ADVERTISEMENT

Rejected Mail Ballots Are Showing Racial Disparities

cigaretteman

HB King
May 29, 2001
78,083
59,845
113

Rejected Mail Ballots Are Showing Racial Disparities​

Auditors in Washington State found that the mail ballots of Black voters were being rejected at four times the rate of white voters. Similar trends have been seen in other states.

Among the thousands of mail-in ballots that were rejected in Washington State during the 2020 election, auditors have found that the votes of Black residents were thrown out four times as often as those of white voters.
The rejections, all of them because of problematic signatures, disqualified one out of every 40 mail-in votes from Black people — a finding that already is causing concern amid the national debate over voter access and secure balloting. Washington, a state with broad experience in mail-in balloting, found that rejection rates were also elevated for Native American, Hispanic, and Asian and Pacific Islander voters.
State officials said there were no signs that ballots cast by Black or other minority voters were knowingly singled out by poll workers, or that any of the ballots were deliberately falsified; the rejections were a result of signatures that were missing or did not match those on file, a possible result, the officials said, of voter inexperience, language problems or other factors.
“It’s not acceptable, quite frankly,” said State Auditor Pat McCarthy, a Democrat, whose office conducted the audit. She urged election officials to take steps to address the disparities.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story


The findings in Washington State mirror mail-ballot research that has been conducted in other states in recent years, including Georgia and Florida. But they are crucial in a state like Washington, which in 2011 became the second state to adopt all-mail balloting, behind Oregon. Mail-in voting has been an option for all statewide elections since 1991.
Turnout in states with all-mail balloting has been among the nation’s highest, and is often seen as a key to attracting voters who may not otherwise cast ballots because of the challenges of work, child care or transportation. It has become an increasingly popular option during the pandemic, with 43 percent of voters around the country casting their ballot by mail during the 2020 general election.
Republicans have passed legislation in recent months to curtail mail voting, expressing concerns that mail ballots may be more vulnerable to fraud, intimidation or loss in the mail. President Donald J. Trump falsely claimed that mail elections would be rigged by ballots printed in foreign countries and children raiding mailboxes. Washington and other states with all-mail voting have seen little evidence of fraud, noting the bar codes, tracking and data-verification systems used to monitor ballots both before and after the election.
Democrats and voting rights advocates have called for making the mail ballot option more readily available, and a growing number of states have done so.
Eight states now send every voter a mail-in ballot by default, even as many of them continue to operate in-person polling places. Some states have allowed mail-in balloting for county or city elections. All states have some option for absentee ballots for voters who cannot make it to the polls on Election Day.



LaTosha Brown, a co-founder of the organization Black Voters Matter, said mail balloting is critical for expanding access, including to Black voters, who historically have faced legal and practical impediments to voting. She said it was essential to address the widespread rejection seen of mail ballots.


“That shouldn’t be concerning just for me as a Black American,” she said. “That should be concerning for anyone who cares about democracy.”
In Washington State, counties mail ballots to all voters about three weeks before an election. Voters have until Election Day to fill out the ballot, sign the envelope and return it — either in one of a series of drop boxes or by mail, as long as it is postmarked by Election Day. Election officials check the voter’s signature on the envelope against voter registration records to ensure a match and then process the ballot for counting.
Auditors found nearly 29,000 ballots that were rejected for various signature problems in the 2020 general election — either the signature was missing or it did not match what was on file. Looking for signs of bias, the state examined thousands of accepted and rejected signatures more closely, but the auditors largely agreed with the decisions that county election workers made and found nothing in the way the ballots were reviewed that would explain the disparity.
Other groups that had higher rejection rates were men, younger voters and less-experienced voters of all races and ethnicities. The audit also found that rejection rates varied by county, a difference the auditors said could reflect varying degrees of strictness in matching signatures.
Young voters who frequently vary their signatures and language barriers for some racial and ethnic groups could also explain some of the rejections, the auditors said.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story


