NEWARK, NJ —Today, Campaign Legal Center, New Jersey Institute for Social Justice, and Kaufman Lieb Lebowitz & Frick LLP filed a lawsuit on behalf of the League of Women Voters of New Jersey, the NAACP New Jersey State Conference, and an individual New Jersey voter, asking for relief for voters from the state’s flawed ballot signature match requirements.  

As New Jersey continues to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Phil Murphy announced Friday that mail ballots will automatically be sent to the state’s active Republican and Democratic voters, with applications sent to unaffiliated and inactive registered voters. The resultant surge in mail ballots underscores the urgent need for procedural safeguards to assure voters that they can cast their mail ballots with confidence.

With a ‘signature match’ system, mail-in ballots are only counted if election officials determine that the voter’s signature on a ballot “matches” the signature on an absentee ballot application or voter registration form. As a result, thousands of ballots are rejected each election because of issues related to signature or penmanship, including a signature changing over time and disabilities affecting one’s ability to write.

“All eligible voters should be able to have confidence that when they participate in an election, their vote will be counted,” said Paul Smith, vice president at CLC. “Signature comparison is not a science. Even if it was, election officials are not trained handwriting experts. The current system produces many incorrect mismatches which result in eligible voters having their ballot thrown away. These errors – which disproportionately affect those with disabilities, the elderly and non-native English speakers – must be fixed with urgency during this critical election year.”

Moreover, New Jersey voters who cast their ballot by mail and whose signatures are deemed not to “match” are not given any pre-rejection notice or opportunity to fix any errors. League of Women Voters of New Jersey, et al. v. Way demands that the state establish a clear and fair notice process for voters whose ballots are marked for rejection, as well as a safe and easy way for them to remedy any technical defects in time for their vote to be counted.

Joining the lawsuit is William M. Riggs, a 78-year-old Middlesex County resident whose hand tremors brought on by Parkinson’s disease make it virtually impossible for him to sign his name consistently. Mr. Riggs intends to vote by mail in this year’s upcoming elections in order to protect his health from the threat of COVID-19. Because he cannot produce a consistent signature – even at times finding his own writing illegible – Mr. Riggs fears his ballot could very likely be rejected. Without a safe way for him to fix his ballot, Mr. Riggs is at high risk of disenfranchisement. 

Even before the global pandemic, voters across the country have increasingly relied upon vote-by-mail as their preferred method of casting their ballot. 36 states use some form of signature match to confirm mail-in or absentee ballots. These states must ensure voter confidence by establishing clear, accessible ways for voters to cure their ballots and ensure their votes are counted.  

 “The COVID-19 crisis has exposed deep cracks in our society’s foundation, which are causing earthquakes in Black and Brown communities,” said Ryan P. Haygood, President & CEO of the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice. “We filed this lawsuit today to protect our democracy from those earthquakes, as substantially more voters will cast their ballots by mail during this pandemic. Our lawsuit urges New Jersey to provide notice to thousands of voters when their ballots are rejected, which is particularly important for Black and Brown voters whose ballots are disproportionately rejected—and to provide an opportunity to fix any signature-related issues in time for their votes to be counted in the July 7 election. Democracy, particularly as we confront one of the most consequential elections in a generation, requires nothing less.” 

“It is unacceptable to deprive people of their franchise to vote, particularly using the unproven method of signature matching,” said Richard T. Smith, president of the NAACP New Jersey State Conference. “In the current landscape of the world regarding COVID-19 we must ensure now more than ever that we encourage people to go out and vote for those who have their best interest in mind. Having ballots rejected without an opportunity to cure – which is occurring at the highest rates in our most diverse counties – deprives people their right to vote and we cannot allow it to continue.” 

“Because of our efforts to keep our democracy both safe and robust during the coronavirus pandemic, millions of voters will receive vote-by-mail ballots ahead of the July primary,” said Jesse Burns, executive director of the League of Women Voters of New Jersey. “Now the state needs to safeguard voters’ constitutional rights and ensure every vote counts. We need a process in place immediately that allows voters to cure their ballots if they make minor errors, or voters will be disenfranchised.”   

Expanding voter access during a global pandemic is not a partisan issue

SAN ANTONIO, TX – The nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center (CLC) is serving as legal counsel for the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and its Texas chapter in a new lawsuit challenging the restrictive eligibility criteria Texas uses to make it exceedingly difficult to request and cast an absentee ballot.

