The New Texas Voting Bill Is an Alarming Assault on Democracy
Texas Republicans overhauled state election laws, adding unnecessary barriers for marginalized voters and undermining the basic tenets of democracy.
Texas House Democrats fled to Washington DC for 6 weeks to avoid voting on the new bill. After two special sessions, though, Republicans forced a vote and passed the bill to overhaul state election laws in a late-night win, 80-41. Democrats fought so hard against it because they believe it imposes unnecessary restrictions on marginalized voters, most of which are likely to vote Democrat. State Representative Gina Hinojosa said, “Republicans are attacking our voting rights for one reason: they know their days in power are numbered, so they’re trying to cling to power the only way they can — by stopping us from voting.”
Republicans, on the other hand, believe the new bill is necessary to reduce election fraud, as they believe Trump’s 2020 loss is suspect, although no credible evidence of widespread, coordinated fraud has yet to be presented. In fact, the Texas Attorney General has only received 24 election fraud complaints, leading to only 3 convictions for the 2020 election, nowhere near enough to make a difference. Despite this essential fact, Texas Republicans justify their sweeping election law changes by sticking to their fraud claims, as evidenced by the first line of the bill: “An act relating to election integrity and security, including by preventing fraud in the conduct of elections of this state; increasing criminal penalties; creating criminal offenses.”
Unfortunately for Republicans, the bill is public information. I’ve read it. And it contains some fairly obvious attacks on democracy.
The War on Mail-In Voting
Mail-in voting isn’t new, but Republicans have taken aim at it. Thanks to the COVID-19 pandemic, an unprecedented amount of people, especially those living in heavily Democratic, high population areas, cast their 2020 vote through the USPS. Texas Republicans don’t want to see a repeat, so the new bill is laden with language designed to hinder mail-in voting.
Perhaps the most controversial addition is that a mail-in ballot application must now include the following: “(A) the number of the applicant’s driver’s license, election identification certificate, or personal identification card issued by the Department of Public Safety; (B) if the applicant has not been issued a number described by Paragraph (A), the last four digits of the applicant’s social security number; or (C) a statement by the applicant that the applicant has not been issued a number described by Paragraph (A) or (B)” (SECTION 4.03).
So what’s the problem? First, according to the ACLU, an estimated 11% of US citizens don’t have government-issued ID. This translates to roughly 21 million people, certainly enough to sway national and local elections. Second, obtaining government-issued ID requires money and travel, both of which can be a burden, especially for lower-income, elderly, or disabled people. The average cost of obtaining necessary documents like a birth certificate ranges from $75 to $175, and for rural Texans, the nearest ID office is an average of 170 miles away. Such barriers naturally keep people away from the polls, and in fact, one study from the Government Accountability Office found that they reduce voter turnout by 2-3%. Third, voter ID laws disproportionately affect minorities. Nationwide, 25% of African-Americans and only 8% of Whites lack an ID and, one study found that “strict photo identification laws have a differentially negative impact on the turnout of Hispanics, Blacks, and mixed-race Americans in primaries and general elections. Voter ID laws skew democracy in favor of whites and those on the political right.”
Furthermore, Texas Republicans went after mail-in voting with this: “to determine whether the signatures are those of the voter, the board may also compare the signatures with any known signature of the voter on file with the country clerk or voter registrar” (SECTION 5.13). In other words, the signature on mail-in ballots must be approved by a committee, and to do so, they are required to compare it to other examples on file.
What’s wrong with this? First, the people on the board aren’t handwriting experts. The board consists of a judge and two other members chosen by county election chairs. Does anyone reading this honestly believe these people are chosen because of their prowess in discerning the subtleties of a person’s signatures across possibly many years? Of course not, and they are free to disqualify ballots at will. A 2020 lawsuit from Pennsylvania states that “Each time a county board of elections — comprised of laypersons with no expertise in handwriting analysis — subjectively believes there is a mismatch between the signature accompanying the voter’s mail-in ballot and the signature in the voter’s file, that ballot is not counted, notwithstanding the many benign factors that can cause signature variation.” Second, everybody’s signature changes over time, especially those in certain vulnerable groups. For some, the last known signature might be from years, possibly even a few decades, ago. What are the odds that their signature today will match enough to pass the scrutiny of an unqualified signature verification board? And what about the elderly, the vision impaired, or those with disabilities? Do you think their signatures have remained consistent enough for their vote to count? The ACLU has already successfully sued multiple times on behalf of voters who have had their votes unfairly tossed due to faulty signature verification.
Furthermore, mail-in voters are not given a reasonable chance to correct errors. “If the early voting ballot board determines under subsection (b) (1) that it would not be possible for the voter to correct the defect and return the carrier envelope before the time the polls are required to close on election day, the board may… inform the voter that the voter may request to have voter’s application to vote by mail canceled… or come to the early voting clerk’s office in person not later than the sixth day after the election to correct the defect” (SECTION 5.14).
The main problem here is that mail-in votes can be delayed in the mail and during counting. By the time an error is found, it’s often too late, making the vote invalid. Even if a mistake is found in time, the new law requires the voter to correct the problem in person. For those with lower incomes, disabilities, jobs that won’t allow time off, etc., this is impossible, again making their vote invalid.
