On March 22, the Maryland Court of Appeals, the highest state court in that state, ruled that signatures on petitions may be valid, even if the signature is illegible. The ruling says that if the printed name on the petition and the address match the voter registration records, and the appearance of the signature matches in both places (whether it is legible or not) the signature is valid. Here is the opinion. The vote was 5-2. The case is Montgomery County Volunteer Fire-Rescue Association v Montgomery County Board of Elections, no. 86.

The dissent starts by saying, “Evolution blessed mankind with, among other beneficial features, opposable thumbs. Perfecting the use of our thumbs, modern descendants of the first Homo Sapiens, unlike other primates, are able to sign their names, in cursive, in a legible manner.”

The decision does not decide a related issue, whether a signature is valid if the signer omits his or her middle initial yet includes that middle initial on the voter registration form (or vice versa). That issue is pending in the 4th circuit, in Kendall v Howard County, Maryland, 09-2304. It was argued on December 9, 2010. A bill is pending in the legislature to provide that the middle initial must not necessarily be included on the petition, even if it is on the registration records (or vice versa).

On March 21, the Arizona Senate Judiciary unanimously approved HB 2304. This bill, sponsored by the Secretary of State and containing many election law changes, improves ballot access. It says that when a party qualifies for the ballot, it is then entitled to be on the ballot for two elections, not just one. Also it legalizes out-of-state circulators for all types of petitions. The bill had already passed the House.

Last year, a U.S. District Court declared the Tennessee procedure for parties to get on the ballot to be unconstitutional, mostly because the deadline for submitting the petition is in March, which is too early. This year, SB 935, written by the State Elections Department, seemed to be moving ahead. It had passed the Senate State and Local Government Committee unanimously on March 15. It retains the high number of signatures (40,042) but moves the deadline to the first week in April. It does delete the language on the petition that implies the signers are members of that party.

The bill had been set to pass the State Senate on March 21, because it was listed on the consent calendar. Bills on the consent calendar are those for which no one appears to be opposed. However, on March 21, the bill was removed from the consent calendar. This may be because a Senator expressed opposition to the bill as it is presently written. Minor party activists have been trying to persuade the Senate that the bill does not improve the law enough, and that if passed, the law would still be unconstitutional. The court ruling last year said that a deadline four months before a primary is too early, and the Tennessee primary (for office other than President) is in August.