Valid signature
From Ballotpedia
| Ballot law |
|---|
|
| State laws |
| Initiative law Recall law Changes to law |
| Court cases |
| Ballot measure lawsuits |
| Local ballot measure laws |
A valid signature on a petition is a signature that meets certain legal requirements as defined by each state, such that it counts toward the minimum number of valid signatures required to (a) place an initiative on the ballot, (b) a candidate's name on the ballot, or (c) move forward with the recall of an elected official.
Requirements for deeming a signature as valid differ by state. In many states, a signature is deemed valid if the signature is from a registered voter as verified by that state's list of registered voters and if the signature on the petition matches the signature on the voter's registration.
States also have different laws providing for circumstances that may cause a signature to be found invalid. In the case of duplicate signatures appearing on a single petition, in some states, one signature counts and the other(s) don't. In other states, if a voter signs more than once, none of his or her signatures count.
Additional considerations
In some states, additional factors play a role in determining whether a signature is considered legally valid. These considerations, if required by the state, include the following:
- whether the petition circulator correctly filled out the circulator affidavit or adhered to laws governing petition circulation;
- whether the petition sheet that the registered voter signed was notarized by a notary public whose notary seal was current at the time;
- whether the signature was witnessed by another individual; and
- whether signatures from voters who live in different counties are mixed on one petition sheet.
Signer intent
Signer intent is the idea that if the signature checker can reasonably conclude that a voter intended to sign a petition, that signature should count even if the signature is flawed in various ways, such as not including a date or other technical flaws.
Some states honor signer intent in checking petition signatures and other states require strict adherence to all the technical provisions the state legislature has passed governing the signature validity process.
Recent signature validity lawsuits
2022
Ballotpedia is not covering any 2022 lawsuits about recent measures regarding signature validity at this time.
2021
Ballotpedia is not covering any 2021 lawsuits about recent measures regarding signature validity at this time.
2020
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Did Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer write a true and impartial summary of the ballot initiative? | |
| Court: Alaska Supreme Court (Filed in Alaska Superior Court) | |
| Ruling: The Alaska Supreme Court dismissed the case, upholding the Superior Court's ruling in favor of Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share. The Superior Court ordered Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer to strike a sentence from the ballot summary. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share | Defendant(s): Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer and Division of Elections |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language that Lt. Gov. Meyer wrote for the initiative is not true or impartial. | Defendant argument: Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share did not make a timely objection to the language and, therefore, the complaint should be dismissed. |
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Did Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share violate the law requiring that signature gatherers earn no more than $1.00 per signature? | |
| Court: Alaska Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Plaintiffs' interpretation of the $1.00-per-signature limit is correct; however, the limit violates the U.S. Constitution's protection of free speech. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc., Alaska Trucking Association, Inc., Alaska Miners Associaiton, Inc., Associated General Contractors of Alaska, Alaska Chamber, and Alaska Support Industry Alliance | Defendant(s): Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer, Division of Elections, and Vote Yes for Alaska's Fair Share |
| Plaintiff argument: Vote Yes paid signature gatherers in excess of the $1.00-per-signature limit. | Defendant argument: Providing signature gatherers with salaries is not affected by the $1.00-per-signature limit. |
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the initiative violates the Arizona Constitution by authorizing taxation outside the procedures prescribed in the constitution; whether the initiative violates the state legislature's power to appropriate tax revenue | |
| Court: Arizona Superior Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): State Senate President Karen Fann (R), Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives Russell Bowers (R), State Senator David Gowan (R), State Senator Venden Leach (R), State Representative Regina Cobb (R), State Representative John Kavanaugh (R), Montie Lee of Lee Farms, State Representative Steve Pierce (R), Dr. Francis Surdakowski, No on 28, and Arizona Free Enterprise Club | Defendant(s): Arizona State Treasurer Kimberly Yee (R) and Director of the Arizona Department of Revenue Carlton Woodruff |
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Was the 100-word petition language misleading? Did the payments made to petition circulators violate the state's ban on pay-per-signature? | |
| Court: Arizona Supreme Court (Originated in the Maricopa County Superior Court) | |
| Ruling: The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that (1) petition language "did not create a significant danger of confusion or unfairness" and (2) the compensation structure and incentives for petition circulators did not violate state law. |