Lastly, the new bill imposes strict penalties for those encouraging mail-in voting. “The early voting clerk or other election official commits an offense if the clerk or official knowingly mails or otherwise provides an early voting ballot by mail or other early voting by mail ballot materials to a person who the clerk or official knows did not submit an application for a ballot to be voted by mail” (SECTION 7.04).
Therefore, the bill is clearly designed to hinder mail-in voting. Why? Because mail-in voting benefits certain demographics that are more likely to vote Democrat.
Let’s Talk About Ballot Harvesting
First of all, what is it? Ballot harvesting is when a third party collects ballots from the voters and turns them in to a polling location. Like everything else in this topic, this practice is highly controversial. On one hand, Republicans believe it opens the door for fraud. For example, in 2018 Republican McCrae Dowless was caught mishandling ballots to give the advantage to Pastor Mark Harris, who was pressured to drop out of the race for North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District.
On the other hand, Democrats believe ballot harvesting is essential for underrepresented groups to have their voice heard and that fraud in such circumstances is exceedingly low. Frank J. Gonzalez, Assistant Professor in Political Science, at the University of Arizona said “‘Ballot harvesting’ has the potential to reduce turnout disparities. Ultimately, if validation procedures like those that already exist in many states are put in place, it is hard to see an argument against ballot collection that is not based on some undemocratic motivation.” And an analysis from the Brennan Center for Justice
shows ballot harvesting fraud is just not a thing: “The verdict is in from every corner that voter fraud is sufficiently rare that it simply could not and does not happen at the rate even approaching that which would be required to ‘rig’ an election.”
Despite this, Texas Republicans are cracking down on the practice, again disenfranchising particular demographics that depend on it. “A person commits an offense if the person knowingly collects or possesses a mail ballot or official carrier envelope in connection with vote harvesting services” (SECTION 7.04). There’s not much more discussing the issue, leaving it fairly open to interpretation.
Texas Republicans say they have banned the practice of ballot harvesting to prevent fraud. However, no such fraud exists and the new law will inevitably have a greater impact on Democrats than Republicans, making the Republicans’ true intention clear.
Only When We Say
Texas Republicans are also trying to impose needless voting limits on the hours that polls can be open. For example, the new bill states that “early voting by personal appearance at the main early voting polling place shall be conducted on each weekday of the early voting period that is not a legal state holiday and for a period of at least nine hours, except that voting may not be conducted earlier than 6 a.m. or later than 10 p.m” (SECTION 3.09).
What’s the point of these restrictions other than to thwart Democrats? In 2020, Harris County, which contains the heavily populated city of Houston, boosted voter turn out by offering 24-hour voting, and the county went handily to Joe Biden, as disenfranchised groups, which tend to vote Democrat, had more opportunity to vote. Restricting voting hours would likely make it harder for these groups to vote. The same logic can be applied to restricting voting only to weekdays.
We’re Watching You
Furthermore, Texas Republicans added language to surveil and impede voters. For example, the bill says that “A person who simultaneously assists seven or more voters voting under this section by providing the voters with transportation to the polling place must complete and sign a form, provided by an election officer, that contains the person’s name and address and whether the person is providing assistance solely under this section or under both this section and Subchapter B” (SECTION 6.01).
In other words, they want to know who you are if you’re helping people vote. Why? Why does it matter who is giving voters a ride, and what are they going to do with this information?
The new bill also allows a video of you voting to be livestreamed to the public. “(b) The general custodian of election records in a country with a population of 100,000 or more shall implement a video surveillance system that retains a record of all areas containing voted ballots.” “(c) A video from a system implemented under Subsection (b) may be made available to the public by a livestream” (SECTION 3.18). This is just bizarre. There’s no telling what people or groups can do with this footage.
And lastly, poll watchers now have more power than ever before. The bill says that “a watcher who is entitled to ‘observe’ an election activity is entitled to sit or stand near enough to see and hear the activity” (SECTION 4.07). This means that a poll watcher is given ultimate authority to decide if something is suspicious and to invade a voter’s personal space in anyway he or she sees fit.
Final Thoughts
Despite what Trump and his allies say, no credible evidence of widespread voter fraud occurred in the 2020 election, yet Republicans in Texas, Georgia, Florida, Kansas, Arkansas, Iowa, Wyoming, and Montana have passed laws making it harder to vote under the guise of reducing fraud. These laws unequivocally will have a greater effect on Democrats than on Republicans, giving credence to the idea that Republicans are using the fraud narrative to justify election laws that will help them stay in power.
None of the above is new. It’s all part of the same playbook to stop certain demographics from voting. For example, in the 1890s southern states enacted poll taxes, meaning a voter had to pay to vote. Naturally, this dissuaded the poor from voting, but many poor whites were given a pass if they had a relative cast a vote before the Civil War, known as the “grandfather clause.” Poor African Americans were given no such pass. How is this different from the language in the Texas bill forcing underprivileged demographics to jump through the many hoops discussed above?
Arizona Republican John Kavanagh said the quiet part out loud: “Not everybody wants to vote, and if somebody is uninterested in voting, that probably means that they’re totally uninformed on the issues. Quantity is important, but we have to look at the quality of votes, as well.”
Support The Happy Neuron by clicking the links below:
