Regarding the ruling that just came down from 5th Circuit (of course) that allows rejection of ballots for signatures not matching those on file, without opportunity to contest or cure:
It kind of blows my mind.
Legal eagles, what is the standard of review for rulings or statutes impacting the right to vote? Obviously, voting is a constitutional right for those eligible. How can it be that the interest in "election integrity" (i.e. protecting against fraud) "outweighs" (that's the term I believe the 5th Cir. used) the interest of voters for their vote to count, without any substantial evidence that (1) election integrity is factually a problem due to false identity or forgery by individuals attempting to vote by mail/drop-off, and (2) that this process actually serves to ameliorate the problem. Is the standard not strict or intermediate scrutiny, then?
With regard to #2 above, it's NUTS--- there is NO standard for election officials to use to decide a signature is not a match. Nothing about how many points of difference must be identified. And of course, no requirement of expertise in handwriting analysis. What if a motherfucker develops Parkinson's or any manner of condition affecting motor skills? I've never really had a super stable signature myself. Ever since I got married, I really haven't found a way that I like of making a cursive L (don't dox me bro). And some muhfucker gonna toss a ballot with literally zero oversight or accountability, knowing the likely voting pattern of citizens in the particular county?
This is fucking madness. Legal dudes, what do you think of the 5th Cir. opinion?