Well, we find ourselves approaching yet another election and, predictably, the topics of voter ID and signature verification are, once again, bubbling to the surface. And the same old arguments are being bandied about; one camp thinks that voter ID and signature verification are essential for a free, fair and accurate election and the other camp thinks it's racist. Where you fall in the mix is not the issue. The issue is whether or not it is even possible to now accurately verify the signature of a voter.
It doesn't seem all that long ago when the local Board of Elections dragged, with great difficulty, those heavy, cumbersome voter registration books to the various polling sites. This was truly an undertaking. It was there that the voter came to vote. It was there where the poll worker found the page that corresponded to that voter. The page contained a complete record of that voter's participation in the voting process as it had a copy of the initial voter registration form and potentially dozens of signatures. These were all original, pen-to-paper, wet-ink, dated signatures. It was a veritable treasure-trove of good old fashion signature verifying information.
As you already know, efficient and effective will never do. This system needed to be re-imagined, modernized, up-dated, computerized, revamped and rendered all but useless. This was successfully done.
With the new and improved system came a much smaller book, easier to transport for sure. In this smaller book and adjacent to the voter's name there was a blank signature line and a "sample signature" the poll worker would use for comparison purposes. Unfortunately, the origin of this "sample signature" was often a mystery. It could have been a signature of the voter signed in the last election and transferred forward. It could have been the signature from when the voter first registered. Or it could have been the signature of someone else entirely; mistaking father for son, John, Sr.'s signature where John, Jr.'s should have been. So, the "sample signature" could have been relatively recent, from 1948 or from another family member. And, of course, it is a horrible, multi-generational photocopy with the upper and lower loops cut off.
Following the "logical" progression and in the unlikely event that there might be a tiny vestige of usable data left in this signature verifying process, let us put a stake through it's heart. Now we don't even use pens. No. Too 20th century. Unacceptable. The last time I voted, I had to sign on a plastic screen with a rubber-tipped cut-off paper drinking straw. We are now signing on an unfamiliar writing surface, with an unfamiliar writing implement in an unfamiliar writing position... standing. Then a well-meaning but totally untrained poll worker operating with almost no useful information must make a snap decision as to the validity of the signature.
What could possibly go wrong???