Does a name on a ballot petition have to exactly match the voter registration to count?

Plain-English summary

The chair of the Texas House Committee on Elections asked the AG about petition signatures that candidates file to get on the ballot. The Election Code requires certain candidates to file, with their application, a petition carrying a set number of signatures from qualifying voters, and each valid signature has to include the signer's residence address, date of birth or voter registration number (plus county of registration if the territory spans more than one county), the date of signing, and the signer's printed name. The chair's first question was whether a signature is invalid just because the signer's printed name does not exactly match the name on that voter's registration, if the signature can otherwise be verified through public records.

The AG concluded an exact match is not required. Reading the statute's plain language, section 141.063 nowhere tells a voter to print his or her name exactly as it appears on the registration list. To the contrary, subsection 141.063(c) says the use of ditto marks or abbreviations does not invalidate a signature if the required information is reasonably ascertainable. By allowing ditto marks and abbreviations, the Legislature accepted a printed name that does not exactly match the registration card, so long as the information can reasonably be figured out.

The AG backed this up with court decisions. In In re Bell, the Texas Supreme Court held that omitting some required information does not necessarily void a signature if the signer provides enough to allow verification of voting eligibility, because a principal purpose of the Election Code requirements is to prevent fraud, not to trap honest signers. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals in Vinson v. Burgess ordered a county to reconsider signatures a clerk had rejected solely because the printed names did not exactly match the rolls, holding the law does not demand an exact match. A Houston court in Sears v. Strake likewise declined to order rejection of a petition where printed names did not exactly match the signed names. So a printed name that differs from the registration rolls does not automatically kill the signature.

The chair also asked what evidence an election official must consider when verifying a signature. The AG explained that each part of the petition must carry an affidavit from the circulator swearing they read each statement to the signer, witnessed each signature, verified each signer's registration status, and believe each signature genuine. If the petition has a complying affidavit, subsection 141.065(b) lets the authority treat the covered signatures as valid without further verification unless proven otherwise, so an official may not be required to look at anything more. But if a dispute arises, or if the official chooses to independently review each signature, the courts say the official must, at a minimum for each signature, compare all the information on the petition against the comparable information in the voter registration records.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2017. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

What the opinion meant for those who asked

The requesting legislator (as the opinion described it): The opinion answered that section 141.063 does not require a petition signer to print a name exactly matching the voter registration list, so a signature is not automatically invalid for a name mismatch, and it described what an official must review when verifying a signature.

Election officials and county clerks (as the opinion described them): The opinion treated a signature as not automatically void for a non-matching printed name, and explained that with a complying circulator affidavit an official may treat covered signatures as valid without further verification unless proven otherwise; on independent review or a dispute, the official must compare all petition information against the voter registration records for each signature.

Candidates and petition circulators (as the opinion described them): The opinion described the circulator's affidavit (reading each statement to the signer, witnessing each signature, verifying registration status, and believing each signature genuine) as the mechanism that lets the filing authority accept the signatures without further verification unless proven otherwise.

Common questions

Does a petition signer have to print their name exactly as it appears on voter registration?
Under this opinion, no. The AG concluded section 141.063 does not require an exact match, and ditto marks or abbreviations are allowed if the required information is reasonably ascertainable.

Can a county clerk throw out a signature just because the printed name doesn't match the rolls?
The opinion said a signature is not automatically rendered invalid by a name that does not exactly match the registration list, citing court decisions that rejected exact-match invalidation.

What does an election official have to check to verify a signature?
The opinion explained that with a complying circulator affidavit the official may accept the covered signatures without further verification unless proven otherwise. On independent review or in a dispute, the official must compare all information on the petition with the voter registration records for each signature.

What is the point of the signature requirements?
The AG, quoting the Texas Supreme Court, described preventing election fraud as a principal purpose, so the focus is on whether the signer gave enough information to verify voting eligibility, not on perfect formatting.

Background and statutory framework

The Election Code requires certain candidates seeking a place on the ballot to file, with their application, a petition with a specified number of signatures from qualifying voters (Tex. Elec. Code §§ 142.004, 142.007, 172.021(b), (f)). A signature is valid if it includes, for each signer, the residence address, the date of birth or voter registration number (and county of registration if the territory spans more than one county), the date of signing, and the signer's printed name (Tex. Elec. Code § 141.063(a)(2)). Courts construe a statute to give effect to legislative intent, looking first to plain language (Lippincott v. Whisenhunt, 462 S.W.3d 507, 509 (Tex. 2015)). The plain language of section 141.063 does not require a printed name to exactly match the registration list, and subsection 141.063(c) provides that the use of ditto marks or abbreviations does not invalidate a signature if the required information is reasonably ascertainable (Tex. Elec. Code § 141.063(c)).

