The Salt Lake Tribune of April 2 has this editorial, severely criticizing the legislature for recently outlawing electronic signatures on petitions. Earlier, the Utah Supreme Court had unanimously ruled that the existing law permits electronic signatures. The legislature had responded to that court decision by outlawing such signatures.
Democratic and Republican politicians do not want to make it easier for the common people to have a means for another party or candidates choice on the ballot, or to put an issue on the ballot the major parties don’t want to address. No big surprise here. We just have to keep plugging away.
Since the Utah Supreme Court had ruled such electronic signature collection procedure was “costitutional” could not now the law be challenged as being “unconstitutional?”
Just a thought.
As a computer professional, I am dismayed that anyone would allow electronic facsimiles of signatures the same legal status as paper-and-ink signatures. The potential for fraud is almost unlimited. Once obtained, your electronic signature could be copied and applied to any legal document without your consent.
Such a practice would undermine the system of voluntary contractual agreement, making it unworkable. I can only hope that the courts understand this issue before any damage can be done by well-meaning persons who have not thought this matter through.
Perhaps the Utah legislature was unusually well informed on technology when they made this decision. Even if they did it for narrow partisan reasons, they nonetheless made the right decision.
To Chris Edes: I am not questioning your computer professionalism, but if the electronic signature is sent directly to the elections official’s office (or whomever checks the signatures for validity and meeting the number test), then how can anyone “obtain one’s electronic signature” and apply it to other legal documents?
I would not support any legislation – or even a court ruling – which allows the officials of the 3rd party (or group collecting signatures) to have access to such electronic signatures. The only safe way is for the law specifically requiring the link for “electronically signing the petition” be directly linked to the election officials office. The law should also require that the election officials’ computer system for such electronic signatures likewise be secured from hacking. This would protect such signatue from being “stolen.”
Share with us why such could not be possible?
In the Utah case, the only security was that signers were asked for the last four digits of their driver’s license number. OK… well now that the signature gatherer has that information (it was NOT sent directly to the appropriate State of Utah department), what is to prevent them from claiming that the same person signed a completely different document?
Answer: nothing. There is no check against fraud. If it was widespread enough, I assume questions would arise, but a few here and there… who would know?
I’m glad you would not support such a thing! There is a right way, and back in 1995 Utah took very enlightened steps toward doing it the right way. See:
http://www.jus.unitn.it/users/pascuzzi/privcomp97-98/documento/firma/utah/udsa.html
Our focus should be on encouraging similar action by Utah in the future. Not feeding the unfortunate perception that ballot access advocates don’t care about fraud.