In the tightly contested Seattle mayoral race, where challenger Katie Wilson holds a narrow 91-vote lead over incumbent Bruce Harrell, more than 1,700 ballots have been flagged for signature challenges.
These ballots, currently rejected and uncounted, could prove decisive in determining the election outcome.
Halei Watkins, communications manager at King County Elections, emphasised the significance of every vote, stating, “All you need to win a race is 50% plus one vote, so your vote could be that one vote.” Watkins noted that campaigns are particularly focused on these signature challenges in tight races.
Wilson’s field operations director, Xochitl Maykovich, explained their proactive approach: “We started reaching out to people last week via text and phone and then over the weekend started door-knocking.” Maykovich believes the gap will close significantly, making these rejected ballots even more crucial.
Both Wilson’s and Harrell’s volunteers are legally reviewing public data to identify and contact voters with rejected ballots, urging them to correct their signature issues. Watkins assured that King County Elections will retain uncounted ballots until voters affirm their identity, at which point the votes will be accepted and counted.
The Bruce Harrell for Mayor campaign expressed gratitude for their volunteers’ efforts, stating, “We are grateful to our volunteers who are working to ensure that every vote is counted. This is important work, and essential in a close race.”
Voters have until 24 November to “cure” their ballots online through King County Elections. Watkins encouraged voters to take the necessary steps, saying, “Even when races aren’t tight, we want to make sure every vote is counted. If you took time to fill out a ballot, it will take you just one more moment to make sure it counts.”
The 1,700 signature-challenged ballots represent a population nearly nineteen times larger than Wilson’s current 91-vote lead, creating a situation where the race’s ultimate winner depends substantially on which voters successfully cure their rejected ballots. This dynamic transforms what is typically an administrative process into a high-stakes campaign operation requiring intensive voter contact and persuasion efforts.
Signature matching, the verification process causing these rejections, involves election workers comparing the signature on a ballot return envelope with signatures on file from voter registration records. Discrepancies can result from various factors including natural signature evolution over time, physical conditions affecting handwriting, hurried signing, or simply signing differently than the reference signature on file.
The process attempts to prevent fraud by ensuring the person returning the ballot is the registered voter to whom it was issued. However, critics argue signature matching introduces subjectivity into the verification process, as election workers make judgment calls about whether signatures match sufficiently. Studies have shown that signature rejection rates vary across demographic groups, with younger voters and voters of colour experiencing higher rejection rates.
The November 24 cure deadline gives voters approximately two weeks from the election to resolve signature issues, a relatively generous window compared to some states that impose tighter deadlines. The online cure process King County Elections offers provides convenient access, allowing voters to submit verification documentation electronically rather than requiring in-person visits or mailed paperwork.
The intensive voter contact efforts both campaigns are deploying, including texts, phone calls, and door-knocking specifically targeting voters with rejected ballots, represent sophisticated field operations leveraging public data about ballot status. Washington state law makes this information publicly available, allowing campaigns, parties, and advocacy organisations to identify voters who need to cure ballots.
These cure efforts require substantial volunteer mobilisation and coordination. Campaigns must obtain current lists of rejected ballots, match them to contact information, develop messaging scripts, train volunteers on the cure process so they can guide voters through it, and track which voters successfully cure ballots versus which remain unresolved as the deadline approaches.
Maykovich’s comment that Wilson’s campaign began outreach “last week” suggests they started cure efforts before the race tightened to its current 91-vote margin, indicating campaigns anticipated that signature-challenged ballots could prove significant regardless of the final vote margin. This proactive approach reflects political operatives’ understanding that in Washington’s vote-by-mail system, ballot cure operations can determine close race outcomes.
The statement that volunteers are “legally” reviewing public data addresses potential concerns about privacy or propriety in campaigns accessing information about individual voters’ ballot status. Washington’s public records laws make ballot acceptance/rejection status public information whilst keeping vote choices confidential, creating the legal framework that enables cure campaigns.
The efforts by both campaigns to cure ballots raises questions about differential success rates. Campaigns with superior field operations, more volunteers, better voter contact infrastructure, and stronger relationships with their voter base may achieve higher cure rates among their supporters. If signature rejection rates differ between Wilson’s younger, more progressive base and Harrell’s older, more moderate coalition, and if cure success rates also differ, these compounding factors could significantly affect the final result.