Courts have reached the same result. The Texas Supreme Court held that omitting some required information does not necessarily invalidate a signature if the signer provides enough to allow verification of voting eligibility, emphasizing fraud prevention as a principal purpose of the Election Code requirements (In re Bell, 91 S.W.3d 784, 787 (Tex. 2002)). The Fort Worth Court of Appeals ordered reconsideration of signatures a clerk had rejected solely for not exactly matching the rolls, holding the law does not require an exact match (Vinson v. Burgess, 775 S.W.2d 509, 511-12 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1989, no writ)), and a Houston court declined to order rejection where printed names did not exactly match signed names (Sears v. Strake, 764 S.W.2d 805, 806 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, orig. proceeding)).

On verification, each part of the petition must include a circulator's affidavit swearing the circulator read each statement to the signer, witnessed each signature, verified each signer's registration status, and believes each signature genuine and the information correct (Tex. Elec. Code § 141.065(a)). If a petition contains a complying affidavit, the authority with whom the application is filed may treat each covered signature as valid without further verification unless proven otherwise (Tex. Elec. Code § 141.065(b)). If a dispute arises or the official independently reviews each signature, the courts require the official to examine the voter registration records along with all the information the signer provided, comparing, at a minimum for each signature, all the information on the petition against the comparable registration records (In re Bell, 91 S.W.3d at 788; Vinson, 775 S.W.2d at 512; In re Vera, 71 S.W.3d 819, 820-21 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2002)).

Citations

Statutes:

• Tex. Elec. Code §§ 142.004, 142.007, 172.021(b), (f)
• Tex. Elec. Code §§ 141.063(a)(2), 141.063(c), 141.065(a), 141.065(b)

Cases:

• Lippincott v. Whisenhunt, 462 S.W.3d 507 (Tex. 2015)
• In re Bell, 91 S.W.3d 784 (Tex. 2002)
• Vinson v. Burgess, 775 S.W.2d 509 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1989, no writ)
• Sears v. Strake, 764 S.W.2d 805 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, orig. proceeding)
• In re Vera, 71 S.W.3d 819 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2002)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/ken-paxton/kp-0161
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/2017/kp0161.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from the official PDF. Minor extraction artifacts were corrected; the linked PDF is authoritative.

KEN PAXTON
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

September 8, 2017

The Honorable Jodie Laubenberg Opinion No. KP-0161
Chair, House Committee on Elections
Texas House of Representatives Re: Requirements for signatures on a petition
Post Office Box 2910 filed in connection with a candidate's
Austin, Texas 78768-2910 application for a place on the ballot
(RQ-0151-KP)

Dear Representative Laubenberg:

    The Election Code requires certain candidates seeking placement on a ballot to file, alongside an application for candidacy, a petition containing a specified number of signatures from qualifying voters. See TEX. ELEC. CODE §§ 142.004, 172.021(b), (f); see also id. § 142.007 ("Number of Petition Signatures Required"). You request an opinion concerning the requirements for voter signatures on such a petition. [1] Election Code subsection 141.063(a)(2) provides that a signature on a petition is valid if, among other requirements, it includes the following information with respect to each signer:

            (A) the signer's residence address;

            (B) the signer's date of birth or the signer's voter registration number and, if the territory from which signatures must be obtained is situated in more than one county, the county of registration;

            (C) the date of signing; and

            (D) the signer's printed name.

Id. § 141.063(a)(2). You question whether a petition signature is "rendered invalid by the mere fact that the signer's printed name does not exactly match the signer's voter registration, if the validity of the signature can otherwise be verified by public records." Request Letter at 1.

    "Our objective in construing a statute is to give effect to the Legislature's intent, which requires us to first look to the statute's plain language." See Lippincott v. Whisenhunt, 462 S.W.3d 507, 509 (Tex. 2015). "If that language is unambiguous, we interpret the statute according to its plain meaning." Id. The plain language of section 141.063 does not require a qualified voter who signs a petition to print his or her name exactly as the name appears on the voter registration list. Rather, subsection 141.063(c) expressly provides that "[t]he use of ditto marks or abbreviations does not invalidate a signature if the required information is reasonably ascertainable." TEX. ELEC. CODE § 141.063(c). By permitting the use of ditto marks or abbreviations in providing the information required to validate a signature, the Legislature allowed for a printed name that does not exactly match the name on the signer's voter registration card, as long as the information is reasonably ascertainable.

