4 ms·

The signature verification part was dropped by court. And to be honest I don't understand why.

Balgair 6y ago
Unanimously dropped by the State Supreme Court. Not one justice voted to require signatures.
codyb 6y ago
My guess would be an inability on the part of those who wanted inconsistent signatures to be a valid reason for throwing out a ballot to show evidence that such a move would prevent widespread fraud, and a significant amount of data on the part of those arguing that signature verification would instead disproportionately throw out qualified ballots filled out by people whose signatures vary sometimes (my certainly does).
yellow_postit 6y ago
My hypothesis is signature verification where it’s minimally trained individuals doing the comparison seems quite open for inaccuracies. I couldn’t find any large scale studies though looking into this.
pavlov 6y ago
I’m 40 and trying to imagine what my signature looked like twenty years ago. Probably rather different. It would suck to have my vote thrown away because some overworked election worker looks at it for a second and decides the letter P is bent the wrong way compared to the 1999 version.
- codezero 6y ago
  Agree strongly, also, nobody ever told me my signature was significant. I’ve never had a “signature” and nobody has ever told me I needed to. The scrawl on the back of credit cards used to be checked in 2000-2010 but not since, and even then I just scribbled. Learning that votes are thrown out based on this just shows how “special” the US system is. I assume historically they just decided “hard to read” names got thrown out.
  - pavlov 6y ago
    It’s not hard to imagine that many of those hard to read names historically just happened to belong to minorities. American states have a sordid history of using ambiguous laws for vote suppression.
abraae 6y ago
We verify signatures as part of our service (online background checks). It's an entirely human process and imprecise might be the best word for it.
Kye 6y ago
Integrity theater exists to suppress turnout for the party that wins when people turn out to vote and is primarily supported by the party that wins by suppressing the vote. It only does this. It does nothing to lower the already insignificant amount of voter fraud.
hellotomyrars 6y ago
The idea of it is kind of farcical to being with. How do you verify hundreds of thousands of signatures in the first place? It might be a science at a forensic level for investigations, but at this scale? I don't think so. Also while I'm not going to imply I'm a typical case, I am not capable of writing a consistent signature due to a neurological condition. I think I still deserve a vote.
- rayiner 6y ago
  Is it farcical? Signature verification is the only thing they use in Maryland. You just go up and write in your address and sign. I don’t know how reliable signatures are but people assure me that not requiring ID is fine because there are signatures: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/policy-brief-alternatives-voter-identification https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/poli... > Such signature comparison has long been deemed sufficiently reliable to legitimate absentee ballots and provisional ballots, and there is no reason to believe that it is any less reliable for confirming the identity of individuals voting in person.
  - hellotomyrars 6y ago
    This says nothing about the process itself, just a simple statement that it works. Maybe an actual description of the process would be more convincing to me, but this by itself doesn’t mean anything to me.
- akhosravian 6y ago
  Washington uses signatures for our all mail in elections. When I’ve phoned in my signature (read just a line instead of something even vaguely resembling my usual mess) it has been challenged. I also forgot to sign/drop my ballot one time and had my wife sign it. That one was also challenged. When challenged you have to reaffirm you submitted the ballot. You only “lose” your vote if you fail to respond. YMMV but it seems to work pretty well here.
  - hellotomyrars 6y ago

Unanimously dropped by the State Supreme Court. Not one justice voted to require signatures.

My guess would be an inability on the part of those who wanted inconsistent signatures to be a valid reason for throwing out a ballot to show evidence that such a move would prevent widespread fraud, and a significant amount of data on the part of those arguing that signature verification would instead disproportionately throw out qualified ballots filled out by people whose signatures vary sometimes (my certainly does).

yellow_postit 6y ago

My hypothesis is signature verification where it’s minimally trained individuals doing the comparison seems quite open for inaccuracies. I couldn’t find any large scale studies though looking into this.

pavlov 6y ago

I’m 40 and trying to imagine what my signature looked like twenty years ago. Probably rather different. It would suck to have my vote thrown away because some overworked election worker looks at it for a second and decides the letter P is bent the wrong way compared to the 1999 version.

codezero 6y ago
Agree strongly, also, nobody ever told me my signature was significant. I’ve never had a “signature” and nobody has ever told me I needed to. The scrawl on the back of credit cards used to be checked in 2000-2010 but not since, and even then I just scribbled. Learning that votes are thrown out based on this just shows how “special” the US system is. I assume historically they just decided “hard to read” names got thrown out.
- pavlov 6y ago
  It’s not hard to imagine that many of those hard to read names historically just happened to belong to minorities. American states have a sordid history of using ambiguous laws for vote suppression.

abraae 6y ago

We verify signatures as part of our service (online background checks). It's an entirely human process and imprecise might be the best word for it.

Kye 6y ago

Integrity theater exists to suppress turnout for the party that wins when people turn out to vote and is primarily supported by the party that wins by suppressing the vote. It only does this. It does nothing to lower the already insignificant amount of voter fraud.

hellotomyrars 6y ago

The idea of it is kind of farcical to being with. How do you verify hundreds of thousands of signatures in the first place? It might be a science at a forensic level for investigations, but at this scale? I don't think so. Also while I'm not going to imply I'm a typical case, I am not capable of writing a consistent signature due to a neurological condition. I think I still deserve a vote.

rayiner 6y ago
Is it farcical? Signature verification is the only thing they use in Maryland. You just go up and write in your address and sign. I don’t know how reliable signatures are but people assure me that not requiring ID is fine because there are signatures: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/policy-brief-alternatives-voter-identification https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/poli... > Such signature comparison has long been deemed sufficiently reliable to legitimate absentee ballots and provisional ballots, and there is no reason to believe that it is any less reliable for confirming the identity of individuals voting in person.
- hellotomyrars 6y ago
  This says nothing about the process itself, just a simple statement that it works. Maybe an actual description of the process would be more convincing to me, but this by itself doesn’t mean anything to me.
akhosravian 6y ago
Washington uses signatures for our all mail in elections. When I’ve phoned in my signature (read just a line instead of something even vaguely resembling my usual mess) it has been challenged. I also forgot to sign/drop my ballot one time and had my wife sign it. That one was also challenged. When challenged you have to reaffirm you submitted the ballot. You only “lose” your vote if you fail to respond. YMMV but it seems to work pretty well here.
- hellotomyrars 6y ago