[EL] “ACLU Challenges New Hampshire Voter Signature-Matching Law”

[William Groth]

>From my experience handling recounts in Indiana, I’ve seen multiple examples of bipartisan teams of absentee ballot counters deciding not to count ballots based solely on signature comparisons. To be sure, county election boards and/or recount commissions can and often do overturn those decisions. But the more fundamental problem is that, as is also apparently true in New Hampshire, there is no requirement in Indiana law that the voter whose ballot is invalidated based on a supposed signature mismatch be notified and given an opportunity to verify his or her signature. A similar flaw in Illinois caused a federal district court judge to find a federal due process violation, Zessar v. Helander  (N.D. Ill. 2006), but on appeal the entire case was declared moot when the challenged Illinois laws were amended to provide for notice and hearing. Zessar v. Keith, 536 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2008). The problem, however, has not been statutorily remedied in Indiana.

 

William R. Groth, Of Counsel

Fillenwarth Dennerline Groth & Towe, LLP

429 E. Vermont Street, Ste. 200

Indianapolis, IN 46202

Telephone: (317) 353-9363

Fax: (317) 351-7232

E-mail:   <mailto:wgroth at fdgtlaborlaw.com> wgroth at fdgtlaborlaw.com

 

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Kevin Benson
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 11:40 AM
To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] “ACLU Challenges New Hampshire Voter Signature-Matching Law”

 

Regarding the ACLU’s challenge to signature matching – isn’t it common practice in many states to use signature matching both for absentee / mail ballots, and also to sign people in at the polling location? Do most states have some kind of follow-up for ballots that are rejected? What do Oregon and Colorado do?

 

Should this suit succeed, presumably states would be required to implement some sort of follow-up procedures for non-matching signatures. Or perhaps it would drive states to instead try to implement some other front-end procedure, like perhaps a kind of voter pin number or something. But that could present a whole other set of problems, like how to securely deliver it, people forgetting / losing it, etc. I’m curious if other states have adopted such mechanisms. Anyone know?

 

Cheers,

Kevin

 

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 8:40 PM
To: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 5/11/17

 

 

“ACLU Challenges New Hampshire Voter Signature-Matching Law” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92466> 

Posted on May 10, 2017 7:56 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92466>  by  <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen

Release: <https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-challenges-new-hampshire-voter-signature-matching-law> 

The American Civil Liberties Union today sued New Hampshire for invalidating the absentee ballots of hundreds of voters, many of whom are disabled, without warning.

At issue is a state law that allows election officials — who have no handwriting-analysis expertise — to reject an absentee ballot, without giving notice to the voter, if they think there is a signature mismatch in the voter’s paperwork. People with disabilities are far more likely to have fluctuating handwriting or to require the assistance of someone to sign their name, as allowed under federal disability rights law.

 <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D92466&title=%E2%80%9CACLU%20Challenges%20New%20Hampshire%20Voter%20Signature-Matching%20Law%E2%80%9D> hare

Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18> 

 



PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL:This message originates from the law firm of Allison MacKenzie, Ltd. This message and any file(s) or attachment(s) transmitted with it are confidential and may include information subject to the attorney-client privilege, information protected by the attorney work product doctrine, or information which is otherwise proprietary, a trade secret or protected against unauthorized use or disclosure. This message and any file(s) or attachment(s) transmitted with it are transmitted based on a reasonable expectation of privacy. Any disclosure, distribution, copying, or use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient, regardless of address or routing, is strictly prohibited. If you receive this message in error, please advise the sender by immediate reply and delete the original message. A&M-ver.-xz1.1 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20170511/46ae7e00/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2021 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20170511/46ae7e00/attachment.png>