Judge doubts legality of Arizona method for verifying ballot signatures

A practice used by some, if not all, Arizona counties to verify signatures on early ballots may be illegal, a judge says.

That could result in election officials all across the state having to change their procedures, and potentially in more signatures on ballot envelopes being questioned.

State law is “clear and unambiguous’’ that election officials must compare the signature on a ballot envelope with the voter’s registration record, said Yavapai County Superior Court Judge John Napper.

That record, he said, consists only of the document signed when a person first registered, along with subsequent changes for reasons such as altering party affiliation.

The judge said that means it is illegal for county election officials to instead use other documents to determine if the signature on the ballot envelope is correct and should be accepted.

Napper’s conclusion is not the last word, and he has not issued a final order.

Strictly speaking, he only rejected efforts by Secretary of State Adrian Fontes to have a lawsuit thrown out that was filed by two groups challenging the process.

“We look forward to the issue being litigated,’’ said Paul Smith-Leonard, spokesman for Fontes, a Democrat.

Fontes say the rules in the Elections Procedures Manual allow the comparison of signatures against other documents — the practice now widely in use.

But the judge’s ruling made it clear he is not buying Fontes’ arguments that the practice complies with requirements in state law.

And Napper’s refusal to dismiss the case means “there’s nothing left to fight about,” said attorney Kory Langhofer, who represents the groups challenging the practice.

Definitions at issue

A section of law requires a county recorder, when receiving early ballots, to “compare the signatures thereon with the signature of the elector on the elector’s registration record.’’

Langhofer, in his court filing, acknowledged that nothing in state law explicitly defines a “registration record.’’

But he argued that the definition “most naturally’’ would be the state or federal documents by which someone signs up to vote and provides certain other information, and any updates to those forms.

However, the most recent version of the Elections Procedures Manual, prepared by the Secretary of State’s Office, says county recorders “should also consult additional known signatures from other official election documents in the voter’s registration record, such as signature rosters or early ballot request forms.’’

In some cases, Langhofer said, counties are using signatures on early ballot envelopes from prior elections for their comparisons.

Pima County Recorder Gabriella Cazares-Kelly doesn’t go that far. But she said her office relies on much more than the voter registration record.

Back to homepage

Subscriber Login

Keep reading with a digital access subscription.

Subscribe now

Changes in signatures over time

Some people register to vote when they get a driver’s license. But those licenses can be good for up to 45 years, Cazares-Kelly noted.

“As everybody should know, signatures vary by time and place and how much time you have,’’ the Democratic county recorder said. “You will change your signature a number of times throughout your life, going from adolescent to full adulthood.’’

She said her own signature changes, given that she has to sign “a hundred documents a day.’’

So other documents can be helpful for comparison, Cazares-Kelly said. “We receive other notifications from the voters,’’ she said.

“Every single time we receive something in writing, it goes into their voter file,’’ she continued. “So every single thing that has a signature on it, it is another indication, another touch point, another opportunity to update what those signatures look like.”

Cochise County Recorder David Stevens, a Republican, said his office also relies on signatures on other correspondence it has received from a voter. He also said ballot signatures can be compared with those on file with the Motor Vehicle Division.

Fontes, in asking Napper to dismiss the lawsuit, argued that other documents listed as acceptable in the Elections Procedures Manual are within the definition of a “registration record.’’ And if the judge wasn’t buying that, Fontes said the phrase is ambiguous, meaning he can interpret it as part of his duties.

Judge’s comments

Napper was having none of that. “The common meaning of ‘registration’ in the English language is to sign up to participate in an activity,” the judge wrote.

He derided the idea that other documents submitted by a voter fit that definition. “No English speaker would linguistically confuse the acting of signing up to participate in an event with the act of participating in the event,’’ Napper wrote. “Registering to attend law school is not the same as attending class. Registering to vote is not the same as voting.’’

Nor was Napper impressed by the claim the phrase “registration record’’ is ambiguous, allowing the secretary of state some latitude to interpret it.

“Pursuant to the statute, the recorder is to compare the signature on the envelope with the voter’s prior registration,’’ he said, quoting from the law. “If they match, then the vote is counted.’’

The judge also noted there is a procedure in state law that allows county election officials, if they question whether a signature on a ballot matches the official record, to contact the voter. That allows the voter to verify it is their signature and offer an explanation for changes in a signature that could be related to age, illness or injury.

Langhofer is representing the Arizona Free Enterprise Club. It has backed various measures to impose new identification requirements on voters while opposing efforts to restore the state’s permanent early voting list.

Also suing is an organization called Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections, or RITE. It bills itself as opposing changes in election laws that seek to give one group a partisan advantage and says it enforces “constitutional standards against voting laws and procedures that threaten or dilute the right of qualified citizens to vote.’’

Reuters says the founders of RITE, formed last year, include former U.S. Attorney General William Barr; Karl Rove, who was a top adviser to former President George W. Bush; and hotelier Steve Wynn.