By Bob Cooper | Guest Columnist
All mail-in voting systems use a process called signature verification to verify the person voting by mail is the voter registered to vote. In Colorado this process is based on comparing the signature on the outer ballot envelope with the digital signature images in a database called SCORE.
This is the only procedure to verify the identity of the voter before that ballot is counted. Once a signature passes signature verification, the envelope is opened, ballots are sent to be counted and envelopes are stored in a separate container. The voter is no longer associated with their votes on the ballot.
The process of signature verification varies based on the size of a county but will always follow state statutes. A key person in this process is called a “signature judge”. Counties pay signature judges to examine the signature on the envelope and compare it to the signature images stored in SCORE. The signature judge can view three signature images in SCORE recorded under the voter’s ID number. Signatures are listed by most recent. The majority of SCORE signature images come from DMV registrations; however, other sources are used. Rejected signatures go to a second level of judges. If those judges reject the signature, a process called “curing” is implemented and gives the voter a chance to fix their signature.
In Colorado, signature judges attend required specialized training to determine if a signature matches the images in SCORE. County officials also offer supplemental training courses using law enforcement officials who typically have a forensic training background in signature fraud. Citizens selected to judge are from both political parties. Signature judges execute their responsibility as accurately as possible.
In recent years, technology has been introduced to automate the signature verification process. Signature verification systems, like Runbeck’s Agilis verification system can perform high-speed signature verification with no human intervention. These systems scan the ballot envelope, capture the voter ID number as well as the image of the signature on the envelope, and compare it to the image in SCORE. Software determines if the signature is a match, so that the ballot can be counted.
The parameters of the approval can be adjusted to different levels of verification. If the system rejects the signature, it is sent to signature judges for a second level review where they approve or reject it. Many counties audit the accuracy of these systems using the most experienced judges after an election to verify the accuracy of the system. To date, these audits have not found any issues.
So is this process to determine voter ID reliable and accurate? There is no way to determine this because it is not audited. THERE ARE NO AUDIT STANDARDS for this process in our voting system.
First, understand that signature verification skills vary greatly and are a subjective process. A person becomes a signature judge based on a few hours of training. Compare this to a certified forensic signature expert who trains for three to five years and can testify in court as to the validity of a signature. Does this mean the process used is not accurate? The answer is they do not know because there has never been an audit by certified signature experts. There are no reports showing the accuracy of this process based on outside audits. Every voter should ask elected officials “why”? Especially, when you have contests decided by very low margins.
Second, signatures are not a reliable way to determine a person’s identity. Citizens should understand our financial institutions no longer use signatures as the sole source of identifying a person. Multiple verification techniques are used; never signatures alone. Decades ago, banks learned signatures were unreliable and too difficult to authenticate. If U.S. financial institutions no longer implement signatures for ID verification, why would a voting system? It is because “we the people” do not ask.
No one knows if automated signature verification systems add accuracy to the process. County officials have implemented audits to determine accuracy, but they are not comprehensive with the involvement of outside auditors. Also concerning is the system that verifies the signature is also loading the signature image into the SCORE database. Note this entire process is void of humans viewing the original paper envelopes. Everyone should demand very thorough audit standards for these devices by experts in auditing and cyber systems expertise.
In larger counties, signature judges no longer examine the actual signature on the envelope. Instead, they look at data images of the envelope signature. This means if SCORE is hacked, nefarious actors can use digital printers to print very accurate signatures that are not detectable because the verification process cannot determine if it was an authentic human signature or a digital printer.
Very concerning is the guidance provided to signature judges on signature verification from the Colorado Secretary of State. In October 2023, the Colorado Secretary of State told signature judges if there was a 51% chance the signature was accurate to approve it. Can you imagine a bank using that standard? Unbelievable! Denying a vote for a citizen is just as bad as approving a fraudulent ballot. Both circumstances damage the accuracy of the vote.
Lastly, to explain why this process must be audited, the signature verification process has no standards of implementation across counties. When you examine data from 11 counties based on the mail ballot reconciliation reports you see evidence of this in the signature ballot rejection rates. Our largest 11-county average rejection rate is 1.1% meaning after curing the signatures they determined that 1.1% of the mailed ballots had to be rejected because the signature could not be verified. Two counties’ rejection rate was 0.6%, meaning 99.4% of the signatures looked at passed after curing? While two other counties had a rejection rate of 2.1% and 1.6% after curing or a variance of 2-3 fold. No business would accept this variance as an indication of a reliable process.
If you are concerned, you should be. Citizens should demand comprehensive audits of the signature verification process including reports, generated after every election as to the accuracy of this process. It should be done by external certified forensic experts based on an audit standard. These auditors should be from one of these organizations:
- American Board of Forensic Document Examiners (ABFDE)
- American Society of Questioned Document Examiners (ASQDE)
Everyone needs to ask why there are no reports on the accuracy of the signature verification process in Colorado and why is it not audited?
Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.