1

Simplifying Access and Process:

Why an Electronic Petition Signature Software Could Improve the Candidate Filing Process for the
Virginia Department of Elections
John W. Cronin
Virginia Management Fellows Program
October 22, 2020
 2

This paper identifies the Department of Elections’ persistent area of opportunity as its in-person petition

signature requirement, which makes the process more difficult for the candidates, voters, and election

workers across the Commonwealth as candidates attempt to meet the necessary signature requirement to

be placed on the ballot.

 3

Executive Summary

The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated how ELECT’s in-person petition signature

requirement can potentially restrict ballot access if voters cannot be physically reached, and has

highlighted issues with the process that were present before the pandemic. These issues impact each

group involved in the petition signature and verification process, namely voters, campaigns, and election

workers. The attached report recommends an election workgroup be created to study the impact an

electronic petition signature software would have on the elections community and its processes.

For campaigns, ballot access is impacted if voters cannot be reached in-person. If the campaign is

actually able to talk to a prospective voter, there is no guarantee that the person they contact is a qualified

voter or not. This has caused the official ELECT guidance to recommend campaigns collecting

significantly more signatures than required in order to combat unqualified voters. Historically, before and

during the COVID-19 pandemic, this issue has often resulted in litigation. An electronic signature

software that has upfront verification (like ELECT’s current “Citizen Portal”) would make this process

easier for campaigns to reach qualified voters and ensure ballot access for those that qualify.

For voters, misinformation can often happen if campaigns are not properly trained. Campaign

signature collectors have sometimes provided the voter false information about the petition to get them to

sign, leading to voter mistrust and confusion. The most recent example of this is the candidacy of Kanye

West, whose signature collectors were cited giving false information about the nature of the form, leading

to public outcry and his disqualification from Virginia’s ballot. An online petition signature system would

allow voters to have a straight-forward, secure, and accessible way to sign petitions online. It would also

allow campaigns to direct voters to the ELECT website, making it easier for them to provide correct

information to voters.

Finally, election workers on a state and local level are severely impacted by the process as well,

as the manual verification of each petition signature utilizes resources that could be allocated toward the
 4

other incredibly important tasks that election workers have to complete. The tedious verification process

has numerous variables that can disqualify a voter’s signature, and these variables can often be subjective

based on an election worker’s ability to read handwriting and mix-and-match signature information with

VERIS’ search tool. In addition, while the specific cost to localities could not easily be determined, for

the 2020 Presidential petition verification ELECT spent approximately $35,642 checking petitions from

August to September between hiring temporary personnel and requiring full-time staff to dedicate full

days to the task. An electronic petition signature verification system would not only make the verification

process more efficient and secure, but it would also save localities and ELECT time and money.

This report recommends utilizing Arizona’s “E-Qual” online petition signature and verification

system that the state has had in place since 2012. It functions similar to ELECT’s Citizen Portal in that it

asks for information upfront to ensure security. This type of system would help Virginia voters and

campaigns have access to the correct information to ensure ballot access to any qualified candidate that

can obtain the required amount of signatures, and could potentially be added to the existing Citizen Portal.

A workgroup could start at this point and develop cost, design, and other considerations off this model.

A post-COVID world will eventually be a reality, but as the elections community has

demonstrated, Virginia elections will still go on. Scrutiny in elections has arguably never been higher,

which makes it important for each process, especially ballot access, to be trusted. Implementing an

electronic petition verification system could make a currently tedious, often confusing process a more

straightforward and secure one. While a General Assembly code alteration would be necessary to change

the requirements, a workgroup making a detailed proposal would certainly justify the need to improve

ELECT’s petition process in the short and long term.

 5

Abbreviated Executive Summary:

 The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated how ELECT’s in-person petition signature

requirement can potentially restrict ballot access if voters cannot be physically reached, and

special reductions in signature requirements were made because of it.

 The petition signature verification process utilizes valuable ELECT resources, and can stretch

staff and General Registrars thin during crucial times in an election season.

 To aid the process, this paper recommends the creation of a work group, which begins with

examining Virginia’s model compared to other states’, to study the impact an electronic petition

signature software would have on ELECT and its processes.

Introduction

When Americans think of their rights concerning elections, most think of the right to vote.

