Virginia State Board of Elections hears first campaign finance penalty appeals; mixed relief granted, some matters continued

RICHMOND, Va. — The Virginia State Board of Elections spent the bulk of its Nov. 17 meeting hearing the first round of appeals under a new law that lets candidates and committees ask the board to waive or reduce campaign finance penalties.

Board counsel and agency staff framed the hearing as the result of legislation passed during the 2025 General Assembly; Emily Manarski of the campaign finance team briefed the board on procedures and the standard of "good cause" the board must apply when deciding whether to give relief. "The board has discretion if good cause is found," staff said in opening remarks.

Petitioners described a range of reasons for their late or missing filings: travel-related technical failures, health crises, misunderstandings about reporting rules and bookkeeping errors by third-party vendors. Philip Scott, who faced a state-assessed $1,000 penalty after missing a July 15 deadline, testified that a delayed flight and inability to connect to Wi-Fi prevented an on-time filing: "I had the information with me... I tried using my hotspot. My computer wasn't connecting with the airport Wi‑Fi," Scott said, asking the board to dismiss the penalty. The board noted prior late filings and voted to dismiss Scott's petition, thereby upholding the assessed penalty.

Other petitioners received different outcomes. Sylvia Alexi, who identified herself as a first-time candidate and "a full time mom," asked for forgiveness of a $100 fine for a June 9 deadline she said she had limited time to meet; the board cited Code language and granted relief after a motion and roll-call vote. In another case the board voted to reduce a penalty to $500 after reviewing medical documentation and other circumstances presented by a petitioner who said health issues made timely filing impractical.

Several larger matters were continued. The board repeatedly debated whether a string of multi-year penalties should be considered time‑barred under the statute of limitations; registrars and staff described gaps in written notice and transitions in local offices that complicated enforcement and record-keeping. In the case of Matthew Cross, board members discussed district registrar records, an apparent email-delivery problem and whether several historical violations fell outside a 1‑year discovery window or the three‑year cap cited in code discussion; the board ultimately assessed partial relief for some items and allowed others to be dismissed or deferred in keeping with statute-of-limitations concerns.

Board members and staff emphasized an important legal limit on relief: counsel reminded the board that any forgiveness cannot excuse the underlying obligation to file the required reports. "The only limitation that you all have in granting relief under the statute is that the relief cannot include an exemption from filing a report," counsel said, adding that relief could be conditioned on the petitioner filing outstanding reports.

Several petitioners recounted personal hardships that shaped the board's deliberations. Tammy Bilski said she moved out of state and experienced family trauma that disrupted her ability to file; Bev Jones, a first‑time Campbell County school‑board candidate, described rural internet outages that contributed to a missed deadline. Registrars frequently told the board that they had made outreach attempts but that notices were not always received or that communications had been verbal rather than in writing.

The board used a mix of outcomes: motions to grant full relief, to grant partial relief (including a recorded reduction to $500 in at least one case), to dismiss petitions where a pattern of prior late filings counseled against leniency, and to continue proceedings where staff or registrars need to assist petitioners in filing outstanding reports. Multiple motions were resolved by roll-call votes in open session.

Board members said the hearing was a learning opportunity for candidates and registrars as the new appeal process is implemented. "This is really new stuff," the chair said near the meeting's end, urging better documentation and communication between registrars and filers.

The board adjourned open session after voting to move to a closed session for pending litigation and further discussion of the campaign finance penalty process; next public meeting was set for Dec. 1.

Votes at a glance (select outcomes announced Nov. 17): - Approval of Sept. 17, 2025 minutes: passed by roll call (all present voted Aye). - Finalize two Sept. 17 "stand by your ad" decisions (Friends of Shane Boswell: $100 penalty; Friends of Joe Brand: dismissed): passed by roll call. - Philip Scott (state-assessed $1,000): petition dismissed (board voted to uphold penalty). - Sylvia Alexi (state-assessed $100): full relief granted. - At least one petitioner: penalty reduced to $500 by board motion. - Multiple larger, multi-year petitions (including Matthew Cross, Bradley Wright): partial relief, dismissals of time-barred items, or continuances depending on registrar records and statute-of-limitations analysis.

What happens next: The board directed staff to draft written opinions reflecting each decision and to post them; counsel reminded petitioners that outstanding reports must be filed even if monetary relief is granted.