[EL] obscure question

Tue Jul 31 08:52:40 PDT 2012

Kentucky will generally strike signatures that are not strictly compliant, though there is rarely a reported appellate opinion on it.  I can't immediately point you to authority specifically on the date issue, but they have been  challenged in the past.  See below for citations in the contexts of a spouse signing the petition for both, and illegibility.  The decisions themselves might be more helpful.

Kentucky law requires strict compliance with election statutes. Barnard v. Stone, 933 S.W.2d 394, 395 (Ky. 1996).  Substantial compliance with statutes regarding nomination for candidacy  is insufficient, as Kentucky's highest court has repeatedly held that accepting substantial compliance "would amount to an unauthorized amendment of the statute". Id., citing Thomas v. Lyons, 586 S.W.2d 711 (Ky. 1979), Morris v. Jefferson County Clerk, 729 S.W.2d 444 (Ky. 1987).

  *   Statute requiring nomination petition to be signed "by registered voters" requires literal application.  The voter must be registered, and must also physically sign the petition. Barnard; accord, Hall v. Reid, 305 S.W.2d 923 (Ky. 1957).
  *   Thus, "signatures" that were written on petition by voters' respective spouses with voters' permission and in voters' presence could not be counted. Barnard
*         Duplicate signature will be stricken from nominating petition. Ledford v. Hubbard, 292 S.W. 345 (Ky. 1926).

  *   Allowing obviously interested parties to attempt an after-the-fact shoring up of deficiencies in the nominating petition can only serve to undermine the integrity of the process the statute is designed to protect. We therefore hold that under KRS 118.315(2) the signature of the registered voter is required to be the voter's own signature, verifiable by reference to the voter registration roles. Stone v. Barnard, et al., 1996 WL 517046, 96-CA-2400-I (Ky.App. Sep 10, 1996), affirmed on appeal  Barnard v. Stone, 933 S.W.2d 394, 395 (Ky. 1996).
  *    "[I]f the signature on the petition is completely illegible, then obviously it must be disregarded.  However, we believe the clerk should make every effort...to match the signature on the petition with that of the registration card based on the address given." Ky. OAG 85-60

D. Eric Lycan
Steptoe & Johnson PLLC
One Paragon Centre
2525 Harrodsburg Road, Suite 300
Lexington, KY 40504
O: 859-219-8213 F: 304-933-8715 C: 859-621-8888

Eric.Lycan at Steptoe-Johnson.com
www.steptoe-johnson.com<http://www.steptoe-johnson.com/>
@KYcampaignlaw

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Winger
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 10:06 PM
To: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: [EL] obscure question

Today the Libertarian Party submitted 42,000 signatures to be on the ballot in Pennsylvania.  The Elections office immediately examined all the signatures and lined out all the signatures in which the signer had not put "2012" in the date column.  In other words, one-third of the signers (14,000) just put the month and day, but not the year.

However, the state-printed form says at the bottom "Revised Jan. 2012", and Pennsylvania law did not permit the petition to circulate until February 2012.

Does anyone happen to be aware of any precedents on whether signatures on petitions are invalid, just because the form asks for the date and the signer puts only the month and day but not the year?

Pennsylvania requires 20,601 valid signatures this year.

Richard Winger
415-922-9779
PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147

________________________________

Steptoe & Johnson PLLC Note:
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system. Also, In accordance with I.R.S. Circular 230, we advise you that any tax advice in this email is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any recipient for the avoidance of penalties under federal tax laws. Thank you for your cooperation.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120731/c6a5c6f0/attachment.html>