Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

E-signing of ballot petitions during the pandemic blessed in federal courts

Digital signature
Abscent84/Getty Images

The number of cases is still small, but campaigns to allow electronic signatures to replace handwriting on ballot petitions are starting to fare better in federal court than state court.

The issue is central to keeping grassroots democracy alive despite the coronavirus — by allowing activists to show enough support for their ideas that they merit being put to a statewide vote, but in a safe and practical way while in-person canvassing remains both a profound health risk and prohibitively inefficient.

A potential breakthrough came Tuesday, when a federal judge said groups promoting a package of voting law changes, a minimum wage increase and marijuana decriminalization in Ohio should be allowed to circulate their petitions online.


It was the first time advocacy groups have won such a victory in federal court since the pandemic began, while such arguments have been rejected several times by state courts — including the Ohio Supreme Court in this case and by the Arizona Supreme Court last week.

"These times, however, are not ordinary," Judge Edmund Sargus Jr. of Columbus wrote, and the groups who sued were not out to get rid of the paper-and-ink rules forever. "Plaintiffs instead contend that they are unconstitutional as applied to them during this extraordinary time. That is, the Covid-19 pandemic has made it impossible to circulate petitions in person."

The judge also extended the deadline for submitting signatures by a month, to the end of July. But he declined to lower the number of voters who must e-sign onto each effort.

Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose has already vowed to appeal on the grounds that the judge had usurped the power of the General Assembly to change election rules.

But the place where that argument will be made, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, rejected a similar claim in a ballot access case only a month ago. It struck down Michigan's rules requiring candidates to gather signatures in person to get on the ballot — saying that was unconstitutional during a public health emergency. The state has since started allowing people to submit electronic petitions to run in the August primary.

Grassroots groups promoting referendums in six other states — Arizona, Arkansas, North Dakota, Montana, Arizona, Colorado, and Oklahoma — have also sued in state and federal courts in hopes of changing signature rules or getting deadlines extended. Three of those campaigns are from groups hoping to combat partisan gerrymandering. But efforts in many more states have been suspended in the face of the pandemic.

The Ohio ruling is another courthouse victory for Ohioans for Safe and Secure Elections, which is pushing for the most comprehensive package of potential election law easements anywhere in the nation this year. Central provisions would make Ohio the 17th state that automatically registers eligible residents when they do business with the motor vehicle bureau, and the 22nd state that permits people to both register and cast ballots on Election Day.

Last month an effort to break the measure into four pieces, which was widely expected to reduce its chances, was stopped by the state's highest court. But proponents say that, electronic signatures notwithstanding, they will still struggle to get the necessary 453,000 supporters lined up in the next 10 weeks.

That same threshold will apply to the group pushing an initiative that would raise the state's minimum wage to $13 over the next five years. Backers of marijuana decriminalization are hoping to place their measures on more than a dozen local ballots, which have much lesser signature requirements.

GOP Gov. Mike DeWine significantly relaxed his stay-at-home order this week but left in place six feet of mandatory social distancing and a ban on gatherings by more than 10 people — both curbs that will make in-person signature gathering impractical.

All the groups told the court they would use DocuSign, which is in wide use for real estate closings and other business transactions, and would require signers to give up the last four digits of their Social Security numbers — the same verification required to register or get an absentee ballot online in the state.


Read More

People at voting booths.

A clear breakdown of voter ID laws under the Constitution, federal statutes, and court rulings—plus analysis of new Trump administration proposals to impose nationwide voter identification requirements.

Getty Images, LPETTET

Just the Facts: Voter ID, States’ Powers, and Federal Limits

The Fulcrum approaches news stories with an open mind and skepticism, presenting our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


Few issues generate more heat and are less understood than voter ID.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

An analysis of Trump’s SAVE Act strategy, the voter ID debate, and how Pew data is being misused—exploring election integrity, voter suppression, and the political fight shaping U.S. democracy.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Stop Fighting Voter ID. Start Defining It.

President Trump doesn't need the SAVE America Act to pass. He only needs the debate to continue. Every minute spent arguing about voter suppression repeats the underlying premise — that noncitizen voting is a real and widespread problem — until it feels like an established fact. The question is whether Democrats will contest Republicans’ definition before the frame hardens.

Trump's claim that 88% of Americans support the bill traces to a Pew Research Center survey — a survey that found 83% support a “government-issued photo ID to vote,” not extreme vetting for proof of citizenship. That support included 95% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats, indicating genuine, broad, bipartisan support for a basic civic principle. That's worth taking seriously.

Keep ReadingShow less
People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less