Quite a decision (one which seems correct) in Florida Democratic Party v. Detzner.  The court explains what’s at stake:

In light of those limitations, many Florida voters choose to vote by mail. And that option has become increasingly popular in recent years—six percent more voters cast vote-by-mail ballots in the 2012 General Election than the 2008 General Election. ECF No. 3, at 8–9. What vote-by-mail voters likely do not know, how-ever, is that their vote may not be counted. In Florida, if a voter’s signature on a vote-by-mail ballot does not match the signature on file with the supervisor of elections office then the ballot is declared “illegal” and their vote is not counted. Moreover, that voter only receives notice that their vote was not counted after the election has come and gone and, further, is provided no opportunity to cure that defect. On the other hand, if a vote-by-mail voter doesn’t bother to sign the ballot in the first place, that voter is immediately notified and provided an opportunity to cure.

The issue in this case is whether Florida’s statutory scheme, which provides an opportunity to cure no-signature ballots yet de-nies that same opportunity for mismatched-signature ballots, is le-gally tenable. The answer is a resounding “no.”

From the court’s conclusion:

Once again, at the end of the day, this case is about the pre-cious and fundamental right to vote and to have one’s vote counted. In our democracy, those who vote decide everything; those who count the vote decide nothing. Justice Stewart once quipped, in reference to pornography, “I know it when I see it . . .” Jacobellis v. State of Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 197 (1964) (Stewart, J., concurring). Likewise, this Court knows disenfranchisement when it sees it and it is obscene.