Elections; certain prohibitions for local electoral boards. (HB1508)

Introduced By

Del. Mark Cole (R-Fredericksburg)


Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law


Elections; local electoral boards; certain prohibitions.  Prohibits a member of a local electoral board from being the spouse or other relative of a candidate for or holder of an office filled in whole or in part by voters in the jurisdiction of the electoral board. Read the Bill »


Bill Has Passed


12/17/2010Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/12/11 11100956D
12/17/2010Referred to Committee on Privileges and Elections
01/13/2011Impact statement from (HB1508)
01/13/2011Assigned P & E sub: #2 Elections
01/13/2011Impact statement from DPB (HB1508)
01/18/2011Subcommittee recommends reporting (5-Y 1-N)
01/21/2011Reported from Privileges and Elections (22-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
01/24/2011Read first time
01/25/2011Read second time and engrossed
01/26/2011Read third time and passed House (94-Y 4-N)
01/26/2011VOTE: PASSAGE (94-Y 4-N) (see vote tally)
01/27/2011Constitutional reading dispensed
01/27/2011Referred to Committee on Privileges and Elections
01/31/2011Assigned to P&E sub: Campaigns and Elections
02/15/2011Reported from Privileges and Elections (14-Y 0-N 1-A) (see vote tally)
02/17/2011Constitutional reading dispensed (38-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/18/2011Read third time
02/18/2011Passed Senate (39-Y 0-N 1-A) (see vote tally)
02/25/2011Bill text as passed House and Senate (HB1508ER)
02/25/2011Impact statement from DPB (HB1508ER)
02/25/2011Signed by Speaker
02/25/2011Signed by President
03/26/2011Governor's recommendation received by House
04/05/2011Placed on Calendar
04/06/2011House concurred in Governor's recommendation (100-Y 0-N)
04/06/2011VOTE: ADOPTION (100-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
04/06/2011Senate concurred in Governor's recommendation (37-Y 1-N 1-A) (see vote tally)
04/06/2011Reconsideration of Governor's recommendation agreed to (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
04/06/2011Senate concurred in Governor's recommendation (39-Y 0-N 1-A) (see vote tally)
04/06/2011G Governor's recommendation adopted
04/06/2011Reenrolled bill text (HB1508ER2)
04/06/2011Signed by Speaker as reenrolled
04/06/2011Signed by President as reenrolled
04/06/2011Enacted, Chapter 764 (effective 1/1/12)
04/06/2011G Acts of Assembly Chapter text (CHAP0764)


This bill was discussed on the floor of the General Assembly. Below is all of the video that we have of that discussion, 1 clip in all, totaling 55 seconds.


Joan F Blackstone writes:

If you mainly eliminated a spouse or family member, what about those who are not related, same sex partners, adoptees, A unit Chair must submit 3 names as it is and the judge chooses the person, If there was a question, could not the judge check on this? This seems too broad.

I am a Unit Chair and frankly I look for people willing to serve in an unpaid position that I think are honest and understand the rules so the process will go smoothly and swiftly.

Carl Anderson writes:

This Bill is overly broad and in many locations could make finding qualified Board Members impossible to find or retain. This provision may be well intentioned but is subject to significant unintended consequences.

For example, the spouse of a distant or estranged relative could, for spite, file as a candidate to force the removal of a Board Member. (Once the Board Member is replaced, they could withdraw from the race.) We could expend untold time and expense in replacing and training Board Members when so few are willing to serve as it is.

The Bill addresses only traditional marriages and relationships. Integrity and trust of individuals selected and appointed is paramount. Too many relationships are not covered by this amendment. No Bill could possibly cover every possible relationship that could result in, or create the potential appearance of conflict. As we automatically suspect traditional family relationships, no matter how distant, should we not explore non-traditional relationships? Divorcees or widowed individuals living together without remarrying would not be subject to the same rules, yet could just as easily have a conflict of interest this Bill attempts to preclude.

This Bill is much too broad and unenforcable. Extensive investigation into all relations of every potential appointee would be prohibitive and probably counterproductive.

Yvonne McGee McCoy writes:

While I don't believe this bill should have passed and I certainly hope the Governor will refuse to sign it into law, the timing could not be worse. Consider the difficulty of training new Electoral Board members during a year that local elections are held, redistricting occurs, and a shortened election season takes place. Having served on the Electoral Board of my county for many years in the past, I understand the importance of having knowledgeable, well-trained people as Electoral Board members. This bill will force those people to resign. This bill will not make elections and recounts more efficient or serve the citizens better. There is a saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Why was this bill introduced in the first place?