Mail-in ballots were not approved by state legislature which what what the constitution defines.
In these cases, I don't think that matters as much as the fact that the laws were not followed.
"Is there any evidence that me abiding by the speed limit would have been any safer?" is not a good defence to accusations of "you broke the speed limit".
Yet another comfortable sounding yet simplistically false untruth. Depending on the jurisdiction, of course.
Although I am not sure how fruitful an engagement this will be, given the pedantry[1] you've displayed against users of British English.
(I added sic because I don't like propagating misspellings. But I didn't know "defence" was British spelling! Sorry, TIL)
> Sorry, TIL
Apology accepted and apologies for assuming you were being pedantic about it.
I get your abstract argument, but you don't see to be applying it to a specific situation. Is there an actual case that's raising this argument? I've yet to see any cases with arguments that make me worry, so it would be something new.
In general I can't see a signature "verification" law as anything but an attempt at disenfranchisement. Many people have repeatable signatures, and many do not. A signature is not a method of technical verification, but rather legal authorization with a possibility to argue authenticity based on stroke angles etc. If I usually make a half-attempt at writing my name, but sign my ballot with an X, that's legit. The best way to prevent a person from filling out multiple ballots is to make sure everyone votes so there are few unused ballots to steal in the first place.
There are several cases, but off the top of my head I can give you Trump v. Raffensperger [1] filed in the superior court of Fulton County, state of Georgia. Beginning around paragraph 139 of the petition, you can see arguments that the Trump legal team have brought which talk about various violations of state mandates regarding signatures.
> I can't see a signature "verification" law as anything but an attempt at disenfranchisement
You may argue that these laws or mandates could disenfranchise some voters, but I think it's unfair to suggest that it's their sole (or even primary) purpose.
> make sure everyone votes
Even in countries where voting is mandatory you do not get full voter turnout. There would certainly be enough left over to turn the tide of many elections.
[1] https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/...
The following paragraphs talk about a different issue (which also happens to relate to signature verification).
You asked me if there was an actual case which raises the arguments that state laws were not followed and I believe that I have provided you with one.
You can also probably look at the recent motion filed by AG Paxton in Texas[1], which similarly makes claims that election officials were processing ballots in an unlawful way.
Whether or not the arguments make you worry doesn't change the fact that both of these cases allege that election laws were broken.
[1] https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/ima...
For example if you read into the next complaint, 142 is strictly factual (which can still be rebutted, but probably won't be), while 145/149 argue why those (factual) actions were unlawful, in support of the complaint's title (the rest are somewhere in the middle, or more handwavey). If you read 142-149, you come away seeing a coherent argument backing up the claim.
But for the previous complaint - it's a claim the law was violated, a citation of the law, and then no supporting argument or evidence detailing how or why the law has been violated. I'm guessing it can be amended or argued verbally, but as it stands it's an unsupported claim.
So they couldn't successfully sued before, and now they are told that its too late. Something very dishonest from the courts about that.
Your own personal anecdote confirms that people's signatures change overtime. Hence more should have been rejected.
A signature shouldn't be used for identification matching but rather as akin to the signing of an affidavit.
1. Signature match is the minimum filter to prevent outright fake ballots.
2. I believe there was a procedure for rectifying a rejected mail-in ballot. The person still could have voted, if they sent in their ballot on time, and rectified any mistakes.
3. Mail-in ballots are really an assault on the right to a "secret ballot". There really is no guarantee that the mail-in ballot was filled out in secret. An abusive husband could for example coarse his wife to vote a certain way. A union boss, could coarse his workers to vote a certain way...and so on. This has happened in the past.
Something that someone else said is quite important here: the time to fix these things is before an election, not afterwards. It doesn't take much imagination to see how invalidating large quantities of ballots after-the-fact is a dangerous road for a democracy. Put the rules and methods in place prior, in a bipartisan way.