However, the right to run for office is just as important in the electoral process. Recently, at the Virginia

Department of Elections (ELECT), certain candidates have missed the ballot or filed litigation due to

candidate filing law and regulations, elections staff have had to work extra hours to certify candidates,

and voters have been confused by components of the process. While these are not new phenomena, the

introduction of the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed a critical flaw surrounding the gathering of

candidate petition signatures and their verification by ELECT and local General Registrar’s offices.

Through the analysis of agency procedures, recent events, and a comparison of other state models, this

report aims to analyze how current law could be amended to include electronic signature verification, and

recommends further research by a work group on the matter.

Virginia holds elections every year, from local school boards to federal offices. Each office has

its own requirements for individuals to become certified candidates, and the ELECT provides updated

candidate bulletins detailing every requirement for prospective candidates to fulfill to be placed on the

ballot (Virginia Department of Elections, 2020). This includes, but is not limited to, a Certificate of
 6

Candidate Qualification form (SBE-501), a Declaration of Candidacy (SBE-505/520), Statement of

Economic Interest, and Petition of Qualified Voters (SBE506/521). The Petition of Qualified Voters

requirement will be the focus of this report.

The Petition of Qualified Voters requires primary election candidates and third party and

independent candidates for general elections to collect signatures from qualified voters1 and file with

ELECT or the local General Registrar. The number of signatures required for ballot access varies

depending on the office sought. Legislative requirements can require as high as 10,000 for statewide

offices, and as low as 25 for certain local offices (V.A. Code § 24.2-506). In addition, each signature

must be witnessed by a person (typically the signature collector) who is not a minor or a felon whose

voting rights have not been restored and whose affidavit to that effect appears on each page of the petition

(ibid). Both of these requirements have been challenged by some candidates, citing that they could not get

in touch with voters to fulfill the requirements, especially during the COVID era. In addition, recent

events have seen voters getting confused with the process, sometimes feeling as though they have been

tricked by a signature gatherer into signing something they did not want to sign. An electronic petition

signature system could help mitigate these events going forward, and support ELECT’s vision of “a

highly modern, efficient, and professional electoral process” (ELECT, About Us) by providing

transparency to voters and ensuring ballot access for qualifying candidates.

The necessity for change goes beyond the public interaction, however, as electronic signature

verification would provide more time for local and state election workers to focus on other crucial tasks.

This year, when the COVID-19 pandemic began in early March, there was concern over if elections in

Virginia could safely be held at all, and ELECT was on the forefront of COVID-related changes

throughout the entire spring. Because of the incredible dedication and perseverance of election workers at

the state and local levels, the March Presidential primary, the May local elections, and the June

1
A qualified voter is defined as an active, registered voter who is registered in the locality that the candidate is
seeking placement on the ballot.
 7

Congressional primaries (as well as some other special elections during the summer) were securely,

inclusively and, efficiently conducted in Virginia. To coincide with each, the Virginia elections

community also had to navigate the implementation and rollout of substantial General Assembly

legislation that transformed various processes for voters, candidates, and election workers. Election

workers across the state have many responsibilities, and the current process can utilize valuable resources

that could be spent in other areas. As this report will detail, in the 2020 Presidential filing period, ELECT

spent approximately $35,642 checking petitions, not including the General Registrars expenses. If this

process can be simplified using automated software, the short and long-term savings to Virginia’s

elections community should be explored.

Through the analysis of existing policies, recent events demonstrating flaws in the processes, and

how other states have addressed this issue, this report recommends further study on the implementation of

an electronic petition software system and its impact on the department and the electoral process. The

report will begin with an analysis of the current state of petition signature verification,2 provide initial

research on how an electronic signature verification system could supplement the process, and then

present the recommendation while providing next steps.

Analysis

The current Petition of Qualified Voters process impacts several groups involved. Regulations

can confuse voters, confuse and burden some candidates, and the verification costs election workers

(including ELECT) valuable resources that could be directed toward other tasks. This section details

further how these groups are impacted, and how an electronic signature software could address the issue.

Impact on Candidates and Voters

2
It should be noted that the author of this report was directly involved in the petition verification process during the
2020 presidential election. Assertions and evidence about the verification process, if not cited, can be attributed to
personal author experience and testimony from coworkers in the Election Administration division at ELECT.
 8

For candidates to be placed on the ballot, they must achieve a set number of signatures from

qualified voters. These signatures are due along with the Declaration of Candidacy form (Virginia

Department of Elections, 2015) at least 75 days prior to the election (V.A. Code § 24.2-522). Primary

campaigns and third party and independent campaigns for office have to utilize resources to achieve this.