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the certifications that petition circulators passed background checks are in accordance with Arkansas Code § 7-9-601(b)(3) and, consequently, whether or not the signatures collected are valid | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of John Thurston; measures removed from ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Arkansas Voters First, Open Primaries Arkansas | Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Thurston |
| Plaintiff argument: The background check certifications comply with state law and signatures are valid | Defendant argument: The background check certifications do not comply with state law and signatures are therefore not valid |
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the certifications that petition circulators passed background checks are in accordance with Arkansas Code § 7-9-601(b)(3) and, consequently, whether or not the signatures collected are valid and whether the amendment should be included on the November 2020 ballot | |
| Court: Federal court for the Western District of Arkansas | |
| Plaintiff(s): League of Women Voters of Arkansas, Arkansas Voters First | Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Thurston |
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the certifications that petition circulators passed background checks are in accordance with Arkansas Code § 7-9-601(b)(3) and, consequently, whether or not the signatures collected are valid | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of John Thurston; measures removed from ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Arkansas Voters First, Open Primaries Arkansas | Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Thurston |
| Plaintiff argument: The background check certifications comply with state law and signatures are valid | Defendant argument: The background check certifications do not comply with state law and signatures are therefore not valid |
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether proponents' submitted signatures are valid, whether they were collected in compliance with Act 376 (House Bill 346) of 2019, which required signature gatherers to file a sworn statement with the Secretary of State's office prior to collecting signatures; whether the emergency clause in Act 376 is constitutional | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; the emergency clause in Act 376 was unconstitutional and signatures must be counted | |
| Plaintiff(s): Safe Surgery Arkansas | Defendant(s): Arkansas Secretary of State John Thurston (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: Signatures submitted are valid and should be counted by the Secretary of State's office; the Secretary of State's initiative and referendum handbook did not mention the change in the law; the bill's emergency clause was unconstitutional | Defendant argument: Signatures submitted are invalid and violate Act 376 (House Bill 346) of 2019, which required signature gatherers to file a sworn statement with the Secretary of State's office prior to collecting signatures |
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether proponents' submitted signatures are valid, whether they were collected in compliance with Arkansas Code Annotated § 7-9-601, which required sponsors to certify that petition canvassers passed state and federal criminal background checks | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; measure removed from the ballot on September 17, 2020 | |
| Plaintiff(s): Arkansans for Healthy Eyes | Defendant(s): Arkansas Secretary of State John Thurston (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: Signatures submitted are invalid and should not be counted by the Secretary of State's office because sponsors did not certify that petition canvassers passed state and federal criminal background checks | Defendant argument: Unknown |
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Section 20 of Article IV of the Maine Constitution require circulators to be registered to vote at the time of circulation in order for their collected signatures to be considered valid? | |
| Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court (originated in the Cumberland County Superior Court) | |
| Ruling: On September 22, 2020, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court ruled in favor of Secretary of State Dunlap. | |
| Plaintiff(s): David Jones | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap |
| Plaintiff argument: Signatures collected by circulators who are not registered to vote while collecting signatures, but who register before submitting the signatures, are valid. | Defendant argument: Section 20 of Article IV of the Maine Constitution requires that circulators be registered to vote for their collected signatures to be considered valid. |
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the one-year residency requirement for owners of dispensaries violates nonresidents' rights secured under the dormant commerce clause of the United States Constitution | |
| Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri | |
| Plaintiff(s): Mark Toigo, a marijuana investor from Pennsylvania | Defendant(s): Randall Williams, director of the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services |
| Plaintiff argument: The amendment violates nonresidents' rights to operate in the state under the dormant commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. | Defendant argument: Unknown |
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Did Amendment 2's petitioners violate the legal requirements of the signature gathering process? | |
| Court: Cole County Circuit Court and Missouri Court of Appeals | |
| Ruling: Courts dismissed the case, saying Bradshaw did not have standing to challenge how signatures were gathered | |
| Plaintiff(s): Brad Bradshaw | Defendant(s): New Approach Missouri |
| Plaintiff argument: Petitioners for Amendment 2 violated the legal requirements of the signature gathering process. | Defendant argument: Plaintiffs' argument is unfounded. |
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does the new law violate the Montana Constitution and infringe on the state legislature's power to allocate tax revenue? | |