    Furthermore, the Texas Supreme Court, in addressing the validity of a petition signature when the signer omitted some residence address information, concluded that omitting certain information listed in the statutory requirements will not necessarily invalidate a signature. See In re Bell, 91 S.W.3d 784, 787 (Tex. 2002). Emphasizing that "one of the principal purposes behind the Election Code" requirements is to prevent election fraud, the Court held that doing so does not require invalidating a petition signature "if the signer provides enough information to allow verification of the signer's voting eligibility for a particular election." Id. Consistent with the Texas Supreme Court's reasoning, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals addressed the validity of signatures on petitions calling for a tax roll-back election. Vinson v. Burgess, 775 S.W.2d 509, 511 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1989, no writ). The county clerk in that case invalidated any signature on the petitions that did not exactly match the name as it appeared on the voter registration list. Id. Ordering the county to reconsider the validity of those petitions, the court of appeals concluded that the law did not require the petition signature to exactly match the voter registration list. Id. at 512. Likewise, with regard to your question, a petition signature is not automatically rendered invalid when the signer's printed name on the petition does not exactly match the signer's name as listed on voter registration rolls. See In re Bell, 91 S.W.3d at 787; Vinson, 775 S.W.2d at 511; see also Sears v. Strake, 764 S.W.2d 805, 806 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, orig. proceeding) (declining to issue mandamus to order the rejection of a petition in which the printed names of the signers did not exactly match the signed names on the petition).

    You also ask what evidence an election official must consider in verifying the validity of a signature under section 141.063 of the Election Code. Request Letter at 1. Subsection 141.065(a) of the Election Code requires that each part of the petition include an affidavit from the person circulating the petition swearing that the person: "(1) pointed out and read to each signer, before the petition was signed, each statement pertaining to the signer that appears on the petition; (2) witnessed each signature; (3) verified each signer's registration status; and (4) believes each signature to be genuine and the corresponding information to be correct." TEX. ELEC. CODE § 141.065(a). Subsection 141.065(b) further provides that if a petition contains a complying affidavit, "the authority with whom the candidate's application is filed may treat as valid each signature to which the affidavit applies, without further verification, unless proven otherwise." Id. § 141.065(b). Pursuant to this provision, an election official may not be required to consider any additional information to verify the validity of a signature.

    However, if a dispute arises, or if an election official chooses to independently review and validate each signature, the courts provide guidance on what evidence the election official must consider. To verify a signature, the Texas Supreme Court advised that election officials must "examine the voter registration records maintained" by the county along with all of the information provided by the signer in the petition. In re Bell, 91 S.W.3d at 788. Similarly, the court of appeals in Vinson v. Burgess concluded that the election official considering the validity of the petitions must, "at a minimum, for each signature reviewed," compare "all of the information on the petition and the comparable information in the voter registration records." 775 S.W.2d at 512; see also In re Vera, 71 S.W.3d 819, 820-21 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2002) (emphasizing that petition signatures can be "readily verified by checking the voter registration records").

                                 SUMMARY

                  Section 141.063 of the Election Code does not require that a
          qualified voter who signs a petition to place a candidate's name on
          the ballot print the voter's name exactly as the name appears on the
          voter registration list. Thus, a signature on such a petition is not
          automatically rendered invalid when the signer's printed name does
          not exactly match the signer's name as listed on voter registration
          rolls.

                  An election official verifying such a signature for validity
          must consider all of the information provided by the voter in the
          petition and the voter's registration records.

                                        Very truly yours,

                                        KEN PAXTON
                                        Attorney General of Texas

JEFFREY C. MATEER
First Assistant Attorney General

BRANTLEY STARR
Deputy First Assistant Attorney General

VIRGINIA K. HOELSCHER
Chair, Opinion Committee

[1] Letter from Honorable Jodie Laubenberg, Chair, House Comm. on Elections, to Honorable Ken Paxton, Tex. Att'y Gen. at 1 (Feb. 22, 2017), https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinion/requests-for-opinion-rqs ("Request Letter").