Legal
Built to statutory standards, not around them.
A sealed statement is only useful in court if the process that produced it holds up. Here's exactly which statutes and standards Jurat's signature and sealing workflow was built against.
Statutory Basis
What an electronic sworn statement has to satisfy, in any state.
Four things decide whether an electronically signed statement is accepted. Three of them are settled nationwide. The fourth is the one that varies by state, and it is the reason for the lookup further down this page.
A signature cannot be rejected for being electronic
The federal baseline: a signature or record may not be denied legal effect solely because it is in electronic form. It is federal law, so it applies in every state regardless of what that state has adopted on its own. This is what makes the dual officer and affiant signature on every statement valid in the first place.
The signature has to be attributable to a person
ESIGN's state-level counterpart, adopted by 47 states and the District of Columbia. New York, Illinois, and Washington are the three exceptions — each has its own functionally equivalent statute instead. What it requires is attribution: the signature must be provably the act of the person it belongs to. That requirement is why identity verification, the driver's license scan and recorded consent are captured alongside the signature rather than assumed after the fact.
The record has to survive intact and stay reproducible
An electronic record satisfies a retention requirement only if it remains accessible to everyone entitled to it and can be accurately reproduced later. A signed PDF sitting in someone's inbox does not clear that bar on its own. It is why the document is cryptographically sealed at the moment of signature and retained on a schedule, rather than exported and filed by hand.
A declaration under penalty of perjury can replace a sworn oath
The federal model for an unsworn declaration: with the right affirming language, a written declaration carries the force of a sworn statement without a notary present. Most states have their own version, and it is the mechanism Jurat's signing flow is built around — but unlike the three above, it is not universal, and the wording and scope differ. This is the one to check for your own state.
Multistate Coverage
The signature is settled everywhere. How a statement becomes binding is what varies.
Electronic signature validity is not seriously in question anywhere — ESIGN is federal, and every state has either adopted UETA or written its own equivalent. Jurat captures the statement and secures the signature in every state today; what varies is how that statement becomes binding once it's signed. Some states authorize an officer to administer the oath in person, some accept a written declaration “under penalty of perjury” in place of one, and some don't clearly provide for either by statute — Jurat adapts the attestation language and signing process to whichever mechanism your state actually supports, capturing it as a witnessed, attested record where neither applies. Find your state below for which mechanism is individually confirmed so far.
Pick a state to see three things: whether electronic signatures are valid there (they are, everywhere), whether an officer can administer the oath to a witness in person, and whether the state has a statute letting a written declaration under penalty of perjury stand in for one instead — Jurat captures the statement either way, so this is about which mechanism applies where you are, not whether Jurat works there.
Jurat captures sworn statements and secures electronic signatures in all 51 U.S. jurisdictions today — that is not what the numbers below measure. They measure which specific legal mechanism is individually confirmed, state by state: 27 of 51 for the unsworn-declaration statute, 11 of 51 for officer-administered-oath authority, both checked against an official state source as of August 2026. Verification of both lists is ongoing and expands over time — it is not a limit on where Jurat can deploy. Where neither is yet confirmed, Jurat still captures the statement as a witnessed, attested record, and the attestation language and signing process adapt automatically to whichever mechanism applies — so the workflow always matches your state's law.
Anatomy of a Seal
What “cryptographically sealed” actually means.
Every completed statement is sealed with a PAdES-conformant digital signature — not a picture of a signature dropped onto a flattened PDF. Any modification after sealing invalidates the signature, and that invalidation is visible to any standard PDF viewer, not just Jurat's own software.
ISO 32000-2 / ETSI EN 319 142 (PAdES) — sealed at the moment both signatures are captured, not at export time. Sealed as PAdES-B-T when the timestamp authority is reachable; degrades to PAdES-B-B rather than blocking signing if it isn't.
Chain of Custody
What travels with the document into discovery.
Identity verification
Signature timestamps
Delivery record
Access log
Revocation status
Retention schedule