Structure CMS™ Posted by:
SOUTH CAROLINA- On Tuesday, October 27th, just one week until the 2020 presidential election, a federal judge ruled that South Carolina election officials cannot reject mail-in ballots because of signature mismatches.
The ruling came from U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel, an appointee of President Obama. The requiring requires the state to inspect and re-process ballots that have signatures election officials believed to be mismatched.
The League of Women Voters of South Carolina, the group who filed the suit, said in a statement:
“Previously, voters who submitted a ballot with a mismatched signature were not notified of the issue nor given an opportunity to fix it before their ballot was tossed out.”
In accordance with Gergel’s ruling, election officials must go to the court and get permission to request a signature match for a suspicious ballot and then give the voter an opportunity to correct the signature. Marci Andino, South Carolina’s elections chief, said in a statement:
“Any absentee ballot that, as a result of a signature matching procedure, has been rejected, disqualified, or otherwise set aside so that it will not be counted should immediately be included with those absentee ballots that will be counted, assuming that absentee ballot otherwise complies with the absentee voting portion of state law.”
According to reports, in previous elections, it was the job of an election manager in South Carolina to compare the signature on a ballot with the signature on a voter’s drivers license, registration notification, or other identification and then request additional proof of the individual’s right to vote, shout they believe it was necessary.
However, that rule does not extend to absentee or mail-in ballots. Another news outlet reported:
“The ruling applies only to voter signature mismatches, when election officials determine a voter’s signature on an absentee ballot does not resemble the signature on file.
Voters who return absentee ballots without their own signature or without a witness signature (unless received by Oct. 7th) will still, as of this moment, have their votes discounted and not be afforded an opportunity to correct the deficiency.”
Additionally:
“While South Carolina law directs poll managers to compare voters’ signatures on the poll list where they sign their name before voting with their signature on their identification card, nothing in the state code expressly allows county boards of voter registration and elections to employ any type of signature matching procedure upon receipt of an absentee ballot.”
Judge Gergel added that matching the signatures was a significant “burden” on the right to vote and that the signature authorization procedures being used by local authorities were “subjective.” Gergel has also ordered the state to reprocess ballots already tossed by officials because of mismatches.
John Powers, an attorney with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, another group that joined in on the lawsuit, told reporters that the ruling is “common sense,” reiterating that “election officials are not experts at reviewing signatures.”
Currently, an issue in several lawsuits across the county is whether the courts can countermand election law crafted by the state legislatures and whether they can even do it in an emergency capacity this close to an election.
Similar rulings were recently overturned in Wisconsin, a critical swing state, and Michigan. The 7th U.S. Court of Appeals has issued a ruling that denies a week-long extension for the counting of absentee ballots beyond election night.
The order also re-establishes the original deadlines for online and mail-in registration deadlines. In the court’s 2-to-1 ruling, it said that absentee ballots are due by 8 p.m. on November 3, 2020, the legislated deadline for accepting ballots.
The Appeals Court agreed with Wisconsin GOP leaders that significant changes and alterations to election law were better left to elected officials, rather than the judiciary. Wisconsin state Democrats will most likely appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, hoping to get the Appeals Court ruling overturned before the November 3d election.
