Can a Virginia general registrar speak about voter registration at a Rotary Club, League of Women Voters, or other private civic group meeting without violating the state's ban on private election funding?

Plain-English summary

In 2020, Virginia passed § 24.2-124.1, sometimes called the state's "Zuckerbucks ban," which forbids electoral boards and registrar offices from soliciting, accepting, using, or disposing of "money, grants, property, or services" from any private individual or non-governmental entity for voter education, voter registration, or election-conduct expenses. The Albemarle County Electoral Board asked whether that prohibition keeps a registrar from accepting an invitation to speak about voting at a non-partisan civic group's meeting.

Attorney General Jason Miyares concluded that an invitation to speak does not count as "money, grants, property, or services" given to the registrar. Reading those four words by their dictionary meanings, none of them covers a host's offer of a podium and an audience. So the registrar can show up and give the talk. The opinion also points out that § 24.2-114(2) actually directs registrars to participate in programs that educate the public about voter registration, which would be hard to do if any speaking invitation triggered the funding ban.

The opinion does add a guardrail: while at the event, the registrar still cannot solicit, accept, or use private money or services for election expenses. So the speaking engagement itself is fine; it just cannot turn into a fundraising or service-collection occasion for the registrar's office.

The opinion also notes a procedural point: § 2.2-505(A) only allows the chair or secretary of an electoral board to request an advisory opinion. Albemarle's request came collectively from all three board members. The AG answered anyway because Sylvia Flood (chair) and Jim Heilman (secretary) were among the signers.

What this means for you

If you are a Virginia general registrar

You can accept an invitation to speak at a Rotary Club, League of Women Voters chapter, neighborhood association, library author series, or similar non-partisan civic event without running afoul of the private-funding ban, even though the host is a private organization. The opinion treats the invitation itself as outside the statute's reach. While at the event, do not let the host hand you cash, gift cards, services like printing, or anything similar earmarked for election work. If the host wants to donate to your office, refer them to whatever process your locality uses for unrestricted general fund contributions, not to your election account.

If you organize civic events

You can invite the registrar to speak. The registrar does not need a special waiver, and the invitation does not become an illegal in-kind contribution under § 24.2-124.1 just because the registrar is a public election official. Consider keeping the format strictly informational (registration deadlines, ID rules, polling place questions) and avoid mixing it with candidate or partisan content, both because the registrar's office must remain non-partisan and because the AG's analysis assumed a "private, non-profit, and non-partisan" host.

If you serve on an electoral board

If you want to request a future advisory opinion from the AG under § 2.2-505, only the chair or the secretary can sign the request. A request from the full board may be answered out of courtesy, but technically only the chair or secretary has standing under the statute. Use the right signer to avoid procedural issues.

If you are an election-law attorney

The opinion stakes out a narrow reading of "money, grants, property, or services" and uses Webster's Third for each defined term, which is consistent with the AG's prior treatment of § 24.2-124.1 in 22-038. It treats § 24.2-124.1 as a private-money funding statute, not a general anti-association rule. In future disputes, the operative question will be whether the thing offered is a transferable economic benefit (training, software, printing, premises rental at no charge for actual election operations) or merely an invitation to participate in civic discourse. The opinion also leaves intact a 2022 Department of Elections guidance that excludes free use of a polling-place satellite location from the statute's reach.

Common questions

Q: Can the registrar accept a free meal at the event without violating the statute?
A: The opinion does not address food and drink directly, but a complimentary meal arguably falls within "property" or "services" if it is meaningful enough to count. The cautious move is to decline, or to pay for the meal personally. Section 24.2-124.1 is not the only law in play; conflict-of-interest rules under §§ 2.2-3100 to -3132 also apply.

Q: Does this mean a private group can pay the registrar's mileage or travel?
A: No. Mileage reimbursement, hotel rooms, or other defrayed travel costs are "money" or "services" under any plain reading. The registrar should pay travel costs out of the locality's election budget. The opinion's permission is narrowly about accepting an unpaid speaking invitation.

Q: What about partisan civic groups, like a Young Democrats or county Republican committee?
A: The opinion was written about a "private, non-profit, and non-partisan" host. Speaking at an explicitly partisan event raises separate concerns about the registrar's official duty of neutrality. Most local registrars decline such invitations on neutrality grounds independent of § 24.2-124.1.

Q: Can the host provide promotional flyers or a banner that say the event is "in partnership with" the registrar's office?
A: The opinion does not bless that. A banner or flyer crosses into branding the registrar's office, which can imply endorsement. Stay to "Albemarle County Registrar will speak about voter registration" framing rather than co-sponsorship language.

Q: Does this opinion apply to electoral board members too, or only general registrars?
A: The opinion was about registrars, but § 24.2-124.1's prohibition lists "each local electoral board" alongside "all offices of the general registrar." The same plain-meaning reasoning would extend to an electoral board member accepting an unpaid civic speaking invitation, with the same guardrails.

Background and statutory framework

Section 24.2-124.1 was enacted by the General Assembly in 2020 in response to an influx of private grants to local election offices nationally during the 2020 election cycle (often referred to in the press as "Zuckerbucks," after grants from Mark Zuckerberg's Center for Tech and Civic Life). The Virginia statute is one of the more restrictive state versions; it bars not just direct cash but also grants, property, and services for any election-related expense.

