WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a 2024 federal district court ruling blocking Arkansas’s “wet signature rule,” which required handwritten signatures on voter registration forms and directed counties to reject registration forms signed electronically. The decision is a major victory for voting rights in Arkansas and ensures that eligible Arkansans will not be denied the right to register to vote simply because they signed their application digitally rather than with pen and ink.
Elias Law Group represents plaintiffs Get Loud Arkansas (GLA), Vote.org, and two individual Arkansas voters who challenged the rule under the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court agreed that the type of signature on a registration form is not material in determining whether an applicant is qualified to vote under Arkansas law.
“When Arkansas officials learned that hundreds of citizens, including many young and minority voters, registered to vote through an online tool, they decided to change the rules to stop it,” said Elias Law Group partner Uzoma Nkwonta. “The Eighth Circuit got this one right. Election officials don’t decide that you’re eligible to vote based on whether you signed a registration form with an ink pen or a digital stylus. This is exactly the type of manufactured barrier to civic participation that the Civil Rights Act exists to prevent. We are honored to work with Get Loud Arkansas, Vote.org, and Arkansas voters to protect the ability of Arkansans to register to vote.”
The Eighth Circuit’s opinion, authored by Chief Judge Colloton, found that Arkansas election officials do not use the type of signature on a registration form to determine whether an applicant is qualified to vote. The court noted that county clerks are instructed to accept applications with “any type of signature or mark” and are not trained to analyze or compare signatures. The Arkansas Board of Election Commissioners also failed to present any evidence that a wet signature aids in determining voter qualifications or is material to preventing fraud, according to today’s ruling.
“There is no evidence […] that Arkansas election officials use the type of signature on a registration form in determining whether an applicant is qualified to vote. The district court found that ‘the record evidence shows that the ‘wetness’ of a signature does not affect county officials’ determinations of qualifications at all.’ Ample evidence supports the finding,” wrote Chief Judge Colloton.
The wet signature rule was a direct response to GLA’s success in registering new voters—particularly young and minority Arkansans. In early 2024, GLA launched an online tool on its website that allows prospective voters to fill out a registration application online and sign the application with an electronic signature. The voters then authorized GLA to print and submit the completed application to county clerks. On at least three separate occasions, the Secretary of State’s office assured GLA that its process was permissible, and the Attorney General also confirmed that electronic signatures are valid under Arkansas law. But after media outlets reported that hundreds of voters successfully registered with GLA’s assistance in just a few short months, the Secretary abruptly reversed course and advised county officials to reject applications with electronic signatures.
Click HERE to read the full opinion.
###