“Expanding voter access during a global pandemic should not be a partisan issue,” said Trevor Potter, president at CLC, and a former Republican Chairman of the Federal Election Commission. Potter served as Campaign General Counsel for John McCain. “The courts should not allow Texas to force voters to choose between their health and exercising their fundamental right to vote. Texas should redirect its energy and make it easier to vote safely instead of threatening its citizens with prosecution simply for wanting to vote from the security of their own homes.”

A Reuters/Ipsos poll released in April found that 72% of all U.S. adults, including 79% of Democrats and 65% of Republicans, supported a requirement for mail-in ballots as a way to protect voters in case of a continued spread of coronavirus later this year.

Most Texans are denied the ability to vote by mail due to the narrow list of excuses allowed, which puts all voters at greater risk of contracting coronavirus at in-person polling locations in its upcoming elections this summer and for the General Election on November 3. The disease has ravaged Texas’s Latino community, making up 42.6% of COVID-19 related deaths statewide.

“Once again, Texas officials are looking for ways to effectively disenfranchise Latinos and people of color by suppressing their right to vote. People should never be forced to make a choice between showing up to the polls and risking their health,” said LULAC President Domingo Garcia. “LULAC will not stand for this blatant oppression of our community’s constitutional right to vote in the middle of a pandemic that has killed more than 1,000 Texans and infected over 40,000. Texas is stronger when more people can participate in our democracy and determine who is fit to govern. I asked our Governor and state officials to support a bipartisan interim law to allow all Texans to be able to vote by mail in the 2020 election.”

Texas officials have threatened criminal prosecution of voters who attempt to cast mail ballots who do not meet specific criteria, including those who would prefer to vote by mail out of fear of contracting or spreading COVID-19 by voting in person.

CLC and LULAC moved to intervene in the federal lawsuit, Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott on May 11.

WASHINGTON - On Wednesday May 13, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in cases about the electoral college called Chiafalo v. Washington and Colorado v. Baca. A decision is expected less than six months before the general election.

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) is supporting the states of Washington and Colorado, who seek to enforce laws that disallow ‘faithless electors’ who refuse to follow the popular vote in their state. Electors are the 538 people – typically party loyalists – that are largely unknown to voters and whose power to choose their state’s electoral vote has largely been assumed to be a formality until now.

Watch CLC’s video on faithless electors.

The electors have challenged their state laws because they seek to ignore the popular vote in their state. If the court rules to “unbind” electors, the integrity of the presidential election could be called into question during a critical election year. Currently, 32 states and the District of Columbia have laws controlling how electors vote.

“Elections should be determined by voters,” said Paul Smith, vice president of CLC. “The legitimacy of American democracy demands that voters go to the polls with the confidence that their vote will count and that their election system will be free from corruption. The presidential election could be thrown into chaos if electors are permitted by the U.S. Supreme Court to ignore the will of their home-state voters and vote for whomever they want. This outcome would introduce new opportunities for corruption that would cast doubt in the legitimacy of elections. An elector could legally accept contributions worth millions of dollars in connection with their official duties, and the public would never know. The sole function of the presidential electors should be to cast, certify and transmit the vote of the state for president and vice president of the U.S.”

“Presidential electors are not considered elected officials, and as a result are not subject to the ethics and transparency laws most officials face,” said Adav Noti, senior director of trial litigation and chief of staff to CLC. “If they were ‘unbound’ from the popular vote, the same temptations that affect officeholders would apply – the temptation to accept secret ‘gifts’ in connection with their positions, or even to sell their votes. The court’s decision in this case could transform presidential electors from unknown functionaries to the latest targets of the big-money influence game around what should not be for sale: our democracy.”

--

Further reading:

• Paul Smith and CLC Chief of Staff Adav Noti published a piece in SCOTUSblog on the case, which explores what would happen if electors are not subject to federal campaign finance and ethics laws, something that our system is not currently equipped to handle.
• On April 8, CLC and Issue One filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that states should be allowed to require presidential electors to vote for the winner of the popular vote in their home state.
• Paul Smith wrote an op-ed about the case in Talking Points Memo in October.
• Adav Noti wrote about the case in The Atlantic in March.