Case History
On March 6th, 2025, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled that signature verification does not violate our state constitution. The case was originally filed in 2022 against Steve Hobbs, the Secretary of State, and Julie Wise, King County Auditor.
Three Democrat non-profits and three voters filed the suit claiming that signature verification disenfranchised voters by wrongfully rejecting signatures of valid voters. The three individual plaintiffs had their signature rejected in a recent election, and the argument was that there is bias in the process of rejecting signatures and that certain groups of people had a higher rejection rate than others, or some counties rejected more frequently than others.
In addition to claiming the signature verification process rejected eligible voters’ signatures, they also argued that signature verification was ineffective and did very little to secure the election. Their goal was to stop the use of signature verification in future elections.
Underlying Issues
Vet voice and the other plaintiffs have been filing election lawsuits across the country. Most of their cases are against any election integrity policies and attempt to throw out election security measures.
However, whether or not they realized it, this case in Washington state was a double edge sword considering their goal. They wanted to make elections more accessible, but in doing so, risked ending vote by mail in the state.
You have to understand that we are in a mail in state, where the only “security” mechanism to prevent people from casting someone else’s ballot is signature verification. If you get rid of that, there would be a strong argument to end elections by mail in our state.
Even the expert report by Dr. Robert Stein submitted by the Secretary of State agrees with this fact. “Removal of Washington’s signature verification requirement would leave the State without a meaningful mechanism for verifying the validity of cast ballots or to prevent illegitimate votes or systemic manipulation of Washington elections. The substitution of alternative means of voter verification including requiring valid identification at in-person-only elections would harm voters’ access to the ballot, decrease voter turnout in the state, decrease ballot completion, and significantly increase the cost of conducting elections.”
The ruling repeats this when referencing the defendant’s arguments. “The Secretary and the Canvassing Board argue that without signature verification, the State will need to choose between leaving elections system open to attack or adopting more burdensome security. Director Wise testified that without signature verification, there is no mechanism to verify that the ballot was cast by the registered voter. She offered supporting declarations from several other election administrators.”
Where We Stand
We agree with part of Vet Voice and the plaintiff’s argument that signature verification does little to secure the election. Over the past several years, we have experimented and tested this “mechanism of security.” Through this, we have found that signatures often are accepted that should not have been. At the same time, some are rejected that were legitimate.
To prove their point, Vet Voice offered comments by Dr. Linton Mohammed, an expert in handwriting and signature identification. Dr. Mohammed testified that it takes a certified forensic document examiner an hour to verify a simple signature and a minimum of two to four hours to verify a complicated one, rather than the three seconds election workers take for their initial review. He concluded that “signature matching to verify a voter’s identity is fundamentally incompatible with election administration…”
What the Court Considered
However, the court did not take into consideration the efficacy of signature verification. They only ruled that the state law, on it’s face, does not violate the constitution. Here is an excerpt from the ruling explaining this.
“To survive strict scrutiny, the “government must show that its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end.” Collier, 121 Wn.2d at 749. However, even when applying strict scrutiny, the United States Supreme Court has never required a state to empirically demonstrate that an election law accomplishes its compelling purpose as Vet Voice essentially argues here. Burson, 504 U.S. at 199, 208-09 (“because a government has such a compelling interest in securing the right to vote freely and effectively, this Court never has held a State ‘to the burden of demonstrating empirically the objective effects on political stability that [are] produced’ by the voting regulation in question” (alteration in original) (quoting Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189, 195, 107 S. Ct. 533, 93 L. Ed. 2d 499 (1986))).
In Burson, for example, the court applied strict scrutiny and upheld a law that prohibited campaigning within 100 feet of the entrance to a polling place. Id. at 208-09. The court did not require the state to prove that 100 feet was the minimum boundary that could accomplish the constitutionally compelling purpose of preventing voter intimidation or election fraud. Id. at 209. Essentially, the court relied on history and logic to determine that the limitation was constitutional. Id. at 200-09.”
In fact, the ruling states that the defendants admitted they had done no studies to determine whether signature verification actually improves election security or prevents fraud.
Additionally, the court notes that the state legislature has made efforts to improve the process, including expanding ways a voter can cure a ballot for signature challenges.
The court ruled that “at least when coupled with the increasingly expansive cure system, signature verification, on it’s face, does not violate our state constitution.”
They also state, “Variances are “permitted so long as the surname and handwriting are clearly the same.” RCW 29A.40.110(3). It requires multiple, significant, and obvious discrepancies to challenge a signature. WAC 434-261-051, -052. In addition, under current rules, workers are instructed to presume “that the signature on the ballot declaration is the voter’s signature.” WAC 434-261-051(2).“
Final Thoughts
It appears the Secretary of State is willing to fight to keep signature verification, while also fighting to reduce signature rejection rates. They want to keep signature verification but want everyone’s signature to pass. Or they know that if signature verification is thrown out, they will have no argument to continue conducting our elections by mail, which is historically is subject to fraudulent ballots being cast.
In conclusion, we are pleased that Vet Voice failed to remove the only security measure that supposedly prevents fraud. At the same time, we were looking forward to the nudge to return to voting in person.