For example, a primary candidate, or a third party or independent candidate for U.S. Senate has to achieve

10,000 signatures in total, with 400 coming from each congressional district (V.A. Code § 24.2-506).

Still, ELECT’s candidate bulletins explain that campaigns should strive to collect more signatures—about

5,000 more for U.S. Senate— to make up for unregistered individuals that may sign the petition (Virginia

Department of Elections, 2020). This requires campaigns to reach out to voters early and often to achieve

the number required, and brings into question if there could be an easier way of collecting signatures to

ensure ballot access for any candidate who can meet the necessary qualifications.

The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated campaign difficulties with the signature requirements,

and resulted in litigation during the early months of the pandemic requesting that the requirements be

lessened or waved. The first case was Omari Faulkner for Virginia v. Virginia Department of Elections,

in which hopeful Republican primary candidate for U.S. Senate Omari Faulkner argued that the

circumstances from COVID-19 made his campaign “unlikely to be able to obtain the necessary signatures

prior to the deadline absent relief sought in [the] lawsuit,” and that his constitutional right to free speech

and free association were violated (Circuit Court for the City of Richmond, 2020). After making his case,

the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond agreed with his position and ordered that Faulkner’s current

signature amounts were enough to grant him placement on the ballot (Omari Faulkner for Virginia, Omari

Faulkner v. Virginia Department of Elections, et.al, 2020). Faulkner had collected over 3,500 petition

signatures up to that point, including at least 100 from each congressional district, so those became the

totals that the Republican Party was ordered to allow to qualify for that primary election for U.S. Senate

in Virginia. However, due to people signing Faulkner’s petitions who were not qualified voters, his total

ended up falling short of the thresholds and he was not placed on the June Republican Primary ballot
 9

(Cline, 2020). This demonstrates how rule-following campaigns, pandemic or not, can be left off the

ballot due to the process not distinguishing qualified voters until after filing.

The primary was not the only focus of litigation, as another lawsuit addressed the presidential

campaigns of third party and independents candidates. The Constitution Party of Virginia v. Virginia

State Board of Elections found independent and third parties as the plaintiffs, who argued that Virginia’s

signature requirements imposed “a substantial burden on [their] First and Fourteenth Amendment rights

as applied to this election cycle” (The Constitution Party of Virginia et al. v. Virginia State Board of

Elections, et al. , 2020). The court agreed, ruling that the named plaintiffs (the Constitution Party of

Virginia, Libertarian Party of Virginia, Green Party of Virginia, and Independent Green Party of Virginia)

would have their signature requirements lowered 35 percent for U.S. House of Representative and U.S.

Senate candidates, and 50 percent for the U.S. Presidential and Vice Presidential election (ibid). This

again did not guarantee the candidates would make the ballot, as the November 2020 presidential election

only features the Libertarian Party’s candidate.

The confusion, as well as the litigation, could possibly have been avoided if there was an online

method to petition signing. It could have allowed for the same signature requirements from ELECT, while

providing candidates the opportunity to switch messaging from in-person signatures, to encouraging at-

home interaction. This would not only provide a safer interaction during the pandemic, but it would also

save campaigns money they currently pay signature-collectors, and provide voters with a clearer

framework of what they are signing. Looking ahead to a post-pandemic world, an electronic petition

signing software could be the main option for voters and campaigns to complete this part of the candidate

filing process in the safest and most secure way possible.

Impact on Election Workers

When candidates submit their petitions to the department, it is the job of election workers to

verify that signatures on the petitions are from qualified voters. For candidates running for statewide
 10

office, the Elections Administration team at ELECT verifies signatures. The turnaround time for petition

verification is very tight, as candidates need to be certified for the ballot before localities can print ballots

a week after the filing deadline. In addition, since the process is manual, it occupies resources for

workers, which can cause the office to scramble for time.

The process for verifying the signatures requires election workers to manually mark the paper

petitions and enter the information online in the Virginia Election and Registration Information System

(VERIS). Workers utilize a checklist to account for the numerous variables that can raise questions when

completing this process.3 To start, the workers must check that the petition is legally notarized and dated

correctly before verifying the signatures. Once that first check is completed, the signatures are then

individually searched and marked as verified or not verified via VERIS. After entering the signer’s

information into the system, if the person is a qualified voter, then the election worker marks “Registered”

on the petition and in VERIS.

