As part of a series of security measures for mail-in voting, officials in Arizona — like in 30 other states — verify mail-in ballots through a signature-matching process. When a voter returns a mail-in ballot, a voter must sign an affidavit on the ballot envelope. An official will then examine the signature and compare it in the voter’s registration record.
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC), an organization that advocates for voting restrictions, is suing Arizona’s secretary of state seeking to limit the signatures clerks can use in verifying absentee ballots. In Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Fontes, AFEC argues that Arizona law limits officials to just a few documents that are used to update a voter’s registration. The secretary of state and intervenor Mi Familia Vota argue that Arizona Free Enterprise Club has ignored the language and history of Arizona’s signature-matching laws. A state trial court rejected Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s position, and the case is now before the Arizona Court of Appeals.
On November 20, the Brennan Center and co-counsel Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler and Dentons filed a friend-of-the-court brief from the perspective of nine current and former election officials. The officials, including five officials from Arizona counties, two former secretaries of state, and two officials from counties in other states, have collectively overseen the processing of millions of mail ballots. The brief explains how the secretary of state’s policy of comparing a voter’s signature with any signature in a voter’s registration record better reflects best practices in election administration.
First, the brief explains that the secretary of state’s policy reflects an expert consensus: The more sample signatures election staff have available to compare, the more accurate a signature-matching process is. A person’s signature can vary over time. And some voters face a higher risk of their signatures appearing inconsistent, including voters who are young, who are elderly, who have disabilities, or whose primary language is not English.
Second, having fewer signatures to compare can burden election officials. With fewer signatures to compare and many ballots arriving before or on Election Day, election officials could be faced with a flood of signature mismatches to resolve in just a few days after an election. That would make it harder to process mail-in ballots—delaying election results and potentially disenfranchising voters.
Third, most other states that verify mail-in ballots through a signature-matching process compare a voter’s ballot signature with a range of documents, not just those used to update a voter’s registration. AFEC’s attempt to limit officials to comparing signatures with just a few documents would make Arizona an outlier.
Fourth, the plaintiff’s claims overlook the intent of the Arizona legislature. In 2019, the legislature amended Arizona law to direct election officials to consult a voter’s entire registration record to verify a mail-in ballot signature. The next year, the secretary of state issued guidance to that effect. In 2024, the legislature amended the law again to direct election officials to consult the secretary’s guidance.
Overall, the brief addresses an attack on election administration by showing the practical effects of that attack. Restricting signature-matching to just a few documents would not only ignore Arizona law but would also worsen the burdens on election officials and increase the risk that lawful votes are not counted.
