Tag Archive for: Washington Voting Rights Act

,

UCLA Study Finds Disparities in Mail Ballot Rejections and Evidence That Racial Cues May Influence Signature Reviews

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Alberto Lammers; alammers@luskin.ucla.edu

UCLA Study Finds Disparities in Mail Ballot Rejections and Evidence That Racial Cues May Influence Signature Reviews

Analysis of California and Washington state election data underscores the need for further research and stronger safeguards for eligible voters.

LOS ANGELES (September 14, 2026) — Young and non-White voters are substantially more likely to have their vote-by-mail ballots rejected, while experimental evidence suggests racial cues may influence the subjective decisions involved in signature verification, according to a new research brief from the UCLA Voting Rights Project (VRP).

More than 580,000 vote-by-mail ballots were rejected nationwide during the 2024 general election. Signature discrepancies were the leading reason for rejection, accounting for 59% of rejected ballots in California and 64% in Washington state.

The brief authored by Michael Herndon, a senior research fellow at the VRP, finds that the subjective process of signature verification disproportionately penalizes non-White voters and young voters in both states. In an analysis of Washington state election data, Hispanic-surnamed voters were approximately twice as likely as White voters to have their ballots rejected because of a signature mismatch. In some counties this disparity was even larger. For example, in Adams County, Hispanic voters experienced a rejection rate more than four times that of White voters between 2019 and 2024.

The research also found:

  • Young voters faced substantially higher rejection rates. Across every racial group examined in California’s 2022 general election, voters younger than 25 were considerably more likely to have their signatures rejected than voters older than 65. In Riverside County, Latino voters younger than 25 were 15 times more likely to experience a signature rejection.
  • Racial cues influenced signature-matching decisions in controlled experiments. In one experiment, participants accepted signatures assigned White-sounding names at a rate of 60.5%, compared with 55% for signatures assigned Hispanic-sounding names—even though the names were randomly assigned and the underlying signatures were comparable.

The experiments did not examine actual election workers, but the findings raise questions about whether personal biases can affect VBM ballot verification, especially considering that the process varies by county, is done under time constraints, and happens at a massive scale. 

“A signature isn’t just a mark on a page; it also carries with it a name, which can very easily signal a person’s gender, race, religion or other personal characteristics,” said Herndon. “Decades of research tell us that people respond to these name-based cues, and they do it most when a task is ambiguous and left to their own judgment—which is exactly the case for signature verification.”

Herndon argues that the growing use of vote-by-mail makes closer examination of signature verification increasingly important. Because voters are not physically present when their ballots are reviewed, local election officials typically verify their identity by comparing the signature on the ballot envelope with signatures in the voter’s registration record. Voters whose ballots are flagged for missing or mismatched signatures must complete a curing process before their ballots can be counted, though not all states offer this remedy

The brief recommends evaluating differences in signature-review procedures and rejection rates across counties, broadening recruitment for the elections workforce, expanding automatic ballot curing and reassessing whether signature matching should remain the default method for verifying mail ballots. It also calls for further research into which technologies, training practices and administrative workflows make ballot review more accurate and less susceptible to bias.

Read the full brief here.

About the UCLA Voting Rights Project

The UCLA Voting Rights Project was established to protect equal voting rights for all Americans through strategic litigation, social science research, and policy advocacy. The VRP seeks to ensure that all individuals are afforded equal access to the electoral process and representation in governance. For more information about the UCLA Voting Rights Project, please visit vrp.ucla.edu.

 

/by

How Racial Biases Can Affect Vote-by-Mail Ballot Rejection

Author: Michael Herndon, Ph.D. | Senior Research Fellow, UCLA Voting Rights Project | September 2026

Evidence from California and Washington shows that non-White voters are disproportionately more likely to have their vote-by-mail ballots rejected – and that this problem may be rooted in the racial biases of election officials, rather than voter deficiencies.

THE BOTTOM LINE

580,000+

Rejected Ballots Annually

4x

Higher Rejection Rate for Non-White Voters

10x

Higher Rejection Rate for Young Voters
  • Vote-by-mail (VBM) now accounts for over a third of ballots cast nationally, and in California, 89 percent of voters cast their ballots this way.
  • Signature verification is the single largest source of ballot rejection. In California and Washington, non-matching signatures accounted for 59 and 64 percent of all rejected ballots in the 2024 general election respectively.
  • Non-White voters are disproportionately affected. Studies using real election data from California and Washington find that non-White voters and young voters are significantly more likely to have their ballots rejected for signature discrepancies, late arriving ballots, and undeliverable ballots.
  • Personal biases can affect signature adjudication. Controlled experiments suggest that the average person is more likely to be accepting of White appearing signatures than non-White appearing signatures, even when controlling for signature quality, complexity, etc. Participants in these experiments were also observed to be influenced by their personal racial beliefs.
  • Closing these demographic gaps in ballot rejection requires scientifically backed administrative reforms. To this end, more research is needed on the effectiveness of different technologies, training materials, workflows, etc. on making ballot rejection more precise and less biased.

THE PROBLEM

Vote-by-mail was designed to make voting easier, and for most voters it does. But every general election, more than 500,000 mail ballots are rejected nationwide — and research suggests that at minimum 80 percent of these ballots belong to eligible voters.This matters because in close elections, wrongly rejected ballots can make the difference between winning and losing. For example, in 2024, California’s 13th Congressional District was decided by just 187 votes, in a race where more than 6,000 ballots were flagged for missing or non-matching signatures.The 2004 Washington gubernatorial election was decided by just 129 votes while simultaneously rejecting thousands of VBM ballots. Hundreds of state and local elections are decided by similarly thin margins every cycle, reminding us of the power and impact that even a single wrongfully rejected ballot can have.

The most common reason ballots are rejected is a signature mismatch: an election worker’s judgment call that the signature on a ballot envelope doesn’t sufficiently resemble the signature on file. Unlike a missed deadline, signature verification is a subjective determination made in seconds, often with only minimal training compared to the 2 years required to be a certified forensic document examiner. Meanwhile, election skepticism is alarmingly high – especially among Republicans.

Continue reading How Racial Biases Can Affect Vote-by-Mail Ballot Rejection

/by