However, this signature verification process can get difficult due to a number of potential

circumstances (1VAC20-5-20). One common problem that workers can run into is not being able to read

a voter’s handwriting. Without the complete information from the signature, there can sometimes be no

way of affirming that person is who they say they are, resulting in a “Can’t Identify” or an “Illegible”

marking on both the petition and in the system, which does not count toward the candidate’s totals.

Another issue is missing information, as sometimes a person with a similar name as another cannot be

identified as different due to the lack of a provided birthdate or address. In that case, the voter receives a

“Can’t Identify” or a “Registered Not Qualified” distinction. Decisions like these are unique to each

signature, and can lead to different conclusions based on an election worker’s ability to read handwriting

or their capacity to spend time researching different combinations of voter information (Did this person

put a nickname down? Did this person put the wrong address?). All this is not only time-consuming, but

3
See Appendix A.
 11

also ultimately less accurate than what an electronic verification system would produce with upfront voter

verification.

While General Registrars in localities handle the majority of petition verification across the

Commonwealth, the task for verifying petitions for Presidential candidates is the state’s responsibility. As

a result, ELECT hires temporary personnel every four years to spend all their time verifying these

petitions. The selection, hiring, and then the time spent checking petitions all cost the agency money.

During the 2020 election season, as is done every presidential filing season, ELECT created and filled six

temporary positions from August 14 to September 18.4 The combined cost to the agency, excluding the

hiring and training of the individuals by existing ELECT staff, totaled $29,392.5 The hiring and work of

these temporary employees demonstrate the increased workload that petition verification presents to

ELECT. If an electronic signature and verification system were to be implemented, this quadrennial cost

to the agency, and any additional costs that localities incur more routinely with their hiring of employees,

could realistically be eliminated or significantly reduced.

Recent Events

All of these critiques were highlighted during the 2020 Presidential candidate filing of Kanye

West. A case study of West’s independent Presidential campaign in Virginia demonstrates that the current

state process is imperfect – as there was confusion among voters, improper techniques used by the

campaign, and a tremendous amount of election resources used.

To start, West’s campaign decided very late to file paperwork and gather their signatures. A post-

analysis of the signature entries shows that 65% of the signatures were gathered within four days before

the filing deadline (Personal Calculation, 2020). While this was within the regulations, the practices of

West’s campaign led to complaints from voters to the department that the signature gatherers were not

4
One temporary employee was extended to November 20th to assist on another project
5
Per analysis from ELECT Fiscal/HR Office
 12

being upfront, or that they were confused as to what they were signing. In one of these voter complaints,

Constituent A explained that the signature collector told him that signing the petition meant he commit to

voting for West (Personal Communication, Constituent A, August 21, 2020), which is not what the form

is for. At least two other complaints came to ELECT stating concern over the conduct of the signature

collectors not being upfront about what the petition was (Personal Communication, Constituent B and C,

September 3, 2020), and General Registrar offices likely got even more calls. In a personal example, a

collector in a grocery store parking lot approached the author of this report the day before the deadline. In

this interaction the collector explained who he was and stated that he “obviously did not support [Kanye

West], but [he, Collector A] is getting paid by the signature” (Personal Communication, Collector A,

August 20, 2020). While supporting the candidate is not necessarily a required part of the job, the candid

nature of the signature gatherer demonstrates a potential lack of training and knowledge by the campaign

workers, which more than likely led to a lot of the reported voter confusion.

These claims, along with other procedural errors would eventually lead to the lawsuit that

resulted in West’s removal from the ballot. Therefore, despite the directions on the petition forms being

very clear, the process can still be intentionally or unintentionally misrepresented, causing voter

confusion and campaign malpractice. An electronic petition software could allow ELECT to clearly state

instructions as voters are electronically signing the petition. It would also provide campaigns less

information to relay to voters, which could help misinformation and general confusion around the process

by both involved groups.

Beyond the voter and campaign confusion, all 2,700+ pages for West were submitted to ELECT

two hours before the August 21 deadline, which caused a massive time crunch at the department. Starting

the deadline day, the temporary employees, the entire Elections Administration team, and then a few

General Registrars’ offices spent the next full week focusing solely on West’s petitions. During the

signature verification process, 28,151 out of the 34,661 petition lines submitted (68.6%) were blank. Out

of the 10,878 remaining, 4,384 (40.3%) were marked as not qualified. While West’s campaign ended up
 13

reaching the 5,000 required,6 the time spent by the election workers manually checking signatures could

have been put toward other initiatives. Tasks like shipping of election materials to localities, shipping

registration forms to registration drives, and voter cancellations had to be put on hold by ELECT, which

created over a week’s worth of backup just as ballot proofing began. Using a base employee salary of

$60,000 ($31.25 per hour), the total cost as a function of time it took for all five ELECT workers in the

office of Elections Administration to solely work on petitions for the full 40-hour week is approximately

$6,250. Combining this one-week total with the temporary positions brought on for the filing period

shows that ELECT spent approximately $35,642 to verify presidential petitions.

