Pure BS spin in this one:
Signature Verification Process
The Committee was made aware of claims that election workers at the TCF Center in downtown Detroit were instructed to not match signatures on envelopes and furthermore were instructed to “pre-date” the received date of absentee ballots. To the contrary, these processing steps — signature matching and verification of the date received — occurred at another location and were completed by other employees prior to the time the ballots were sent to the TCF Center for counting. Workers at the AVCBs are to check for the clerk’s signature and time stamp as well as making sure the voter signature is present. However, the validation of the voter signature by the clerk’s office is indicated by the clerk’s signature and stamp. As for the “pre-dating” allegation, Detroit Senior Election Advisor Chris Thomas explained this date field is necessary for processing the ballot. Without the voter present, there is no way to have that date, which was recorded into the QVF by the official who took the same day registration at another location. Since the poll books at the AVCB are not connected to the QVF during Election Day, there is no way to check what was entered at the site where the voter registered. Therefore, a “placeholder” date is entered, and the poll worker assumes the official accepting the registration did their due diligence.
Kent County Clerk Lisa Lyons, and Ingham County Clerk Barb Byrum, both testified regarding the possible requirement of a “real time” signature when applying for an absentee ballot, indicating it would be highly preferred rather than performing the application process online. In addition to the preferences of election officials, the Michigan Court of Claims struck down Secretary of State Benson’s guidance on signature matching, which required workers to presume the validity of signatures, ruling that the required presumption of validity is found nowhere in state law and mandating such was a direct violation of the Administrative Procedures Act.
After reviewing these facts and receiving the testimony of experts and clerks, it is abundantly clear that the signature verification process is one of significant importance. With new policies in place due to the adoption of Proposal 18-3, current election procedures do not require a new voter to, potentially, ever make face-to-face contact with an election official or staff throughout the process of registration, requesting an absentee ballot application, or completing and submitting their ballot. Therefore, requiring a voter to confirm their identity at some point during the process is imperative. Whether providing a “real time” signature, a government-issued photo identification card, or other unique personally identifying information, like a driver’s license number or a state identification number, requesting that a voter provide one of these easily-accessible identifiers will go a long way to strengthen the integrity of our system, while supporting the new, more efficient way of administering our elections.
Therefore, the Committee recommends that the secretary of state begin the process of establishing actual rules for examining and validating signatures consistent with a ruling of the Michigan Court of Claims. The Committee also recommends that statewide measures be put in place to ensure eligible voters are not unreasonably denied access to vote if there is an issue with their signature. Finally, the Committee recommends that reasonable measures be put in place to ensure voters can easily and properly identify themselves when exercising their right to vote.
****so now they recommended they do signature review? You can register online with nothing?
Where's your source?