>> It's true that the matching procedure called for matching against any signature on file for the voter. So, if the signature on the first document, say the voter registration card, looks a bit off, you check the one on, say, the drivers license rather than cavalierly rejecting the ballot. Duh.
So what are you saying?
Had it stopped there I don't think it would have been problematic, at least not on this point (the settlement agreement had other aspects there were issues with).
The problem arose when Raffensperger later decided to send an absentee ballot application to every address on file. That implies that a fraudulently obtained ballot would easily have a signature match, and there would be no way to detect fraud. Which is, after all the sole point of the signature match. For the hard fraud cases the match is there to protect against, this decision invalided the entire process.
So, as a result of Raffensperger doing a mass mailing to obtain signatures, he effectively mitigated the signature match entirely, because ANY ballot could have a qualifying signature on file for whoever happened to be signing the ballot. It was an easy oversight, stupid, but the kinds of things that happen when ignorant bureaucrats make "harmless" decisions to procedures.
If you don't understand and agree with this, there is really no point in continuing. That would imply that internal controls is not your area of expertise. This is a gaping hole that invalidated the entire process.
This rewrite of the law had the desired effect, i.e., making it difficult for election officials to reject absentee ballots. And this is what caused the massive drop in ballot rejects from 6.4% to 0.4% over four years. Surely, you agree that a precipitous drop like that is extremely concerning. In an analysis, if you see that there is something wrong. You don't know what, but something is screwed up.
Soon, clerks just start skipping it in close cases; it is more work, it is inconclusive, why bother?
I am no fan of signature checks. But if you are going to use this archaic measure (and you and most on the left, after all, oppose voter ID anyway) it needs to have meaning.
But the unexplained drop from 6.4% to 0.4% is a serious problem because it was clearly caused by the change in the law. And it indicates the potential for a large number of ballots to go unchallenged under the prevailing signature law.
If you don't want to abide by the law, then come up with an alternative method of confirming authenticity.
I think we have covered this enough. I've explained it and simplified it to the point I can, and I think you should be able to grasp this.
This is all just one more reason that we need to shit can all of it and start over, rebuilding systems from scratch eliminating manual processes and standardizing these practices under an interstate compact. |
