The Washington State Supreme Court should immediately take up and toss out a flawed signature verification system before it disenfranchises thousands of voters in the upcoming primary and general elections, counsel for plaintiffs in a legal challenge argued before a high court commissioner on Wednesday.
“Without direct review, tens of thousands of fully qualified voters will be disenfranchised for nothing more than their penmanship,” argued attorney Kevin Hamilton, representing three groups who have sued the Washington Secretary of State and King County Elections.
The lawsuit currently rests before the state court of appeals. It has been vigorously defended, with Secretary of State Steve Hobbs arguing that verification is the linchpin of credibility in our state’s vote-by-mail system.
The state Republican Party and Republican National Committee, likewise, have stepped forward to argue that if the legal challenge is successful, “it will only diminish confidence in our elections system.”
While red states move to create difficulties, particularly to voting by mail or dropping off ballots, Washington has enacted incremental reforms designed to boost participation. The most recent, a cause championed by the Northwest Progressive Institute, is moving local elections to even-numbered years.
Signature verification is one notable remaining impediment.
The case for its removal is rooted in fairness, as outlined by Hamilton during a recent appellate court argument:
- A total of 170,000 ballots have been rejected over the last seven years, with thousands more citizens subjected to the “undue burdens” of having to “cure” their ballots in order to have them counted.
- The rejection rate falls heaviest among younger voters. A statewide audit found a rate of 2.68 percent among voters aged 18 to 21, and 2.04 percent in the 22 to 25 age categories. The state’s highest rates of rejected ballots are from Franklin and Adams Counties, both with a high Latino population.
- Minorities are more likely to have their signatures rejected. The rejection rates were 2.49% for African Americans, 1.59% for Native Americans and 1.57% for Latino voters. The comparable figure for white voters was 0.63%.
- Signatures change due to age and illness. At a neighborhood breakfast earlier this year, I listened to a retired attorney’s lucid analysis of ex-President Trump’s bid to block verification of 2020 electoral votes. However, the man’s hands shook as he spoke. It is entirely possible his signature could be flagged.
The current verification regime is being challenged by a trio of plaintiffs: the VetVoice Foundation, the Washington Bus and El Centro de la Raza.
The plaintiffs have produced sixty sworn declarations from persons whose ballots, or those of family members, were legally signed but rejected.
The legal defense, as argued by assistant attorney general William McGinty, is that voters have up to twenty days to “cure” their rejected ballots, and “multiple and easy ways” of so doing (e.g. using the last four digits of one’s Social Security number). “We need a way to prove to voters of Washington that elections are pure,” he told the appellate panel.
The state’s legal brief puts it bluntly: “It (verification) allows the broadest possible access while ensuring that only registered voters are able to cast their ballots and promoting public confidence that vote by mail is safe and secure.”
But, argued Hamilton, “Voters are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.” Evidence of fraud is almost non-existent, despite the fanning of suspicions by the far-right. Out of 56,000 ballots rejected in King, Snohomish and Clark Counties during the 2020 and 2022 election cycles, just a tiny fraction of one percent merited referral to county prosecutors.
While it isn’t possible to know the future, the legal challenge to signature verification has the benefit of a tailwind.
For instance, the Washington State Constitution lays out the right to vote more fundamentally than the United States Constitution.
Hamilton, with the Perkins Coie law firm, has a national and statewide record for winning election cases: He and Jenny Durkan were lead counsel in defending Governor Chris Gregoire’s eventual 133-vote victory in 2004. Hamilton successfully defended Joe Biden’s 11,000-vote win in Georgia three years ago.
The case for fast tracking is obvious. The state has a spring presidential primary. Voters will cull the field for open posts of governor, attorney general and state land commissioner in the August Top Two election. And the future of our democracy itself is at stake in November.
Rates in the range of 2% are excessive? What is the rate of illegal voting? The facts include we need a photo ID requirement in an attempt to return confidence in our system; a technique which would address the concern presented in this article.
To answer your question: The “rate of illegal voting” is almost nonexistent. There have been very few cases of election fraud or voter fraud, and they have generally involved right wing Republicans trying to cheat!
For example, in 2018, Republican operatives tried to cheat to get a congressional candidate elected:
North Carolina’s photo ID requirement did nothing to deter this fraud:
And then there was the case of Rosemarie Hartle… this is an example of voter fraud committed by a Republican and Trump supporter:
Then there’s the case of Jason Schofield:
And more recently, there was the case of Kim Phuong Taylor, the wife of a Republican candidate who was desperate to get him elected:
Election fraud and voter fraud are rare — but if you track the cases, you’ll notice a theme: they predominantly involve Republican candidates and operatives and photo ID wouldn’t have stopped them.
Surely it’s more important to improve the process to update voter signatures than remove voter signature verification all together. The proposal made here would be stuck down by the European Courts of Justice because it invites vote harvesting and removes the quality check that ensures individual voters voted. King County has a process for voters to update their signatures. Washington State should encourage all county elections officials to adopt it. People with disabilities can be flagged for accommodation. The ruse that people of color and immigrants can’t maintain a signature is humiliating.