West was eventually ruled off the ballot due to a lawsuit by pledged electors that claimed they

were misled into pledging to serve as electors for him (Vozzella, 2020). This decision resulted in

ELECT’s scramble to verify all of the petitions a wasted effort, and one that might have been prevented if

there was an electronic verification system.

An online petition verification system would allow campaigns like West’s to switch their

outreach efforts from parking lot signature gatherings to directing those who believed he should be on the

ballot to a secure online version of showing support. This would create a more straightforward way for

campaigns and voters to understand what they are signing and why. It would complete the verification for

election workers, allowing them to focus on other important tasks during election season, and it would

limit the amount of litigation toward the department, ultimately saving the agency and localities money.

Policy Alternatives

To provide a starting point for a potential workgroup, this report examines the options presented

for a workgroup to study. This includes a no-change scenario, an emergency (short-term) solution, and a

long-term solution to the identified issues.

6
He was not provided the requirement decrease due to him not being involved with the previously mentioned
lawsuit.
 14

No Change

A workgroup could decide that the current state of petition signature collecting and verification is

not worth fixing, however the issues raised provide ELECT an opportunity to simplify a key component

of candidate filing. Not changing the current processes will allow the confusion and frustration to

continue. The work will still be done, but election workers will have to put in much more effort, and the

state and local offices will spend more money, for a process that could be safely automated. In addition,

campaigns will continue to spend their money to hire signature collectors, and utilize resources that could

be put toward other parts of their campaign. Overall, an investment into one of the other policy options

would not only save resources for every group involved in the filing process, but also expedite it so that

signatures are tabulated at a much faster rate.

Short-Term Solution: COVID-19 Responses

If the workgroup and agency believes that this problem is only caused by the COVID-19

pandemic, it could observe the actions of other states during this time to create a short-term solution.

Reactions to the pandemic have included some states decreasing the signature numbers like Virginia, but

other states like Florida and New Jersey went further. On April 2, 2020, Florida’s Secretary of State

signed an emergency order allowing for electronic submission of signed petitions, and eliminated the

requirement that a campaign must include a voter’s original ink signature for petition signature to count

(Florida Department of State, 2020). On April 29, New Jersey’s governor signed an emergency Executive

Order No. 132, which also allowed localities to accept petitions electronically, and provided for

signatures to be collected electronically (Murphy, 2020). The New Jersey order announced that an online

form for electronic submissions was to be created by the Secretary of State and available for use by May

1, 2020 (Murphy, 2020). While initial feedback signaled that these changes would help (Gross, 2020),

further opinions from candidates, voters, and election workers in Florida and New Jersey should be a

point of emphasis for a workgroup to see if these efforts go far enough. A concern is that these initiatives

by Florida and New Jersey are reactionary and temporary, and might not be sustainable. If ELECT wants
 15

to invest money toward making this process more efficient and fair for all groups involved, a permanent,

long-term solution should be closely considered.

Long-Term Solution: Arizona’s Model

The influence that a workgroup at ELECT could most closely examine is Arizona’s model.

Established in 2012, their “E-Qual” system is utilized to sign candidate petitions and ballot measure

petitions. When first entering the site, the user will see a brief message about what is on the page, and the

site then provides an option to “Sign a Candidate Nominating Petition.”7 If the user clicks on that option,

they are taken to a “Voter Authentication” screen, which asks for personal information to proceed.8 The

page also provides more information about the system, which is very straightforward and transparent to

how the software works.

ELECT already has a Citizen Portal that voters can log into to perform critical functions of

voting. From a first interaction with Arizona’s “E-Qual,” the two software applications seem to function

in similar ways by verifying voters before any further action. This report recommends a workgroup

should turn to this model to see if there is a way to implement an additional feature onto Virginia’s

Citizen Portal that allows for candidate or referendum petitions to be signed electronically. This, as

opposed to a new system altogether, could be the most cost-effective and user-friendly option for the

department to consider since it would utilize an existing platform that ELECT has.

