January 21, 2009
Mail Ballot Horror Show (XLI)

Of 653,462 King County absentee ballots that were mailed on time, roughly 7,400 were rejected for mismatched signatures -- a stunning 1.1%

Roughly 3,300 of the rejected signatures were "cured" by the voters who had to submit affidavits. The other 4,130 votes (0.63% of returned mail ballots) were thrown in the trash because election workers decided that the signature on the envelope didn't match the signature on file.

Ballot forgery can and does happen. (See here and here). But I would find it hard to believe that the number of forged ballots approaches 1% of the total cast.

I've documented numerous cases of non-matching signatures accepted and matching signatures rejected. If 3,300/7,400 ballots are known to be wrongly rejected, God only knows how many are wrongly accepted.

Can anybody in a position of responsibility finally admit that "signature verification" doesn't provide the security and accuracy that mail voting requires?

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 21, 2009 01:07 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Thurston County rejected my ballot last year. When I went in to "cure" my ballot, they had me fill out new voter registration card. It turns out my signature has not changed in the last decade and a half. My ballot should not have been disqualified. I have urged my elected representitves to go with a finger print system instead of signature verification or eliminate mail in ballots altogether. My efforts are futile, I am unrepresented by two of Olympia's most vile: Sam Hunt and Brendan Williams.

Posted by: AP on January 21, 2009 01:19 PM
2. The whole signature verification thing has always bothered me. Bring back poll voting.

Posted by: Michele on January 21, 2009 01:25 PM
3. The whole signature verification thing has always bothered me. Bring back poll voting.

Start over... from scratch.

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 21, 2009 01:29 PM
4. Wonder if the same result will happen with the election of the Director of Elections.
It would seem to me to be a conflict of interest having the group that works for the current Director count the votes for the "elected" one?
And as far as signature verification if you really wanted voters to be verified, then a better system is needed. If you want to be able to manipulate the sytem, stay status quo.
In a tight election, you choose?????

Posted by: tg on January 21, 2009 01:36 PM
5. I don't think those 4,130 ballots were thrown in the trash. If the signature did not match, the outer signed envelope would never get opened in the first place. And they have to keep all the materials from the election on file for at least a year. Especially rejected envelopes.

Stefan ought to get a list of the rejected voters for signature mismatch. I wonder if Larry Phillips or any other elected officials are on this list?

If this rejection rate had occurred in King County in 2004, Dino Rossi would be Governor.

Posted by: Richard Pope on January 21, 2009 01:52 PM
6. "Can anybody in a position of responsibility finally admit that "signature verification" doesn't provide the security and accuracy that mail voting requires?"

The seeds of your continued frustration are contained in these words. There are always going to be errors if humans are involved. Even if machines are involved. It's a variable constant. Therefore "require(d)" is in the eye of the beholder.

As you well know when the power to count votes is in the hands of blatantly partisan people, the goal is to get as many ballots, valid or not, into the hands of those that will skew the "totals" in the desired direction.

The last thing the decision makers want is accountability and true accuracy.

How many was it? Permanently altered ballots? 58K?

Whatever the number, the principle remains the same: the lack of principles for the sake of the desired end result.

Posted by: scott158 on January 21, 2009 01:55 PM
7. Computerize it...in a 'fail-safe' design fashion. Let's get into the 21st century shall we. :)

Posted by: Duffman on January 21, 2009 02:19 PM
8. In the 2008 6th LD Ahern-Driscoll race, nearly ten percent of the ballots were duplicated for "signature issues". The Spokane County Auditor still refuses an independent review of said ballots or the originals. HROC (House Republican Organizational Committee) is currently challenging the decision in Spokane Superior Court. If we ever want a clean election in this state again, duplicate ballots must be a public record. Contact your legislators and tell them to fix this huge problem with our election system.

Posted by: HROC on January 21, 2009 02:34 PM
9. In the 2008 6th LD Ahern-Driscoll race, nearly ten percent of the ballots were duplicated for "signature issues". The Spokane County Auditor still refuses an independent review of said ballots or the originals. HROC (House Republican Organizational Committee) is currently challenging the decision in Spokane Superior Court. If we ever want a clean election in this state again, duplicate ballots must be a public record. Contact your legislators and tell them to fix this huge problem with our election system.

Posted by: HROC on January 21, 2009 02:35 PM
10. HROC @ 8,9

Ballots are duplicated because they are not marked clearly, not because of the signature on the outer envelope. If the signature is rejected, then the ballot envelope is never opened.

Posted by: Richard Pope on January 21, 2009 02:43 PM
11. My ballot was thrown out this primary season. Because they said I mailed it late.

I did not mail it late... they failed to pick it up.

Kitsap Rejects My Ballot, Blames Voter Error

Stefan, at anytime, I'd love to go on any local radio and address the Vote-By Mail switch in King County. It is a ridiculous proposition.

Posted by: Gentry Lange on January 21, 2009 03:03 PM
12. "Computerize it...in a 'fail-safe' design fashion"

Medic, it is why we love the Duffer.

Can you file this in the "pigs can fly" folder for me?

Posted by: swatter on January 21, 2009 03:11 PM
13. Richard Pope -- I was being figurative. of course the ballots weren't literally "thrown in the trash". But they were not counted.same effect.

I am preparing a list of voters whose ballots were rejected and will post it shortly.

Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on January 21, 2009 03:32 PM
14. Duffman, you are exactly right. We do everything else by/on computer, why not vote?

Posted by: The Duke on January 21, 2009 03:39 PM
15. Pope @10-

It's more than a tad difficult to know why ballots are rejected if there is no way to review them. That is our point.

Posted by: HROC on January 21, 2009 03:50 PM
16. Pope @10-

It's more than a tad difficult to know why ballots are rejected if there is no way to review them. That is our point.

Posted by: HROC on January 21, 2009 03:51 PM
17. It is easy to disqualify a voter by making their signature not match.

1. Print out a voter registration form on line.
2. Fill it out for anyone where you know the last 4 digits of their social security number (like your wife).
3. Get a homeless person to sign it for $5.00
4. Mail it in with no phone number or a bad phone number.

If you did not sign it you can honestly claim that you did not break any law.

When your victim votes the sigs will not match and without a good phone number they cannot contact them to cure it.

Should do it to a bunch of lib elected officials. They might get the point.

Posted by: PRS in FW on January 21, 2009 04:12 PM
18. So, maybe I missed this in one of the many (sigh) ballot/voting threads, but do we now have access to the voter database so I can check to see if my mail-in ballot was even received? I found the link to the one posted after the PREVIOUS election fiasco, but it shows that it is May 2008 data.

Is the November 2008 data out there for a check?

The sigh, above, was because of how badly the system is broken. The more you read, the worse it gets...

Posted by: Zarro on January 21, 2009 10:24 PM
19. Signature comparison is a crude and ineffectual way to determine the validity of absentee ballots. Drivers license photo records could be merged with voter registration files. Then voters, by attaching a copy of their drivers license to their absentee ballot, can authenticate their ballots. This seems to be a simple, foolproof way to avoid voter fraud.

Posted by: Paddy on January 22, 2009 03:18 PM
20. Paddy's suggestion merit's some thought - it isn't quite the same as producing a photo ID at a polling place, but a whole lot closer than simply signing your signature - does require everyone have access to a photo copier...which could be at the drop points for ballots.

Even in person polling with photo ID is subject to fraudulent ID's.

Posted by: BA on January 22, 2009 05:06 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?