Ms. McCarthy recalled that her own ballot was once rejected with a mismatched signature, with one featuring a shortened version of her first name and one her full name plus a middle initial.
Election officials are supposed to notify voters to give them an opportunity to resolve discrepancies. The audit focused on ballots that did not get resolved.
The disparities found in other states with rejected ballots mirrored those found in Washington. Researchers examining mail-in votes from the 2018 election in Georgia found that racial and ethnic minorities were more likely to have their on-time ballot rejected compared with white voters. Similar disparities were found during the 2018 election in Florida by researchers working with the American Civil Liberties Union, a review that also found disparities for younger voters, first-time voters and military personnel. Journalists have found similar trends in North Carolina and Colorado — and previously in Washington State.
Last year, two advocacy groups filed suit against a few counties in Washington State alleging discrimination against Latino voters and other racial minorities because of a comparatively higher rate of rejection of ballots from voters with Latino names. A Latino judge in the case recused himself, noting that his own ballot signature had been initially rejected during the previous election.
Ms. McCarthy, the state auditor, said she remained a strong supporter of mail-in voting, and said the audit that identified the disparities was one attempt to continue improving the voting system.
Her office’s report recommended that counties educate voters on the importance of having a matching signature, including an explanation of the signature-matching process, with targeted efforts among communities with higher rejection rates. It also suggested collecting several signature samples from each voter and renewing efforts to help voters fix mismatch problems when they arise.
Ms. Brown, the Black Voters Matter representative, said she would like to see the elimination of signature-verification checks altogether, saying that the process introduced the possibility of biased decisions from those who review the ballots, and also posed challenges for people who have changed how they write their names.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story


Robert Stein, a political science professor at Rice University who specializes in voting and elections, said some researchers have explored using personal identification numbers instead of signatures to avoid mismatch problems. But he said the core of the problem was probably inexperienced voters who made mistakes on their ballots.
“The question is, what can the state do to improve that?” he said.

 
Signatures shouldn't be part of the ballot verification process. Voter ID solves that problem.

They need to relax a little on the signatures not matching...handwriting changes over time...I had to deal with that BS when I got my RealID drivers license...of course my signature on my SS card doesn't match my signature now, I signed the damn card when I was 12!
 
"Looking for signs of bias, the state examined thousands of accepted and rejected signatures more closely, but the auditors largely agreed with the decisions that county election workers made and found nothing in the way the ballots were reviewed that would explain the disparity."

Huh.
+1
 
They need to relax a little on the signatures not matching...handwriting changes over time...I had to deal with that BS when I got my RealID drivers license...of course my signature on my SS card doesn't match my signature now, I signed the damn card when I was 12!

I would think you would sign when you register to vote, and mail-in ballots would be matched to that signature.

For mail-in voting to be secure and trustworthy, you need strict signature matching. This audit simply uncovered a problem, which states should look to resolve without making the process less secure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Old_wrestling_fan
Sounds like an issue where the rules need to be communicated better to everyone and applied more consistently. They found no evidence of actual racial discrimination in it, just higher instance of rejection due to rules.
Doesn't this suggest the rules themselves are designed to limit black voting?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BelemNole
No, it doesn’t.

It’s very easy for something to be discriminatory without actual intent to be so. SAT tests are a famous example. This audit uncovered something that needs to be addressed. That’s all.
I would be able to accept this if I, and many others, weren't originally critisizing these laws for being discriminatory.

It's hard to accept that this wasn't the intent when this exact worry was being brought up as these new laws made their way through the legislative process.
 
We put too much importance on signatures. I get the romance of them, but they should be much less integral to important official processes.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: UKGrad93
It can be both. It was the most secure in history in terms of lack of fraud but not necessarily in fairness in voting.
The most secure election does not include widespread unfairness in voting. It's in the definition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GlenHawk
You more of a "make your mark" guy?
My first and last names combined have 12 letters. My signature has 3 legible letters and associated filler.

I think signatures seem like a useless formality that can cause a lot of procedural holdup, and their utility is questionable at best. They are probably more useful as a means of obfuscation and obstruction as in the OP story rather than clarity and facilitation of process as is their ostensible purpose.

