UTAH SUPREME COURT VALIDATES USE OF E-SIGNATURES IN ELECTORAL PROCESS

[kpete]

UTAH SUPREME COURT VALIDATES USE OF E-SIGNATURES IN ELECTORAL PROCESS

For Immediate Release
June 22, 2010

SALT LAKE CITY, UT – The Utah Supreme Court today issued an opinion validating the use of e-signatures in the electoral process. The Court’s opinion, the first of its kind nationwide, has the potential to increase significantly the ability of independent candidates to access the general election ballot, and thus to increase the opportunity for minority viewpoints to be heard and considered in election years.

“This case raises substantial issues of statutory and constitutional law that affect not just every Utahn, but also every voter nationwide,” said ACLU of Utah Legal Director Darcy M. Goddard. “We are pleased that the Court understood and upheld the validity of e-signatures under both statutory and common law. Mr. Anderson’s case is an important step towards increasing participatory democracy in this country through the use of new technology.”

On March 18, 2010, Farley Anderson presented to the Lieutenant Governor a nominating petition signed by over 1,000 Utah voters, as is required by the Election Law for independent candidates wishing to run for statewide office. The Lieutenant Governor rejected Mr. Anderson’s petition because a small portion of the signatures were “e-signatures.” The Lieutenant Governor argued that those were not “signatures” under Utah State law.

"Since the earliest days of the common law, a 'signature' was any mark that the signing individual intended to be his 'signature,'" said ACLU cooperating attorney Brent V. Manning. "That was true whether the mark was on paper, on wood, on a wall, or on a cow." According to Mr. Manning, an e-signature is equally valid so long as the signer intends it to be his signature. "Utah's legislature and courts already recognized the legitimacy of e-signatures in a variety of contexts," said Manning. “We are gratified that the Supreme Court rejected the Lieutenant Governor's attempt effectively to re-write existing law by seeking to impose additional and unconstitutional requirements for independent candidates to access the ballot."


More:
http://www.acluutah.org/PR062210ESig.html

[LiberalFighter]

1. Manning is ef n WRONG

The difference between a mark on paper, wood, a wall or a cow is that it was done physically and leaves an identifying mark that can be compared with a past mark or with the person at a later date. A mark can also be reviewed to determine if likely a fake.

[diva77]

2. The ACLU has been busy attacking democracy for years with its push for computerized voting

using the disabled as the trojan horse to trade out punch cards for DREs.

Here's an ex. of some of Tokaji's testimony in 2002 (staff attorney with the ACLU Foundation of Southern CA at the time) :

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:vR6O--WmnqIJ:www.sos.ca.gov/elections/vma/pdf/vmb/documents/test_vmb_tokaji.pdf+tokaji+aclu+disabled+voting&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgf3WVcSZYlnNOUwttMKkdK_U6d3IB-0FFQuBeCxkrwFJ_cOWqjNDQZXK8aNxk93yvMXcwok7VaSh8OXWS0on6JeVbv6eCWcC6pOzlNbUXVNlTrFnJ42NMIwLu9IlaN7caliGYt&sig=AHIEtbRaSTDEOzzxf6RkCR1p-CJy8xBO8A


All is not well with the ACLU...

[Bill Bored]

3. You may be right, but punch cards were pretty crappy.

They should never have been used to replace lever machines.

ACLU in FL seems different which implies that they may not be a homogeneous lot. You might want to check this out.