FARMVILLE – If absentee voting is anything to go on-and it is everything to go on-turnout Tuesday will approach the record volume of voting in the 2008 presidential election.

Ballots will be cast for president, the United States Senate, the House of Representatives, two proposed Virginia constitutional amendments and, in Buckingham, a proposed food and beverage tax.

“Very similar, maybe slightly less than it was four years ago,” Prince Edward County Voter Registrar Dale Bolt said this week, predicting Election Day participation. “Maybe a percentage less. A percentage or two.”

Absentee voting by mail, Bolt noted, “is almost up to what it was four years ago.”

The number of people voting absentee in person “is a little bit short right now” of 2008, he said.

Overall absentee balloting in Prince Edward County is “going to be close” to four years ago, he predicted. “Four years ago I had 800. This year, I'm guessing, maybe 725, so a little bit less.”

The absentee voting in 2008 was the largest in Bolt's experience. “Four years ago was twice what it was in 2004,” he pointed out. “I had about 400 in 2004, about 800 in the last presidential election. We're going to end up, I'm guessing, 725 or so for this election.”

The average election, even a statewide election for governor and the General Assembly, sees far less absentee voting.

“Other than a presidential (election),” Bolt said, “the most I've ever had is about 200 (absentee votes), the largest ever. Most of them run 100 or so.”

Buckingham County absentee voting, said the county's Voter Registrar Margaret Thomas, “has been brisk.”

By brisk, she explained, “it's on par with four years ago…We have about 600 total (absentee votes) right now and that's about the same at this point as we had four years ago.”

Thomas, who has been the county's Voter Registrar for over 20 years, said absentee voting in 2008 was the largest she's ever seen. “By far. By far it was,” she said.

And turnout by voters, in terms of numbers, was the greatest in her experience.

Next Tuesday's election is expected to approach those numbers from four years ago.

The two registrars offered to suggestions to help smooth the voting process on a day that should be extremely busy.

Thomas urged those who can choose any time of day to vote on Tuesday, such as retirees, to avoid the morning and late afternoon.

Bolt advised voters to be aware, and Thomas agreed, of what's on the ballot, particularly the two proposed state constitutional amendments.

“The busiest times of day for the polls are early in the morning for people going to work, and late in the afternoon with people getting off work,” Thomas said, “so to avoid the crowds they could come maybe right after lunch. If people are trying to avoid the crowd at their precinct, the least busy time of day is from 1 to 3 p.m.”

Bolt believes those not familiar with the two constitutional questions (see below) are “about the only thing that's going to slow down people…That might slow it down a bit. So be prepared to know what you're going to vote for when you actually go in and vote…So just be prepared, is all I can say.”

Rather than names of candidates, the constitutional questions are paragraphs, so those unfamiliar will have to read and absorb the information, make up their mind, and then vote.

Whatever happens at the polls next Tuesday, the registrars know poll workers are prepared.

Thomas described them as a “dedicated group of officers of election who are committed and confident and they'll be working the polls.”

There are five candidates for president. In the order in which they appear on the ballot, they are: Mitt Romney, Republican Party; Barack Obama, Democratic Party; Virgil Goode, Constitution Party; Gary Johnson, Libertarian Party; and Jill Stein, the Green Party.

Two candidates are running for the United States Senate. In ballot order, former governor George F. Allen, the Republican, and former governor Timothy M. Kaine, the Democrat.

Three candidates are running for the Fifth Congressional District. In ballot order they are: Robert Hurt, the Republican; John Wade Douglass, the Democrat; and Kenneth J. Hildebrandt, the Independent Green Party candidate.

As for the Constitutional amendment questions, the first involves the use of eminent domain and the second affects the annual one-day “veto” session when the General Assembly considers gubernatorial vetoes and legislative amendments.

The eminent domain ballot question asks:

“Shall…the Constitution of Virginia be amended to require that eminent domain only be exercised where the property taken or damaged is for public use and, except for utilities or the elimination of a public nuisance, not where the primary use is for private gain, private benefit, private enterprise, increasing jobs, increasing tax revenue, or economic development; to define what is included in just compensation for such taking or damaging of property; and to prohibit the taking or damaging of more private property than is necessary for public use?”

The Constitution currently prohibits the taking or damaging of private property for public uses without just compensation. The power to take private property for public uses is known as the power of eminent domain. If a private property owner and the entity acquiring property for a public use cannot agree on the sale of the property, the property may be taken by eminent domain and the amount of just compensation is decided in a court proceeding.

In a 2005 case from Connecticut, the United State Supreme Court upheld the taking of private property and its transfer to a private business for economic development purposes and also said that states could restrict the use of eminent domain. Two years later, the Virginia General Assembly…set limits on the use of eminent domain powers. For example (the Code of Virginia) provides that no more private property may be taken than is necessary for the stated public use, that the public interest for the taking must outweigh any private gain, and that private property cannot be taken for certain primary purposes, such as increasing the tax base, revenues or employment.”

The proposed Constitutional amendment continues that approach, and strengthens its place in the Commonwealth.

While limits in the Code of Virginia can be amended by any future General Assembly, the proposed amendment, if approved by voters, could only be changed by a future Constitutional amendment approved by the voters.

The proposed amendment includes the following:

The right to private property is a “fundamental” right.

The taking or damaging of private property must be for a “public use.”

Just compensation for property taken is expanded and defined to be “no less than the value of the property taken, lost profits and lost access, and damages to the residue caused by 'the taking.'

The entity condemning the property, known as the condemnor, has the burden to prove that the property is being taken for a public use.

The “veto” session ballot question asks:

Shall the section of the Constitution of Virginia “concerning legislative sessions be amended to allow the General Assembly to delay by no more than one week the fixed starting date for the reconvened or 'veto' session when the General Assembly meets after a session to consider the bills returned to it by the Governor with vetoes or amendments?”

Currently, after the end of every legislative session, the General Assembly is required by the Constitution to meet again or reconvene in a “veto” session. The only bills that the General Assembly can consider in a veto session are bills that it had passed during the legislative session and that the Governor has sent back to it with his vetoes and suggested amendments.

The Constitution now requires that the veto session must begin on the sixth Wednesday following the end of each legislative session. The veto session usually lasts for only one day and cannot last more than ten days.

The proposed amendment would allow the General Assembly to delay the start of the veto session for up to one week, thereby able to avoid possible scheduling of the veto session on a religious holiday, such as Passover. The proposed amendment does not change the present limits on the business that can be considered in a veto session or on the length of the veto session.