It’s one thing to allow a limited number of ballots to arrive for military or absentees. But states that conduct elections primarily by mail (Oregon, Colorado) require ballots to arrive by Election Day.

That is false. Washington and Utah also vote primarily by mail and both allow ballots to be received after the election.

Washington allows ballots to be postmarked the day of the election: https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/dates-and-deadlines.aspx

Utah allows ballots to be postmarked the day before the election, so long as they are received before noon of the day of the county canvass (generally, the day after the election but as late as ten days after the election, depending on the county). https://www.vote.org/utah/

(I have participated in election litigation in multiple states. I know more about election law than you do. You will not win this battle.)

California, Utah, and Washington don't.

> Signatures are still required in Pennsylvania,

Requiring signatures yet refusing to reject ballots for mismatched signatures isn't much of a requirement: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/23/pennsylvania-court-...

Signature-matching results in the rejection of more authentic ballots than invalid ones.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/10/signature-...

The point of requiring signatures was never about preventing fraud, since it was never an issue historically. The requirements were issued in the 20th century to reject black votes, as at the time the requirements were passed, many black voters couldn't write.

States like Oregon and Colorado imposed signature requirements in mail in voting systems designed in the last few decades. Switzerland requires signatures for mail in votes too.

I’m not arguing that signature verification is particularly consistent.

I’m saying it being non-existent disqualifies claims that signatures on ballot envelopes prevent fraud.