Earlier guidance interpreting the statute (22-038, Sept. 22, 2022) had already concluded that private-party "training, coaching, and website modernization services" were the kinds of "services" the statute reached. This 2023 opinion confirms the inverse: an invitation to speak is not a transferable service flowing to the registrar; the registrar's own time and expertise are what makes the talk happen, and those are public-employee outputs, not private inputs.

The AG also harmonizes the statute with § 24.2-114(2), which expressly directs registrars to "[p]articipate in programs to educate the general public concerning registration and encourage registration by the general public." Reading § 24.2-124.1 to bar acceptance of speaking invitations would have created a direct conflict between the two statutes. The opinion avoids that by adopting the narrower interpretation.

Citations

• Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-124.1 (private-funding prohibition for elections)
• Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-114(2) (registrar duty to participate in voter education programs)
• Va. Code Ann. § 2.2-505 (Attorney General advisory opinions)
• 2022 Op. Va. Att'y Gen. No. 22-038 (Sept. 22, 2022) (services include training, coaching, website services)
• Va. Dep't of Elections, Acceptance of Certain Gifts and Funding Prohibited (July 21, 2022)
• Va. Dep't of Tax'n v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 300 Va. 446 (2022)
• Grethen v. Robinson, 294 Va. 392 (2017)
• Morgan v. Commonwealth, 881 S.E.2d 795 (2022)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.oag.state.va.us/annual-reports-opinions/official-opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.oag.state.va.us/files/Opinions/2023/23-005-Flood-Heilman-issued.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA

Office of the Attorney General
202 North Ninth Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
804-786-2071
Fax 804-786-1991
July 27, 2023

Jason S. Miyares
Attorney General

Ms. Sylvia Flood, Chair
Mr. Jim Heilman, Secretary
Albemarle County Electoral Board
1600 5th Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902

Dear Ms. Flood and Mr. Heilman:

I am responding to your request for an official advisory opinion in accordance with § 2.2-505 of the Code of Virginia.

Issue Presented

You ask whether Virginia Code § 24.2-124.1 prohibits a general registrar from speaking about voter registration and voting at a meeting of a private, non-profit, and non-partisan civic organization.

Response

It is my opinion that a general registrar may speak at such an event, provided that the speaking engagement otherwise does not involve the solicitation, acceptance, use, or disposition of any money, grants, property, or services given by a private party to fund election-related expenses.

Applicable Law and Discussion

As this Office previously has stated, § 24.2-124.1 "establishes a general prohibition against the funding of election procedures by private parties." It specifically directs that

each local electoral board[] and all offices of the general registrar shall not solicit, accept, use, or dispose of any money, grants, property, or services given by a private individual or nongovernmental entity for the purpose of funding voter education and outreach programs, voter registration programs, or any other expense incurred in the conduct of elections.

"When a statute, as written, is clear on its face, [we] will look no further than the plain meaning of the statute's words." "'[W]e are bound by the plain meaning of that language,' unless 'applying the plain language would lead to an absurd result.'" When ascertaining and giving effect to legislative intent, "the plain, obvious, and rational meaning of a statute is always to be preferred to any curious, narrow, or strained construction."

The prohibition set forth in § 24.2-124.1 applies to "money, grants, property, or services" given by private parties for certain purposes. Therefore, as a threshold matter, to fall within the terms of the statutory prohibition, an invitation to speak at an event must constitute either "money, grants, property, or services" given to the registrar by the event host. "In the absence of a statutory definition and where no technical or special meaning is explicitly stated in or necessarily implied from the language and context of a statute, words which the legislature has seen fit to employ are to be given their usual and ordinary meanings." In determining a term's "ordinary meaning," standard dictionary definitions may be consulted. Considering such definitions and affording each of the applicable terms their plain meaning, I conclude that § 24.2-124.1 does not prohibit acceptance of an invitation such as the one you describe.

As defined by a common dictionary, "money" means "something generally accepted as a medium of exchange, a measure of value, or a means of payment." Likewise, a "grant" in this context is defined as "a transfer of real or personal property by deed or writing." The common usage dictionary definition of "property" is "something that is or may be owned or possessed." "Service" is defined as "the performance of work commanded or paid for by another" or "an act done for the benefit or at the command of another." These definitions demonstrate that the plain meaning of "money, grants, property, or services" does not encompass an invitation to speak about voting at an event such as you describe. Consequently, the language of § 24.2-124.1 evinces that a general registrar may accept such an invitation without contravening the statute's prohibitions.

Moreover, statutes "should not be analyzed as isolated fragments of law." Rather, they are to be "considered as if they constituted but one act, so that sections of one act may be considered as though they were parts of the other act . . . ." Code § 24.2-114 sets forth various powers and duties of general registrars. Among the responsibilities imposed is a charge to "[p]articipate in programs to educate the general public concerning registration and encourage registration by the general public." Section 24.2-124.1 does not negate this duty. I therefore conclude that, in exercising his or her duties, a general registrar may speak at a privately-hosted event regarding voting or voter registration, provided the registrar, in so doing, does not solicit, accept, use, or dispose of any money, grants, property, or services of the private host or any other private party.

Conclusion

Accordingly, it is my opinion that § 24.2-124.1 does not prohibit a general registrar from speaking about voting or voting registration at a meeting of a private, non-profit, and non-partisan civic organization, provided the speaking engagement otherwise does not involve the solicitation, acceptance, use, or disposition of any money, grants, property, or services given by a private party to fund election-related expenses.

With kindest regards, I am,

Very truly yours,

Jason S. Miyares
Attorney General