Signature Experts Are Aghast at How Red States Vet Mail-In Ballots

Elections referees lack expertise; “It’s awful.”

Florida Canvassing Board members examine signatures on absentee ballots in Miami-Dade County.Lynne Sladky/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

When Patricia Fisher sees news stories about Florida election workers comparing the signatures on mail-in ballots with signatures in the state registration database, she can hardly believe her eyes. “I’ve been horrified,” she says. “I turn on my TV and it’s, ‘What are they doing!?’ It’s awful.” 

Fisher, a professional documents examiner from Northern California, has spent more than four decades verifying disputed signatures, and if there’s one core principle in her world, it is this: You can’t just compare a single signature with another to determine a “mismatch.” And you really, really cannot determine a mismatch by comparing a recent signature with one collected years earlier. 

There are lots of reasons for this, document experts say, from natural variations in people’s script to health issues, aging, injuries, changes in mental state, and the circumstances in which a signature was created—a touch pad at the DMV, say, will yield a very different signature than a ballpoint pen at a desk. “You have to have a series of signatures,” Fisher says. “They need to be closer in time, and on similar types of documents, because one signature is not going to represent the full range of variations in someone’s handwriting.”

Signatures have been in the news recently thanks to bitterly contested midterms races in Florida and also in Georgia, where elections officials rejected large numbers of voter registrations and then tossed aside mail-in ballots whose signatures, according to elections workers, did not match the signatures on file with the registrar. It wasn’t until a lawsuit was filed that a federal judge, less than two weeks before Election Day, ordered state and local officials to stop discounting those absentee votes.

How many signatures is enough to determine a mismatch? Six would be about the minimum, Fisher told me. A trained examiner looks for “the commonalities, the permanent characteristics, the fleeting characteristics, the other characteristics like the fluency, the speed, the rhythm. There are dozens of variables,” she says.

Mark Songer, a former forensic documents examiner for the FBI, agrees. “To do any kind of meaningful examination, I like to get anywhere from 6 to 10 representative samples that are pretty contemporaneous with the signature itself,” says Songer, who now plies his trade in Colorado. “A person could write their signature 100 different times and none of those will be exactly alike, because we all have a range—the only way to establish that range is to have a sufficient number of samples.”

Fisher specializes in probate, trust, and financial elder-abuse cases. If she were an elections official comparing signatures and saw telltale characteristics of an elder’s deteriorating writing, “then I would ask the question, ‘How old is this person?’ If I saw they were 90 years old, I’d say, ‘Now there’s a logical explanation for why there are so many differences.'”

Signature problems have continued to plague Florida, one of 36 states—according to Gerry Langeler, research and communications director for the nonprofit National Vote at Home Institute—that have enacted signature-match laws. On Thursday, a federal judge ruled that more than 4,000 Florida voters whose ballots were disqualified due to mismatches had until 5 p.m. Saturday to correct the problems. Neither Florida nor Georgia requires special training for the officials who make signature determinations.

Disputes over ballot signatures have grown increasingly prevalent as more people vote by mail. In addition, technological changes, including the ubiquity of touch-pad signatures, and the fact that cursive writing is no longer taught in many schools, have made signatures less reliable for a quick verification of a person’s identity.

“If they use a driver’s license signature and you’re signing an electronic pad, that changes many of the characteristics, because it’s not natural,” Fisher says. “So you’re comparing apples and oranges for such an important thing—to say, ‘No, your vote doesn’t count because your signature doesn’t look right.'”

“The whole signature thing needs to be totally reevaluated,” she adds. “There should not be all these untrained people—and you probably won’t get trained people there, because trained persons know you don’t compare one signature to another signature.”

Some states have taken positive steps. After Colorado experienced election-related signature snafus in 2016, state officials brought in third-party signature verification software that can spot the kinds of characteristics experts look for in a person’s writing and render a better verdict than an untrained worker might. If the software cannot make a match determination, the disputed ballot is examined by a bipartisan pair of “election judges” who have received at least a few hours of expert training in signature verification. (Both must agree in order for a ballot to be disqualified.)

Songer has conducted such trainings. “Does it make them a handwriting expert? No it doesn’t. But it gives them the fundamentals. And because it’s computerized, they are actually looking at other signatures from past ballots, drivers licenses, those types of things. When you pull up the voter’s name, it comes up with sometimes two to three signatures, which is a lot better than just the one. So they are able to make better judgments. It’s been very successful here.”

This solution isn’t cheap, though. The software alone cost Colorado $550,000 over five years, and “not many states do it,” Songer says.

As for what’s been happening in Florida, “It’s definitely concerning, man,” he says. “There’s got to be a better process. And that process is is going to depend on what each jurisdiction is willing to put into it.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate