Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Roland99

(53,345 posts)
32. There IS a verification process. The order says that the signature cannot be the reason for a reject
Fri Oct 23, 2020, 03:03 PM
Oct 2020
In the first guidance document issued on September 11, 2020 to all county boards,
Secretary Boockvar set forth the procedure the boards were to follow upon receipt of an
absentee or mail-in ballot. This guidance directed the county boards to examine the
declaration contained on the ballot return envelope containing the absentee or mail-in
ballot. It further directed the county board to “compare the information on the outer
envelope, i.e., the voter’s name and address, with the information contained in the
‘Registered Absentee and Mail-In Voters File, the absentee voter’s list and/or the Military
Veterans’ and Emergency Civilians Absentee Voters File.’” Pennsylvania Department of
State, Guidance Concerning Examination of Absentee and Mail-In Ballot Return

https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/OtherServicesEvents/Documents/Examination
%20of%20Absentee%20and%20Mail-In%20Ballot%20Return%20Envelopes.pdf. The
Secretary advised that, if the declaration is signed and the county board is satisfied that
the declaration is sufficient, then the absentee or mail-in ballot should be approved for
canvassing unless it is challenged in accordance with the Election Code. The Secretary
specifically cautioned the county boards of elections in this regard that “[t]he Pennsylvania
Election Code does not authorize the county board of elections to set aside returned
absentee or mail-in ballots based solely on signature analysis by the county board of
elections
.”

...

Judge Ranjan discerned nothing in the text of these provisions which requires
county boards of elections to “verify” the signatures on mail-in and absentee ballots – that
is, to examine the signatures to determine whether or not they were authentic, Trump at
*53, and thus rejected Intervenors’ argument that Section 3146.8(g)(3) requires county
boards of elections to engage in signature comparison and verification. In Judge Ranjan’s
view, the county board of elections is required under this statutory provision to verify only
the proof of the voter’s identification by examining the voter’s driver’s license number, the
last four digits of his or her social security number, or other specifically approved form of
[J-113-2020] - 10 identification which is required by Section 2602(z.5) of the Election Code.10
Indeed, Judge Ranjan noted that nowhere in Section 3146.8(g)(3) does the term “signature”
appear. Trump, at *55.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Good. This rejection solely based on unprofessional comparisons of signatures is ridiculous. SWBTATTReg Oct 2020 #1
Yep! MyOwnPeace Oct 2020 #5
In 2012, I voted in person and the poll worker questioned my signature... Kahuna Oct 2020 #20
Texas lost that same case.. ananda Oct 2020 #22
Most handwriting analysis is junk science anyway obamanut2012 Oct 2020 #2
I once read a supposed analysis of Trump's signature that pointed out Hortensis Oct 2020 #48
Comparison is not "analysis" Grins Oct 2020 #53
Excellent news - Ms. Toad Oct 2020 #3
This should be a national finding exboyfil Oct 2020 #4
This! Should indeed be a national finding! n/t MFGsunny Oct 2020 #7
Yep.... and I bet someone with an afro-centric name gets more scrutiny than John Smith groundloop Oct 2020 #11
This is Yuge. Not only a great decision but one is a critical state like PA. Statistical Oct 2020 #6
Is this really a good thing? getagrip_already Oct 2020 #8
The same thing that stops people from doing a lot of illegal things. Mr.Bill Oct 2020 #10
unless they are promised a pardon... getagrip_already Oct 2020 #14
kinda with you here. stopdiggin Oct 2020 #25
They would be taking the risk that the REAL voters would realize they hadn't received a ballot pnwmom Oct 2020 #33
Voter envelopes are uniquely tracked. Voters are notified when mailed, when returned. bucolic_frolic Oct 2020 #41
Oh please, who has that kind of time. Rice4VP Oct 2020 #42
Yes. It's a very good thing. kcr Oct 2020 #51
Could Trump's lawyers use that to take to the SCOTUS after he loses Pennsylvania? LiberalLovinLug Oct 2020 #9
not likely, esp since elections are up to each state on how to conduct them Roland99 Oct 2020 #12
That did not hold true in Florida in 2000 csziggy Oct 2020 #17
true Roland99 Oct 2020 #18
and in the latest scotus ruling getagrip_already Oct 2020 #30
Yes, I worry about the future of our country csziggy Oct 2020 #35
Great! BBG Oct 2020 #13
i doubt we've heard the last of it. barbtries Oct 2020 #15
Doubtful, it was a unanimous decision included all Republican Justices grantcart Oct 2020 #54
that's great, barbtries Oct 2020 #55
There is so much back story surrounding the PA Republicans efforts to disenfranchise PA voters.. asiliveandbreathe Oct 2020 #16
But military ballots are ok to be counted after election day DeminPennswoods Oct 2020 #40
What do you mean...military ballots are ok to be counted after election day.. asiliveandbreathe Oct 2020 #47
Sorry, I don't agree with y'all on this one. moreland01 Oct 2020 #19
The process you describe sounds reasonable. I tried to read the legal stuff in the OP's... LAS14 Oct 2020 #26
thanks. and thanks for your bit of expertise stopdiggin Oct 2020 #27
There IS a verification process. The order says that the signature cannot be the reason for a reject Roland99 Oct 2020 #32
Ruling says officials aren't REQUIRED to reject a ballot SOLELY on the basis of signature mismatch. klook Oct 2020 #43
If you registered to vote 10 years ago, are you really Rice4VP Oct 2020 #44
Sorry, but signatures do change kcr Oct 2020 #52
This message was self-deleted by its author standingtall Oct 2020 #21
yay. id love to file up with a lawsuit on denying people their basic right to vote . AllaN01Bear Oct 2020 #23
Wow. MissB Oct 2020 #24
Arizona too madeup64 Oct 2020 #28
I would guess DENVERPOPS Oct 2020 #29
Just as they call even the most moderate Democrat "A SOCIALIST!!1!!11!" klook Oct 2020 #45
Excellent! Sherman A1 Oct 2020 #31
This court can smell the ratfuckery in the GOP actions RainCaster Oct 2020 #34
SCOTUS denied rethugs - asiliveandbreathe Oct 2020 #49
Supplemental BumRushDaShow Oct 2020 #36
HUGE news!! Marc Elias is one of our most important champions. klook Oct 2020 #37
Signatures change over time, fingers get wobbly as ligaments thicken bucolic_frolic Oct 2020 #38
The fact is, signatures change over time DeminPennswoods Oct 2020 #39
I voted this morning. cab67 Oct 2020 #46
Rt.. TY! Cha Oct 2020 #50
Court rulings are SOOO last century. They are like subpeonas, mere suggestions. not_the_one Oct 2020 #56
SC rules only white, male landowners can vote. Is this far off really? BlueNProud Oct 2020 #57
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»BREAKING: PA Supreme Cour...»Reply #32