[LordDragonfang]

Making it easier for people to vote (and make sure their vote is counted correctly, as is the overwhelming primary use case in "curing") is not fraud, it's democracy. The fact that one party is (and historically has been) opposed to this is not something to be proud of.

[SV_BubbleTime]

How is temporarily removing the signature requirement from the secrecy envelope, and removing the requirement for the election office to compare that signature to a previous signature making it “easier to vote” vs weakening the election integrity?

What about Covid changes your ability to abide by the election laws the legislature in the states had determined?

[LordDragonfang]

Signatures are an awful security measure in this day and age. It's compared by underpaid and overworked poll workers, definitely not by handwriting experts. There's also the problem that they're often having to compare a digital pen-and-stylis signature to a "wet" signature on the ballot.

Additionally, most people below the age of 30, and anyone without reason to spend time signing legal documents, won't have a consistent signature that matches the one on file that they provided when they were 16. It's also no coincidence to the discussion that those signatures also have a comparatively extremely high rejection rate among black people.

All of these are demographics that tend to vote a particular way, by the way, which is why you hear the other side complaining.

Once again, it's purely about expanding democracy.