One in 10 ballots rejected in last month’s vote-by-mail elections in New Jersey

Re:One in 10 ballots rejected in last month’s vote-by-mail e... by listenallyall on Monday August 10, 2020 @08:43PM (#24116008)

Election officials could assign "strict" signature validators to certain targeted districts, so approx 10% of ballots get thrown out, and "loose" validators elsewhere, so only 2% of votes get tossed.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:One in 10 ballots rejected in last month’s vote-by-mail e... by javagram on Tuesday August 11, 2020 @08:26AM (#24119574)

That would be illegal. See the “Bush v Gore” decision which was about a similar idea but applied to counting hanging chads, etc. rather than signatures.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:One in 10 ballots rejected in last month’s vote-by-mail e... by listenallyall on Friday August 14, 2020 @03:13PM (#24162056)

Of course it is illegal. The discussion is about how anti-fraud measures (like signature verification) could potentially be flipped to actually assist in cheating/fraud.

Let's keep in mind, depending on where power lies post-election, that doing something illegal, even if caught, doesn't necessarily means one would be punished for it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:One in 10 ballots rejected in last month’s vote-by-mail e... by dTal on Tuesday August 11, 2020 @03:52PM (#24125158)

Sounds great! I'm sure nobody would take advantage of that.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:One in 10 ballots rejected in last month’s vote-by-mail e... by pc86 on Tuesday August 11, 2020 @07:31AM (#24119233)

Sounds like a violation of equal protection.

[ Parent | on HN ]