Recommendation

Based on the critique of the current state of the petition signature process, and other states

implementing electronic petition signature collection and verification, this report recommends Virginia

study how to incorporate this technology, using Arizona’s “E-Qual” model as a starting point. While

recognizing that implementation would require a legislative change, a work group at ELECT drafting a

7
See Appendix B
8
See Appendix C
 16

formal request and recommendation would certainly stress the importance. It is important to understand

that this is not a partisan issue that ELECT would be studying and endorsing – rather a system to ensure

further security, accessibility, and efficiency for all members of the electoral process. Implementation

would allow candidate qualification regulations to remain largely the same, while changing the vehicle of

the process to enhance the experience for all groups involved. A decision brief and stakeholder analysis

for this recommendation are found in the Appendix of this report.9

Next Steps

Any workgroup that is formed would need to consider how this technology affects the overall

filing process. The workgroup also would need to address the cost associated with implementing the

feature, either to existing software like the Citizen Portal, or a new software. Lastly, the workgroup needs

to consider voter accessibility, which would likely include allowing for paper petitions to still be

submitted for people that do not have access to the internet, but as a secondary option to the electronic

signature system.

Conclusion

A post-COVID world will eventually be a reality, but as the elections community has

demonstrated, Virginia elections will still go on. Scrutiny in elections has arguably never been higher,

which makes it important for each process, especially ballot access, to be secure and trusted.

Implementing an electronic petition verification system could make a currently tedious, often confusing

process a more straightforward and secure one. While a General Assembly code alteration would be

necessary to change the requirements, a workgroup making a detailed proposal would certainly justify the

need to improve ELECT’s petition process in the short and long term.

9
See Appendix D and E
 17

References

Circuit Court for the City of Richmond. (2020, March 23). Faulkner Final Complaint. Richmond,
Virginia: Virginia Mercury. Retrieved from https://www.virginiamercury.com/wp-
content/uploads/2020/03/Faulkner-FINAL-COMPLAINT-03.23.2020-12.pdf
Cline, N. (2020, April 13). Navy reservist Omari Faulkner disappointed to end U.S. Senate run. Loudoun
Times-Mirror.
Florida Department of State. (2020, April 2). Emergency Rule Filed with the Department of State.
Candidate Petition Process. Retrieved from https://dos.myflorida.com/media/702874/1ser20-
2.pdf
Murphy, G. P. (2020, April 29). Executive Order No. 132. New Jersey. Retrieved from
https://nj.gov/infobank/eo/056murphy/pdf/EO-132.pdf
Omari Faulkner for Virginia, Omari Faulkner v. Virginia Department of Elections, Virginia State Board
of Elections, Robert H. Brink, John O' Bannon, Jamilah D. LeCruise, Christopher E. Piper,
Jessica Bowman, The Republican Party of Virginia Jack R. Wilson, CL 20-1456 (Circuit Court in
the the City of Richmond March 25, 2020).
The Constitution Party of Virginia et al. v. Virginia State Board of Elections, et al. , 3:2020cv00349 (
United State District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia July 15, 2020).
V.A. Code § 24.2-506
V.A. Code § 24.2-522
Virginia Department of Elections. (2015, January). SBE-505/520. Declaration of Candidacy.
Virginia Department of Elections. (2020). Candidate Bulletins. Retrieved from
https://www.elections.virginia.gov/candidatepac-info/candidate-bulletins/
Virginia Department of Elections. (2020, July). How to Run for United States Senate. Ballot Access
Requirements for the June 23, 2020 Primary and the November 3, 2020 General Elections, 10.
Retrieved from
https://www.elections.virginia.gov/media/formswarehouse/becomingacandidate/candidatebulletin
s/2020-11-03_Gen_Bulletin_United_States_Senate_rev_7-16-20.pdf
Vozzella, L. (2020, September 3). Judge orders Kanye West off Virginia Ballot. The Washington Post.
 18

Appendix

A. Review of Petition Pages Steps

19
 20

B. Arizona E-Qual Home Screen

C. Arizona E-Qual Voter Authentication Screen

 21

Virginia Management Fellows

D. Stakeholder Analysis

Power- Interest Matrix for Stakeholder Analysis

HIGH
Section lists potential stakeholders
with high power and low influence on
decisions in program development.
Section lists potential stakeholders
with high power and high influence
regarding decisions in program
development.

