Mail ballots cannot be rejected over signature matching, Pa. Supreme Court rules

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Philadelphia Inquirer

Mail ballots cannot be rejected based on a comparison of their signatures to the voters' signatures on file, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said Friday. “[C]ounty boards of elections are prohibited from rejecting absentee or mail-in ballots based on signature comparison conducted by county election officials or employees, or as the result of third-party challenges based on signature analysis and comparisons,” Justice Debra Todd wrote Friday.

Court walks through the law and its history to explain: Signature matching isn’t allowed because it isn’t in the law.

Link to tweet

Signature issues are one of the most common reasons for mail ballots being rejected nationally, and the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania and Urban League of Greater Pittsburgh had sued the state over counties' use of signature matching, saying it created an unfair patchwork of policies.

That suit was dropped after the Pennsylvania Department of State, which oversees elections, issued statewide guidance to counties that ballots should be counted if they have signatures, without any analysis or comparison. The Trump campaign challenged that in federal court and lost. Boockvar then asked the state high court to take up the question.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, called the ruling “another win for voters,” and said a voter’s identity is validated when mail ballot applications are processed — usually by using a drivers license number. “Pennsylvania’s voter identification system is safe and secure," Shapiro said. "We are protecting every eligible vote and ensuring each is counted. Make your plan to vote and we will keep doing our work to make sure your voice is heard.”


Read more: https://www.inquirer.com/politics/election/live/elections-2020-candidates-updates-news-pennsylvania-20201023.html#card-762685664

---

TEXT in above tweet

Jonathan Lai
🙊
賴柏羽
@Elaijuh
·
Oct 5, 2020
Replying to @Elaijuh
They dropped that after the PA Department of State issued guidance that county elections offices should not reject ballots “based solely on signature analysis by the county board of elections”.

Jonathan Lai
🙊
賴柏羽
@Elaijuh
Replying to @Elaijuh
Here’s last Friday’s guidance, which says ballots with blank (unsigned) envelopes should be set aside, not counted; “sufficient” signed ones counted unless specifically challenged; no rejecting ballots “based solely on signature analysis by the county board of elections”.
Screenshot of guidance from the Pennsylvania Department of State describing the background on whether and how to count ballots.
Screenshot of guidance from the Pennsylvania Department of State describing how county elections officials should track the date ballots are received, how they were returned, and their ballot status.
Screenshot of guidance from the Pennsylvania Department of State describing how to handle signatures on ballot envelopes: Do not count ballots arriving in unsigned envelopes, count sufficiently signed ballots unless challenged, and do not reject ballots "based solely on signature analysis by the county board of elections."

Jonathan Lai
🙊
賴柏羽
@Elaijuh
New: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is using its King’s Bench power to take up the question of whether state law requires or allows counties to reject ballots based on signature analysis and perceived mismatches.
Screenshot of Pennsylvania Supreme Court order granting the application for King's Bench relief, limited to the following question: "Whether the Election Code authorizes or requires county election boards to reject voted absentee or mail-in ballots during pre-canvassing and canvassing based on signature analysis where there are alleged or perceived signature variances?"
Screenshot of order from Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Justice Dougherty files a concurring statement, Justice Baer files a dissenting statement, and Chief Justice Saylor and Justice Mundy dissent.
11:00 AM · Oct 14, 2020

[Sherman A1]

1. Super

[davsand]

2. We are now virtually guaranteed that this election will be decided by SCOTUS.

While I agree with the decision, the most likely scenario is this will end up in front of SCOTUS when somebody takes exception to the election outcome. Prepare for it.





Laura

[BumRushDaShow]

3. Here in PA, all of the cases by the GOP have gone through both state and federal courts in parallel

And on the federal side so far, the SCOTUS has rejected the GOP arguments and pointed them back to the state courts.

If the outcomes in a state are close, yes I can see it going to the SCOTUS like Bush v Gore. But if there is a significant vote differential, they might try it but it will be more difficult.

Regardless, 45 has spent 50 years "litigating out of problems" and that will certainly not stop. It's the nature of the beast.

[NorthOf270]

9. The last decision was 4-4

Once that cretin Hot Dog gets on the court, forget it.

[BumRushDaShow]

10. Well if they want to undermine the "states' rights" that they proclaim they value

by cherry-picking the states that "have rights" based on pure partisan considerations, then they will be in for a future rude awakening.

[bucolic_frolic]

4. Proof that elections have consequences

Remember the decades and decades of Republican Supreme Courts in PA? We finally voted them out ... was it 2016 or 2018 ... who pays attention to such things.

[BumRushDaShow]

6. It was 2017

https://ballotpedia.org/Pennsylvania_Supreme_Court (including a couple retentions)

And that put them in place for the 2018 redistricting battle, where they were finally able to get us un-gerrymandered for our Congressional seats (which had made us a laughing stock of the country).

And that was basically done by the very simple State Constitutional requirement that said that these districts needed to be "compact and contiguous"! And bullshit like the old PA-7, WAS NOT that!



The dramatic shift towards what the representation SHOULD HAVE BEEN - from 13 (R) - 5 (D) to 9 (R) - 9 (D) has been a godsend!!

[Griefbird]

5. Signatures change.

The last time I voted in PA (in person, 2016) I noticed that the signature on file for me was the one I wrote when I became eligible to vote over 50 years ago. There was no issue when I signed the book with a completely different signature because they knew me. Of course, no one there had any background in handwriting analysis either. Signature matching is an unreliable way to establish identy in an election.

[BumRushDaShow]

7. The last time I voted in person when I noticed an update in how my signature appeared in their book

was a couple years ago. They used the one that is on my current driver's license that I had recently renewed because I certainly don't sign the same as I did 40 years ago when I had first registered.

Believe it or not, when my dad died back in 1974 (he had been a federal worker) and our mom was told we all needed SS cards (nowadays that is standard for kids), I had a "signature" on it as a kid. So when I produced that original which was needed to get my PA REAL ID update driver's license (SS card being one of the required documents), I was a bit concerned that they would balk trying to compare a junior high kid's signature with a grown adult's. Thankfully no problem (I also had a passport with signature as another document so...).

[Rebl2]

8. They should only

use most current signature like on drivers license. My signature has changed over the years because of rheumatoid arthritis.