成人X站

The Washington Supreme Court Thursday that the state鈥檚 signature verification process for mail-in ballots is constitutional, rejecting a legal challenge that argued the system disenfranchises voters.

“We conclude that at least when coupled with the increasingly expansive cure system, signature verification, on its face, does not violate our state constitution,” Justice Steven C. Gonz谩lez wrote for the Court.

The decision comes in the case Vet Voice Foundation v. Hobbs, in which plaintiffs contended that signature verification disproportionately results in ballot rejections for certain voters and violates state constitutional protections.

More from MyNorthwest:聽WA lawmakers help House censure Texas Rep. Al Green for Trump address outburst

Why were signature verifications challenged in Washington elections?

The lawsuit was brought by left-wing political groups Vet Voice Foundation, Washington Bus, El Centro de la Raza, and several individual voters. They sued Secretary of State Steve Hobbs and King County election officials in 2022.

The plaintiffs argued that Washington鈥檚 process of verifying voter signatures against registration records violates state constitutional protections, including the right to free and equal elections, due process, and privileges and immunities.

Washington is a vote-by-mail state, meaning that nearly all ballots are cast outside of polling places. To prevent fraud, election workers must compare the signature on each ballot declaration with the voter鈥檚 signature on file. If the signatures do not appear to match, the ballot is flagged, and voters are given a chance to 鈥渃ure鈥� their ballots by submitting additional verification. If voters fail to complete the process, their votes are not counted.

The plaintiffs contended that this system leads to the wrongful rejection of thousands of ballots, particularly those from young voters and voters of color, whose rejection rates are higher than those of white or older voters. They sought an injunction to block the use of signature verification in future elections.

More from MyNorthwest:聽Guns could soon be banned from more public places in Washington

The legal arguments

Vet Voice Foundation relied on a report suggesting that signature matching is inherently unreliable when conducted by non-experts in a high-volume setting. Dr. Linton Mohammed, a handwriting expert, testified that professional handwriting analysis takes hours per signature, while election workers typically review each ballot in seconds.

The plaintiffs also presented evidence that signature rejections disproportionately affect young and minority voters. A state audit found that in the 2020 election, ballots from black voters were rejected at a rate nearly four times higher than those from white voters.

The state defended signature verification as a necessary safeguard for election integrity.

Hobbs and King County election officials argued that Washington鈥檚 vote-by-mail system needs a mechanism to verify voter identity without requiring in-person ID checks, which could be a greater burden for voters. Expert witnesses for the state, including election security officials, said that while signature verification is not perfect, it remains the best option for preventing fraudulent voting without creating barriers to participation.

Additionally, the state pointed to improvements in the ballot curing process, including expanded outreach efforts to help voters resolve signature issues. The legislature recently passed measures requiring election offices to use text messages, phone calls, and emails to notify voters of problems with their ballots.

Here’s what the Washington Supreme Court decided

The Washington Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state, concluding that signature verification does not facially violate the state constitution. Indeed, the justices “concluded signature verification survives any level of scrutiny.”

Writing for the court, Justice Gonz谩lez acknowledged concerns about ballot rejections but emphasized that the system includes multiple safeguards, particularly the ability for voters to cure their ballots.

The Washington State Supreme Court applied strict scrutiny, the highest level of judicial review, assuming without deciding that the process imposed a substantial burden on voters. Even under this standard, the justices determined that signature verification serves a compelling state interest in election security and is narrowly tailored to meet that goal.

鈥淲e are pleased with the court鈥檚 ruling, which affirms our commitment to secure, accessible, and transparent elections in Washington,鈥� Secretary of State Steve Hobbs said in a press release. 鈥淪ignature verification has been a fundamental part of our state鈥檚 vote-by-mail system for decades, helping to protect against fraud while ensuring that every eligible voter鈥檚 ballot is counted.鈥