INCLUDE INCENT

Legislators

ELECT
POWER
ACTION

The
Community

Section includes stakeholders with Section includes stakeholders with

relatively low interest and low strong interest, yet little power to
power in development activities. influence major decisions.

LOW INFORM INVOLVE

Voters General Registrars

Campaigns

LOW INTEREST HIGH

Note: The “I dimension words: “include, incent, involve and inform” help development partners to determine
who, when, and how certain stakeholder groups might engage in program planning activities. These dimensions
and groups are dynamic. This power-interest grid is a sample of a decision-making tool that can be deployed in
determining stakeholders for any given project or program.
 22

E. Decision Brief

DECISION BRIEF

Date: October 22, 2020

To: Commissioner Chris Piper, Deputy Commissioner Jessica Bowman

Thru: Virginia Management Fellows Program

From: John W. Cronin
Purpose: To create an agency workgroup to study the design,
implementation, and impact regarding an electronic candidate petition
signature verification software for the Department of Elections and local
General Registrars.
Issue: The in-person petition signature requirement makes ballot
access more difficult for candidates, confuses voters, and causes state
and local election workers to spend valuable time completing the
verification process where it could be completed electronically.

Background (chronology of events as necessary):

HISTORY OF EVENTS LEADING TO THIS PROPOSAL.

Discussion:
A workgroup is needed to study an electronic signature verification
system because of its impact on each group involved in the process,
especially during the COVID-19 era. For campaigns, ballot access is
impacted if voters cannot be reached in-person. If the campaign is
actually able to talk to a prospective voter, there is no guarantee that
the person they contact is a qualified voter or not. This has caused the
official ELECT guidance to recommend campaigns collecting significantly
more signatures than required in order to combat unqualified voters.
Historically, before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, this issue has
often resulted in litigation. An electronic signature software that has
upfront verification (like ELECT’s current “Citizen Portal”) would make
this process easier for campaigns to reach qualified voters and ensure
ballot access for those that qualify.
For voters, misinformation can often happen if campaigns are not properly
trained. Signature collectors have sometimes provided the voter false
information about the petition to get them to sign, leading to voter
mistrust and confusion. The most recent example of this is the candidacy
of Kanye West, whose signature collectors were cited giving false
information about the nature of the form, leading to public outcry and
his disqualification from Virginia’s ballot. An online petition signature
 23

system would allow voters to have a straight-forward, secure, and

accessible way to sign petitions online. It would also allow campaigns
to direct voters to the ELECT website, making it easier for them to
provide correct information to voters.
Election workers on a state and local level are severely impacted by the
process as well, as the manual verification of each signature requires
resources that could be allocated toward the other incredibly important
tasks that are completed routinely. The process is a tedious one that
requires attention and patience to individually look up voters in VERIS.
The verification process has numerous variables that can disqualify a
voter’s signature, and these variables can often be subjective based on
an election worker’s ability to read handwriting and mix-and-match
signature information with VERIS’ search tool. In addition, while the
specific cost to localities could not easily be determined, for the 2020
Presidential petition verification process ELECT spent approximately
$35,642 checking petitions from August to September. An electronic
petition signature verification system would not only make the
verification process more efficient and secure, but it would also save
localities and ELECT time and money.

Decision Options for a Potential Workgroup to Consider:

1. No Change: Work will still be accomplished but will continue to
occupy valuable state and local resources, as well as confuse
voters and campaigns.
2. Short-term, emergency COVID-19 solution: This would be similar to
what other states like New Jersey and Florida have done to aid the
petition process during the pandemic. This would be a less
comprehensive, and short-term solution to the issue, and
ultimately not a quality fix to an important process.
3. Long-term solution (the Arizona model): Basing off the software
implemented in 2012 by Arizona, an electronic petition signature
software that requires upfront verification and is tied to ELECT’s
voter record system information.
Recommendations to the Commissioner:
This report recommends the creation of an elections workgroup to
study a long-term solution via an online petition signature and
verification software. Using Arizona’s “E-Qual” system as a
reference, and taking into consideration the legislative change that
would likely be required, this workgroup could develop initial costs
and an implementation plan for a software that would make the
petition signing and verification easier for all members involved in
the process.
 24

Commissioner's Comments:

 Approved as Recommended  Approved with Changes Noted 

Disapproved

 Final Contract Documents

Require Commissioner
Approval