By Vince Phillips
In previous letters I have examined signature rejection rates, election judge training, and how societal changes are stressing an old verification method. One overarching reality deserves its own focus: the signature on the mail-ballot return envelope has quietly become the single primary safeguard of a ballot’s validity. Consider the contrast with the traditional in-person system. A voter once faced multiple, overlapping protections:
- They appeared in person
- Presented identification
- Signed the poll book in front of workers
- Their signature was compared to a reference on the spot
- Poll workers could challenge irregularities immediately
Today, the overwhelming majority of Colorado ballots arrive by mail. Those layered safeguards are largely gone. What remains is essentially one check: Does the signature on the envelope match the voter’s file signature? Crucially, this signature is created with no witness required. The voter signs the return envelope alone, often at their kitchen table, with no one verifying their identity in real time.
The same is true for anyone attempting voter fraud. Unless the fraudster is caught in possession of the ballot or is personally known to the legitimate voter (such as in the Barry Morphew case in Chaffee County), the perpetrator of forgery is extremely difficult to catch. Even when the rightful voter notices and affirmatively denies casting the ballot, identifying the actual forger is nearly impossible in most cases. There is usually no forensic trail, no video evidence, and no witness to the signing.
This vulnerability is further compounded by real-world situations such as ballots delivered to apartment mailboxes for previous residents who have moved away. Anyone with access to those ballots can intercept and vote them with relatively low risk of detection.
How Seriously Do We Treat Signatures in Other Contexts?
In nearly every other important legal or financial matter, Colorado law demands far more than a lone, unwitnessed signature:
- Wills and trusts — Require two witnesses
- Real estate deeds and mortgages — Require notarization
- Powers of Attorney (medical or financial) — Require witnesses and/or notarization
- Prenuptial agreements — Typically require witnesses or notarization
- Sworn court affidavits — Must be notarized
- Bank loans and many financial contracts — Frequently require notarization or official verification
These documents involve money, property, healthcare decisions, and family legacies. Yet when it comes to the act of voting itself, one of our most fundamental civic responsibilities, Colorado requires no witness and no notarization at all. A signature written alone, is accepted as sufficient proof of identity. If we insist on witnesses and notaries to protect the integrity of property transfers, financial contracts, and legal decisions, it is entirely reasonable to ask why the same basic protections are not applied to the act of casting a ballot.
Colorado has shifted from multiple overlapping safeguards during the in-person voting era to near-total reliance on a single, unwitnessed signature. Yet the procedures and training supporting that one safeguard have not been meaningfully strengthened to match its new importance. The result is a higher-risk verification process, regardless of intent.
This structural change is especially concerning because the automated signature scanners used in larger counties have adjustable sensitivity thresholds. Clerks or technicians can tune these machines to accept weaker matches, routing fewer ballots to human review. While state rules require periodic accuracy audits, there is little public transparency on exactly how and when these thresholds are set. Election officials and the Secretary of State’s office routinely claim the system has been strengthened. The evidence on the ground tells a different story: minimal training for election judges, adjustable machine settings that can reduce human scrutiny, no witness requirement, and no documented statewide increase in verification rigor despite the vastly expanded reliance on mail ballots.
We should have answers to these basic questions:
- How are scanner acceptance thresholds set and audited before each election?
- What percentage of mail ballots receive actual human signature review versus machine acceptance?
- Has training for signature verification been meaningfully strengthened since the shift to universal mail ballots?
- Why has the emphasis been on easier curing and convenience rather than stronger upfront verification and identity safeguards?
The signature, signed alone, without a witness, is now the gatekeeper for most Colorado votes. Treating it as such, with the training, standards, transparency, and safeguards it deserves, is not too much to ask of a system that calls itself the “gold standard.”
Support Independent Local Journalism — High Country Advocate was created as a real alternative to regional media that too often silences dissenting voices while taking sides in the political struggle. Producing in-depth, unflinching reporting like this series and others is expensive: servers, editing, research time, and legal review all add up quickly. If these articles have informed you or given you new perspective, please consider supporting HCA with a paid subscription — every subscriber helps keep this reporting strong and independent.
