Read on Twitter
A high priority action item to starty working on right now, across the US, is to clarify in no uncertain terms that there is no legal basis for invalidating a ballot based upon an alleged "signature mismatch". That's not what signatures are for in the US system of law.
There is a false assumption that a person's recorded signature from the past can be used to prove the authentic identity of that person when they sign something else later on. THIS IS FALSE AND ANY DECENT PROFESSOR OF LAW CAN TELL YOU WHY.
The purpose of requiring a signature upon finalization of an important documentation is to *signify* that the person signing the document is aware that they are (at that moment) engaging in something that is out of the ordinary and not a trivial passing fancy or imaginary game.
That's all! The signature does *not* (and has never in the history of US law) been intended to function as a primary authenticator of identity. It's more like a ritual of significance in which the signing person (whoever it is) is agreeing that this piece of paper is important.
So, legal scholars around the entire nation need to get on the phone to elections officials and lawmakers in their state. Tell them they are morons of the highest order and it's time to act like adults again. Dispell the myth of "signature mismatch" absurdity, and do it quickly.
