Board says courts, not board staff, should resolve address mismatches in nominating-petition signatures

A staff member told the board that when a subscribing witness or petitioner lists an address on a nominating petition that does not match the board's records, the matter typically requires extrinsic evidence such as affidavits or testimony that a board is not set up to receive. "The issue that Mr. Sloan raises in his letter is that the board should take into account extrinsic evidence," the staff member said, adding that boards do not take testimony or affidavits and that such fact-finding is properly done in court.

The staff cited a recent court decision in Richard Luffman v. Board of Elections (2013) and a case-law update (page 39) to explain practice across jurisdictions: "the Supreme Court determined that in an instance where address did not match records ... the Board of Elections was, within its right to declare those signatures invalid absent any evidence," the staff member said. The staff summarized that the burden often shifts to the proponent of a petition to prove the identity of a signer when addresses differ.

A commissioner asked for clarification about remedies and whether the petitioner would need to seek relief in court; the commissioner asked, "my understanding is that if Mr. Sloan wants relief or remedy to this, he would have to go to court?" The staff member responded, "Correct, commissioner." The board did not accept extrinsic evidence at the meeting and proceeded to adopt the staff recommendations.

The board's position, as stated by staff during the meeting, is one of deference to judicial process for contested identity/address issues rather than conducting new fact-finding during its administrative review.