration-status information. In practical terms, the bill would likely increase administrative duties for election officials while adding procedural protections and longer response windows for voters whose registrations are challenged or flagged.
The overall sentiment in the recorded votes was mixed but ultimately favorable in the House, with the bill advancing through committee and passing the House on a party-line-leaning vote. The final recorded action, however, was that it was continued to the next session in the Privileges and Elections Committee, indicating that despite earlier support, the measure did not complete the process in this session. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, so the available record shows procedural support and opposition through votes rather than detailed debate.
The main points of contention appear to be the balance between election integrity and voter access. Supporters likely viewed the bill as strengthening voter-roll accuracy, citizenship verification, and pre-election list maintenance rules, while opponents likely objected to expanded use of SAVE data, the potential for erroneous removals, and the 90-day restriction on systematic list maintenance before elections. The longer notice and response periods suggest an attempt to address due-process concerns, but the bill still appears to have been controversial because it changes how and when voters can be removed from the rolls.
HB28 would amend §§ 24.2-404, 24.2-427, and 24.2-428 of the Code of Virginia to alter voter registration maintenance procedures, including deadlines for removing ineligible voters, notice requirements, and the timing of systematic list-maintenance programs. It would expand and formalize the Department of Elections’ authority to use the federal SAVE Program for citizenship verification, require new rules for handling immigration-status information, and impose a 90-day pre-election quiet period for systematic removals based on data matching or other non-individualized review. The bill also affects general registrars’ duties regarding cancellations, address changes, inactive status, and voter notification.
The bill’s voting history suggests cautious but meaningful support in committee and on the House floor, with several favorable votes and passage by the House, but not unanimous agreement. The final continuation to the next session indicates that the measure did not fully resolve concerns or secure final enactment during the session. Overall, the sentiment appears divided: supporters favored tighter voter-roll maintenance and citizenship verification, while opponents were concerned about voter removal procedures and election-administration burdens.
The central controversy is the tradeoff between maintaining accurate voter rolls and avoiding improper or last-minute removals of eligible voters. Critics are likely to focus on the expanded use of SAVE data, the possibility of mistaken noncitizen flags, and the broad definition of “systematic” removals that could limit cleanup efforts before elections. Supporters likely emphasize fraud prevention, list accuracy, and uniform statewide procedures. Another point of contention is the bill’s longer response window and notice requirements, which may be seen either as necessary safeguards or as insufficient protection depending on the perspective.