Articles and Speeches
Case Law on Electronic Signatures and the Enforceability of Electronic Transactions
August 11, 2011
Amanda M. Witt
, Jon A. Neiditz
, Brandon Woods
Ni v Slocum, 2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 862 (Cal. Ct. App. June 30, 2011).
ESIGN Take-aways:
- Electronic signatures do not satisfy the California Elections Code requirements to "personally affix" a petitioner's signature, printed name and address on an initiative petition.
In 2010, Ni filed a verified petition for a writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory relief, seeking San Mateo Count to accept his electronic signature for a petition to legalize marijuana. Ni submitted the petition through Verafirma's mobile software that allows individuals to trace their signature using technology approved for use in California for the purposes of electronic signature. The signature is allegedly "unique, capable of verification, under the sole control of the signer, and protected against manipulation." Slocum, 2011 Cal. App. Lexis 862 at 5. Elections officials had previously been contacted by the California Secretary of State concluding that electronic signatures "do not satisfy the statutory requirements that a voter 'personally affix' his or her signature, printed name, and address to an initiative petition." Id. at 5 – 6. The trial court ruled that the electronic submission of an initiative petition must be submitted instead on a paper petition because officials could not determine whether the voter personally affixed his signature, printed name, and address as required by statute. Id. at 7. In affirming the decision, the California Appellate Court stated that California's Uniform Electronic Transaction Act and certain sections of the Elections Code that allow electronic signatures must yield to the language of section 100 of the Elections Code that states, "Notwithstanding any other provision of law…" which is interpreted to mean that only an express provision can override the physical signature requirements as mandated by the Elections Code for an initiative petition. Id. 17 – 18. The court stated that this case differed from Anderson v. Bell, 234 P.3d 1147 (Utah 2010) (electronic signatures can be used to endorse candidate nominating) in two ways: (i) only a signature was required in the Utah statute, and (ii) there was no requirement in Utah that the signature or other information be "personally affixed" to the petition.