They are a relic and a fetish, like cursive handwriting, flintlock muzzleloaders and vinyl records. Fun, nostalgic, but lacking in utility.
 
Hey man whatever you gotta tell yourself. Just make sure you stretch before bending yourself in to a pretzel to make it work for you.
Something tells me.Huey gets many compliments based off his flexibility. I love my wife's flexibility, I'm sure his partner loves his.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DooBii
My first and last names combined have 12 letters. My signature has 3 legible letters and associated filler.

I think signatures seem like a useless formality that can cause a lot of procedural holdup, and their utility is questionable at best. They are probably more useful as a means of obfuscation and obstruction as in the OP story rather than clarity and facilitation of process as is their ostensible purpose.

They are a relic and a fetish, like cursive handwriting, flintlock muzzleloaders and vinyl records. Fun, nostalgic, but lacking in utility.
Fair point. I disagree that formal documents should not have to contain a signature but recognize a signature is a one off. To your point I will also say there are many things you have to sign for electronically that show up ridiculously after using one of those signature machines/pens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JMNSHO
Strange? The mail in ballots themselves provide no distinction between what race the voter was who sent in the ballot.

Appears to me to just be a result of lack of education specifically the ability to write.

Sucks to be stupid it appears.
 
Last edited:
Race has zero to do with it.

some people can’t follow directions should be the headline.

I can't tell if you're trying to be coy or if you just struggle with reading. Earlier you said the headline wants people to assume that the ballot says "minority" on it and that's why they're tossed. I thought that was a bizarre interpretation and rather than explaining you come back with some other claim about the headline, that it shouldn't be about race at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BelemNole
They need to relax a little on the signatures not matching...handwriting changes over time...I had to deal with that BS when I got my RealID drivers license...of course my signature on my SS card doesn't match my signature now, I signed the damn card when I was 12!
Exactly. And even if it didn't, how do people in an elections office become handwriting experts?
 
No, it doesn’t.

It’s very easy for something to be discriminatory without actual intent to be so. SAT tests are a famous example. This audit uncovered something that needs to be addressed. That’s all.

Oh but it does. It's actually enforced in banking, it's called disparate impact. Whether you intend it or not, if your bank's practices negatively impact a protected class, it can be considered discriminatory. I would have to think that the same level of scrutiny or higher would apply to elections. Then again, when you have the GOP involved, perhaps not.
 
Oh but it does. It's actually enforced in banking, it's called disparate impact. Whether you intend it or not, if your bank's practices negatively impact a protected class, it can be considered discriminatory. I would have to think that the same level of scrutiny or higher would apply to elections. Then again, when you have the GOP involved, perhaps not.

But Huey's assertion was that it is intentional.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IACub
How are they identifying voters as minorities if mailed?
I don’t have a link, but over the past several years a journalist named Greg Palast has done tons of investigation of alleged voter suppression and among many other things, he has discussed the existence of statistical analyses that identify names that are highly predictive of race. For example I believe an American with the surname Washington is 95% likely to be black. There is a ton of potential for nefarious use of this information. I’m not sure how much of the use of such analyses is documented vs speculation, but it’s out there.
 
Oh but it does. It's actually enforced in banking, it's called disparate impact. Whether you intend it or not, if your bank's practices negatively impact a protected class, it can be considered discriminatory. I would have to think that the same level of scrutiny or higher would apply to elections. Then again, when you have the GOP involved, perhaps not.

This can be extended to the point of absurdity. Like in the example of racial bias within hawkeye football. Someone is going to point out that the black guys on the team had more trouble than the whites showing up for 5AM workouts or are graduating at a lesser rate than their white counterparts -- so some jackwagon is going to conclude our program is racist. It's BS.
 
I would be able to accept this if I, and many others, weren't originally critisizing these laws for being discriminatory.

It's hard to accept that this wasn't the intent when this exact worry was being brought up as these new laws made their way through the legislative process.

People were criticizing states' signature verification methodology?
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT