On Validating Ballots

[Hawkmoon]

Yes, your signature can be anything you wish.  However, when you register to vote (at least in Illinois), your signature is scanned into the voter database.  Then you come in to vote, you have to sign the "Application to Vote" and we compare that to what you had signed previously when you had registered.   Now, signatures change somewhat over time, so we look to make sure it kinda, sorta, if you look at it from that angle, appears close to what you signed all those years ago.  (And a Democrat and Republican election judge have to agree, if one doesn't then we have the old Challenge to Vote and all the FUN that entails) It would be sooooooo much simpler, if we had Voter ID.  But that would eliminate the Margin of Fraud for the Democrats here in Illinois.

It just boggles my mind that some places DON'T require voter ID. I've been registered to vote since I was 18 (or 21, don't remember), and I have always had to show my driver's license to vote. When I walk in, there's a D and an R registrar sitting at a long-ish table, each with a list of all registered voters in their section of the voting list. In my town, at least, they break it down by streets, so streets beginning with A thru L (or something like that) go left, and streets beginning with M thru Z go right. I get to the table, tell them my street, hand them my license, they read off the street number and my name, then each of them draws a line through my name to show that I have voted. They hand my license back, along with a chit that I take to the next station, where I exchange the chit for a ballot, which I then carry to a booth to be filled out. Once I have filled out the ballot, I head to the exit, feeding my ballot into the gaping maw of the machine on my way out.

I wouldn't want it any other way.

[230RN]

I thought signatures can be anything you decide to put down. Don't see how they can get by with saying that it "doesn't match" or that you didn't use your middle initial or whatever.

Well, that's why I thought a lawyer or at least a Notary would chime in.  This whole discussion about Florida's signature flap revolves around signature variability and our individual experiences with it, which were on the thread topic.

It would appear that any signature is valid, however scrawled, as yours if you identify yourself as the person who signed it and that you in fact acknowledge it to be yours.  That's what Notaries do:  Take a permanent acknowledgement that "this" is my signature on "this" particular document.

And as far as I know, it is not necessary that you sign in front of the Notary to acknowledge it... at least not when I had my commission. Your State and century may vary on this.

X (Terry, his mark)

[Hawkmoon]

Well, that's why I thought a lawyer or at least a Notary would chime in.  This whole discussion about Florida's signature flap revolves around signature variability and our individual experiences with it, which were on the thread topic.

It would appear that any signature is valid, however scrawled, as yours if you identify yourself as the person who signed it and that you in fact acknowledge it to be yours.  That's what Notaries do:  Take a permanent acknowledgement that "this" is my signature on "this" particular document.

And as far as I know, it is not necessary that you sign in front of the Notary to acknowledge it... at least not when I had my commission. Your State and century may vary on this.

I'm not a notary public, but I am a Justice of the Peace in my state. JPs are allowed in this state to attest signatures, just like notaries. At least in this state, the document must be signed in the presence of the notary (or JP). You can't sign a document at home and then bring it to a notary to have him/her bless the signature.

The form of attestation a notary executes in this state reads as follows:

On this the_____day of____________, 20____, before me,  ______________________, the undersigned
officer, personally appeared  _______________________________, known to me (or satisfactorily
proven) to be the person(s) whose name(s)  (is or are) subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged that (he, she or they) executed the same for the purposes therein contained.
 
In witness whereof I hereunto set my hand.
 
______________________
Signature of Notary Public

Date Commission Expires:_____________

_____________________
Printed Name of Notary

I understand that this can be read to mean that a notary may attest a previously-executed signature as long as the person who brings the document in says it's their signature and they can show proof that they are the same person who claims to have signed the document. I've dealt with a lot of notaries over the years, and I have not encountered a single one who would attest a previously applied signature.

[230RN]

^"I understand that this can be read to mean that a notary may attest a previously-executed signature as long as the person who brings the document in says it's their signature and they can show proof that they are the same person who claims to have signed the document."

OK.  I assume the authors of that language were highly accomplished attorneys who knew the statutory limitations and requirements in exquisite detail, yet did not include a prohibition against notarizing a previous signature.

"I've dealt with a lot of notaries over the years, and I have not encountered a single one who would attest a previously applied signature."

Is this a matter of mere "good practice" or "tradition," or an actual statutory provision?

And this all goes back to the parameters of validation of a voter ID.  Where does validation start, and where does it end?

As I mentioned before, twenty or thirty years ago I was dead set against a national ID.  Circumstances have dictated that I change that position.

When my eldest son was born, I was highly annoyed that they took footprints and assigned a "soash" (Social Security Number, SSN) to him.  I changed my mind on that, too.

Terry

[Hawkmoon]

OK.  I assume the authors of that language were highly accomplished attorneys who knew the statutory limitations and requirements in exquisite detail, yet did not include a prohibition against notarizing a previous signature.

"I've dealt with a lot of notaries over the years, and I have not encountered a single one who would attest a previously applied signature."

Is this a matter of mere "good practice" or "tradition," or an actual statutory provision?

The way I read the statute, it is NOT a statutory provision. That said, we know that a statute says what the courts say it says (or means), and I have no way of looking up common law precedent on the matter. As a Justice of the Peace, the appointing authority is the Town Clerk in the town in which I live, so I contacted her to ask for guidance. She helpfully referred me to the state's manual of practice for notaries, which I had already read and which mirrors the statute in not expressly saying that a person must sign a document in front of the notary. So, unless and until I hear back from her again, I am now more confused than I was 24 hours ago.

[Hawkmoon]

Update: I just received a new e-mail from the Town Clerk. She referred the question to the state attorney general's office. The official word is:

I spoke to the Secretary of the States office today and she stated emphatically that the wording means that the person has to sign in front of the notary and if they have already signed it that they just sign again.

She (the Town Clerk) agreed with me that the language of the statute does NOT clearly say anything of the kind, but we have to proceed based on what the AG tells us, so I will continue to follow what I have always understood the requirement to be: the person has to sign in front of me.

[Scout26]

From the National Notary Association:

https://www.nationalnotary.org/notary-bulletin/blog/2015/04/5-steps-proper-notarization

[230RN]

  By Michael Lewis on April 09, 2015 in Best Practices:  Almost every state requires the signer to personally appear before you during the notarization.

I guess your century and State may vary.

[Scout26]

2015 is all of four years ago.  I pretty confident that not much changes from year to year in the Notary industry.

[RoadKingLarry]

It all depends on your relationship with the notary.
 

[Hawkmoon]

I mean, does anyone write their signature absolutely identically every time?

That's not possible. But my legal signature has always included my middle initial. The only times I sign otherwise is if I'm endorsing a check that's made out to my name without the middle initial, or that uses the full middle name rather than the middle initial. I think today banks are more flexible on such things but, back when I first opened a checking account, checks had to be signed exactly as they were made out. If a payer misspelled my name, I signed with the wrong spelling and then signed again directly under that.

[230RN]

2015 is all of four years ago.  I pretty confident that not much changes from year to year in the Notary industry.

Amy, I wasn't referring to the 2015 as being a century ago.

Hawkmoon:

She (the Town Clerk) agreed with me that the language of the statute does NOT clearly say anything of the kind, but we have to proceed based on what the AG tells us, so I will continue to follow what I have always understood the requirement to be: the person has to sign in front of me.

My understanding is that the AG's opinion on the "intent of the legislature," at least  in Colorado, has the quasi force of law* until the matter is finally resolved  in the actual Courts, so I would feel comforable in following that advice.

However,  I don't really have an ax to grind in this particular matter, I just want to make sure of the legal grounds of which we speak in individual political subdivisions.  

As an example, forever, that is, since the last century, I thought "silencers" and machineguns were simply illegal under Federal law.

Not so:



Note date of 2015.

However, no matter what State you live in (even Colorado), habitual use of Marihuana is illegal under Federal law.

Yet:



Another century.

Terry

* Basically meaning that's what they'll prosecute or not prosecute on.