Which states allow voters to 'cure' signature mismatches and what are their cure processes?
Executive summary
A majority of U.S. states now have some form of “signature cure” procedure that lets voters fix a returned mail or absentee ballot flagged for a missing or mismatched signature, but what qualifies as a cure, who must be notified, and how long voters have to fix the problem differs sharply from state to state and across sources [1] [2] [3]. Reporting and policy trackers disagree on the precise count — earlier summaries cited roughly two dozen states with mandatory cure duties while more recent trackers list many more — underscoring that cure availability depends on statutory language, administrative rulemaking, and evolving court orders [4] [1] [3].
1. The landscape: how many states, and why counts differ
Different authoritative trackers produce different totals because they use different definitions (notice required vs. optional, cure only for missing vs. mismatched signatures, statutory vs. court-ordered policies); for example, the Council of State Governments reports 24 states require officials to initiate a cure for signature mismatches [1], the National Conference of State Legislatures catalogs states with signature cure processes [5], MOST Policy Initiative summarized 18 states with notice-and-cure requirements as of 2020 [4], and Ballotpedia reported 33 states requiring notification and cure as of November 2025 — all of which reflect shifting laws and post-2020 litigation outcomes [4] [1] [3] [5].
2. Core elements of cure processes — common tools election officials use
Although details vary, cure procedures share a few common features: election officials detect a missing or non‑matching signature during processing, they must (in cure states) notify the voter within a statutorily or administratively prescribed timeframe, and the voter may then remedy the problem by submitting identification, a signed affidavit or verification statement, a replacement ballot, or by confirming identity in person or by phone — practices documented across state guidance and national best‑practice templates [1] [2] [6].
3. Deadlines and notification channels — important differences that decide whether a cure works
The window for curing signatures is a decisive variable: some states allow voters to cure for several days after Election Day (for example Colorado’s eight‑day rule for returning ID or verification forms is codified in statute) while other states impose much shorter timelines or no cure at all (Ballotpedia notes Colorado’s eight‑day rule and flags states such as Connecticut, Nebraska, and New Hampshire as lacking cure processes in its survey) [3]. Notification methods also differ — mail, phone, and email have been used — and advocates and litigants have pushed for phone contact because it produces much higher cure rates than mail alone (Campaign Legal Center’s litigation produced a phone-and-mail notice regime in one state and achieved high cure rates) [7].
4. Concrete process examples that illustrate the variation
California requires officials to provide notice within 24 hours of discovering a missing or mismatched vote‑by‑mail signature and gives voters a statutory cure form and timeframe under Elections Code section 3019; the state’s emergency regulations reflect that quick notice obligation [8]. Nevada’s law specifies that voters must provide a signature or confirmation not later than the fifth day following the election in many cases, while other states set a six‑day post‑election verification window or different deadlines depending on whether the issue is missing versus mismatched signature [3]. Where courts have ordered reforms, election administrators have been required to use phone, mail, and in‑person options and to allow verification within several days of Election Day to preserve due process and count more ballots [7].
5. The practical impact: low rejection rates but real consequences, and why advocates litigate
Signature mismatch is a leading reason for absentee ballot rejection historically, and while rejection rates overall are small (the EAC reported about 1% of absentee ballots rejected nationwide in 2016, with signature mismatch the top cause of rejections), the existence, notice quality, and timing of cure processes determine whether those ballots are ultimately counted — which explains why civil‑rights groups press for broad notice channels, sufficient time windows, and pre‑processing to give voters a meaningful chance to cure [4] [1] [6] [7]. This patchwork means voters’ ability to cure depends on the state’s statutory text, agency rules, and sometimes court orders rather than a uniform federal standard [1] [9].