| Court: Montana 1st Judicial District Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): Steve Zabawa, Wrong for Montana | Defendant(s): Attorney General Tim Fox (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The new law violates the Montana Constitution because it requires that a portion of marijuana tax revenue be allocated to specific purposes. | Defendant argument: The new law does not violate the state's Constitution because the legislature can still appropriate the revenue as they see fit. |
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the state should permit electronic signature gathering due to social gathering restrictions put in place during the coronavirus pandemic | |
| Court: Montana 1st Judicial District Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, not permitting New Approach Montana to use electronic signatures | |
| Plaintiff(s): New Approach Montana | Defendant(s): Montana Secretary of State Corey Stapleton (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The state violated the right to amend the Montana Constitution and enact laws by prohibiting electronic signature gathering. | Defendant argument: The court cannot grant permission to use electronic signatures because it would be violating the separation of powers. |
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether signatures were collected in accordance with state law and the state constitution; whether the measure should be blocked from appearing on the November ballot | |
| Court: North Dakota Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; blocked measure from appearing on ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Brighter Future Alliance | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Al Jaeger (I) |
| Plaintiff argument: Signatures should be declared invalid and measure should be blocked from the ballot because the measure sponsors failed to meet requirements of the constitution and state law because it did not include the full text of the measure on petitions and that the ballot title does not accurately describe the measure | Defendant argument: Unknown |
2019
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Did Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer write a true and impartial summary of the ballot initiative? | |
| Court: Alaska Supreme Court (Filed in Alaska Superior Court) | |
| Ruling: The Alaska Supreme Court dismissed the case, upholding the Superior Court's ruling in favor of Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share. The Superior Court ordered Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer to strike a sentence from the ballot summary. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share | Defendant(s): Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer and Division of Elections |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language that Lt. Gov. Meyer wrote for the initiative is not true or impartial. | Defendant argument: Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share did not make a timely objection to the language and, therefore, the complaint should be dismissed. |
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Did Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share violate the law requiring that signature gatherers earn no more than $1.00 per signature? | |
| Court: Alaska Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Plaintiffs' interpretation of the $1.00-per-signature limit is correct; however, the limit violates the U.S. Constitution's protection of free speech. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc., Alaska Trucking Association, Inc., Alaska Miners Associaiton, Inc., Associated General Contractors of Alaska, Alaska Chamber, and Alaska Support Industry Alliance | Defendant(s): Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer, Division of Elections, and Vote Yes for Alaska's Fair Share |
| Plaintiff argument: Vote Yes paid signature gatherers in excess of the $1.00-per-signature limit. | Defendant argument: Providing signature gatherers with salaries is not affected by the $1.00-per-signature limit. |
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether proponents' submitted signatures are valid, whether they were collected in compliance with Act 376 (House Bill 346) of 2019, which required signature gatherers to file a sworn statement with the Secretary of State's office prior to collecting signatures; whether the emergency clause in Act 376 is constitutional | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; the emergency clause in Act 376 was unconstitutional and signatures must be counted | |
| Plaintiff(s): Safe Surgery Arkansas | Defendant(s): Arkansas Secretary of State John Thurston (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: Signatures submitted are valid and should be counted by the Secretary of State's office; the Secretary of State's initiative and referendum handbook did not mention the change in the law; the bill's emergency clause was unconstitutional | Defendant argument: Signatures submitted are invalid and violate Act 376 (House Bill 346) of 2019, which required signature gatherers to file a sworn statement with the Secretary of State's office prior to collecting signatures |
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether proponents' submitted signatures are valid, whether they were collected in compliance with Arkansas Code Annotated § 7-9-601, which required sponsors to certify that petition canvassers passed state and federal criminal background checks | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; measure removed from the ballot on September 17, 2020 | |
| Plaintiff(s): Arkansans for Healthy Eyes | Defendant(s): Arkansas Secretary of State John Thurston (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: Signatures submitted are invalid and should not be counted by the Secretary of State's office because sponsors did not certify that petition canvassers passed state and federal criminal background checks | Defendant argument: Unknown |
See also
- Signature challenge
- Post-certification signature challenge
- Signature recovery lawsuit
- Petition signature withdrawal
- Invalid signature
- Petition signer
- Forged signature
- Fraudulent signature
- Signature certification
