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

[Dan Meek]

Re "what does Oregon do" with non-matching signatures on envelopes with 
ballots:  The clerk is required to send a notice to the rejected voter 
and offer a 14-day period for the voter to fill out and sign a new voter 
registration form (presumably with a signature that matches the one on 
the ballot envelope).

Dan Meek

	503-293-9021 	dan at meek.net <mailto:dan at meek.net>	855-280-0488 fax


On 5/11/2017 9:24 AM, William Groth wrote:
>
> 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 (7^th 
> 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: wgroth at fdgtlaborlaw.com <mailto: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> 
> [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 
> <mailto: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 *Rick Hasen* 
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> 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./
>
> hare 
> <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>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20170511/e92a7dec/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 2021 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20170511/e92a7dec/attachment.png>