Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks ‘Wet Signature’ Rule for Arkansas Voters
A federal judge has dealt a significant blow to the “wet signature” rule in Arkansas, temporarily blocking its implementation to ensure that voters can continue to register online with electronic signatures.
The judge’s ruling comes as a victory for voter rights organizations, who contested the Arkansas Board of Election Commissioners’ emergency rule requiring handwritten signatures for voter registration. This rule, also known as the “wet signature” rule, would reject digital signatures on online voter registration applications.
Background of the Rule and the Lawsuit
The Arkansas Board of Election Commissioners introduced the emergency rule in response to the initial success of an online voter registration tool created by Get Loud Arkansas and Vote.org. The tool, which allowed voters to register with electronic signatures, targeted historically underrepresented groups, including young and minority voters.
Arkansas Secretary of State John Thurston initially approved the tool, but after witnessing its success, he suddenly reversed course and advocated for the introduction of the “wet signature” rule.
The Ruling and Its Impact
In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs argued that the rule violated the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects voters from disenfranchisement due to minor errors. The federal judge agreed, emphasizing that the rule could disenfranchise voters who lack access to printers or postal services, such as those with disabilities, seniors, and rural residents.
In contrast, state election officials claimed that the rule would enhance security and prevent voter fraud, despite lacking evidence to support their argument.
Ongoing Legal Battles and Broader Significance
The lawsuit’s outcome is not yet final, as the legal battle will continue to determine whether the state can permanently impose the “wet signature” rule for future elections. Similar lawsuits against “wet signature” requirements are ongoing in other states, like Florida and Georgia.
This ruling has significant implications for voting rights, particularly for groups traditionally underrepresented in the electoral process.
