|
Op-Ed:
H.R. 1 would eliminate key signature verification safeguard
[The Center Square] Ken Cuccinelli |
RealClearWire
Democrats have already
passed H.R. 1, also known as the For the People Act, in the House of
Representatives; fortunately, the bill faces a much tougher road in the
Senate. |
|
 Among the bill’s many serious problems are a wide array that I
would characterize as “mechanical,” in the sense that they dictate the nuts and
bolts of how states would run elections. H.R. 1 attempts to dictate these
elements in a way that is either impossible to put into effect or would gut the
effective administration of elections. One example is how H.R. 1 dictates,
through its Section 1621, that states must deal with signature verification – a
cornerstone of election security, especially with the growth of mail-in
balloting.
A bit of context is in order. Today, most states have a variety
of security steps to protect their elections, such as requiring voters to show a
picture I.D. or list their driver’s license number on mail-in ballots. However,
in parts of H.R. 1 other than Section 1621, many of these current security
practices are outlawed. You read that right – outlawed. For example, the 36
states that today require voter I.D. would be banned from imposing such
requirements. It is apparently irrelevant to the drafters of H.R. 1 that every
category of Americans supports voter I.D. to secure elections, including
Democrats, blacks, and Hispanics.
 So it’s important to realize as one considers the signature-verification rules
in Section 1621 that other forms of security are not taking its place – rather,
under H.R. 1 those other forms of security would be stripped from state laws.
Back to Section 1621: It would require the agreement of at least two judges,
including at least one from each party, to reject a ballot-signature match.
Typically, when mail-in or absentee ballots are reviewed and verified, two
judges, one from each major party, are called on to compare the signature on the
returned ballot with the signature on file in the voter rolls. Either judge can
question whether the signatures match.
[ to
top of second column] |
H.R. 1 puts forth a new standard: In order to
reject a ballot based on an unverifiable or incorrect signature,
both judges would have to agree that the signature on the ballot is
questionable. Since the standard operating procedure in most
localities is that two judges be present, H.R. 1 essentially states
that the authorization of only one judge is needed to approve
signatures, regardless of how they compare with the signatures on
file. This failure of election mechanics opens the
door to a partisan veto built into the process. H.R. 1 would
devastate the effectiveness of signature verification, as regardless
of any issues with signatures – no matter how clear or evident –
either party could choose to verify any amount of dubious
signatures. This is a truly dangerous standard. In
essence, it will allow either party to decide to approve any mail-in
ballots based on the signatures provided. Without the agreement of
judges from both parties, any and all ballots would count,
regardless of evidence suggesting that the signatures are
fraudulent.
Further, there is nothing in the bill to prevent either party at the
local, state, or national level from encouraging its election judges
to refrain from rejecting ballots. One could argue, convincingly,
that an election judge would be violating his oath if he were to
refuse to reject dubious ballots. But there is no enforcement
mechanism to force judges to render unbiased decisions on this
issue; they would be making personal determinations. Thus, there
would simply be no consequence for judges making politicized
decisions on ballot signatures.
In short, Section 1621 of H.R. 1 would open up our elections to
partisan interference and fraud. By intentionally barring even the
most basic verification of mail-in ballots, H.R. 1 would worsen
Americans’ distrust of our election system. Section 1621 is one
important reason – but far from the only one – why H.R. 1 is wrong
for America and should be defeated.
Click here to respond to the editor about this article |
