Skip to main content
Update
Non-financial boards have been closed.

Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.

Fool.com | The Motley Fool Community
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 14
That’s right, in Texas if you apply to vote in one of the Democrat Districts you have a 1 in 4 chance of having your voting rights abolished.
Election officials in one of the most populous counties in Texas have rejected about half of the applications for ballots because of the state’s new voting restrictions enacted by Republicans last year.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/texas-voting-ballots...

That would be Travis county (Austin) . The same rejection of voting rights have been seen in Harris and Bexar counties.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/texas-voting-ballots...

“Many other counties are experiencing the same high rejection rate,” the office said in a statement. “We have not received instructions from the state outlining what our office can do to assist voters in submitting a completed application.”

We’ll just cover up your voting rights in red tape.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
"Under the new voting law, voters must include either their driver's license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number on their applications. Those numbers are then matched against voters' records. For a voter to be approved for a mail-in ballot, the numbers have to be the same.

However, not every voter remembers which number they gave when they initially registered to vote, leading to the application rejections. "

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/14/politics/texas-mail-in-ballot...

One county reports HALF of its vote-by-mail applications are rejected because people picked the wrong number.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Wouldn't this restrictive method apply to all voters equally, Dem or Repub?

Proftalon
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Yes, it affects the ability of all who wish to use vote-by-mail. It's not wrong because of which party is affected; it's just wrong.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"One county reports HALF of its vote-by-mail applications are rejected because people picked the wrong number."

Easy solution...require that they provide both... sounds like a good plan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
boater123
"One county reports HALF of its vote-by-mail applications are rejected because people picked the wrong number."

Easy solution...require that they provide both... sounds like a good plan


Of COURSE that would be a good plan...

But you DO realize, don't you, that you're suggesting the idea to folks who don't know if they're afoot or on horseback, right? Not a single one of their ducks have EVER been in a line.

Suggesting logic to them is hopelessly futile.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Easy solution...require that they provide both... sounds like a good plan

There's still a problem. My signature has changed a bit several times over the years. I'd need to get a peek at the one they have for me in order to match the style I had 20 years ago. Was I doing the capital letter of my first or last name in cursive or printed (despite rest of sig in cursive), as I've flopped back & forth over the years. Middle initial has always been cursive--it's the nature of the letters. Did I tske my time when I wrote it so it's big and super-neat? Or was I in haste or nervous and scribbled?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I should add that because of my signature issue, I've never voted absentee. I had to wait in line for an hour in a wheel chair in 2020 to vote early, but I did it. With my husband w/dementia (I don't let him vote any more). I can;t be so sure he'd behave for a whole hour in 2022 if the line is that long & slow again. He has to pee often, too...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"There's still a problem. My signature has changed a bit several times over the years. I'd need to get a peek at the one they have for me in order to match the style I had 20 years ago. "

So do you think having no checks to validate votes is a better option?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 29
So do you think having no checks to validate votes is a better option?

Don’t be obtuse.

No one objects to checks to validate votes.

When every district the Republicans challenged in 2020 has a large black population, it’s not about voter security.

When every audit performed by partisan Republican hacks shows virtually no voter fraud, it’s not about voter security.

When voting access is restricted in predominantly black districts, it’s not about voter security.

When only Republicans have been found to commit voter fraud, it’s not about voter security.

When any party (and the vast majority are Republican) stacks the deck through egregious gerrymandering, it’s not about voter security.

When every single case brought before a court (state, federal, and Supreme Court) is lost, it’s not about voter security.

When Republican legislators attempt to write laws allowing them to override the popular vote, it’s not about voter security.

When Republican representatives and Senators vote to overturn certified voting results without a shred of evidence of fraud, it’s not about voter security.

When Republicans chose to believe a pathological liar rather than undisputed facts, it’s not about voter security.

This is all about a minority of old whites and white supremacists trying desperately to hold on to power using undemocratic tactics.

AW

An old white guy who believes in democracy by earning people’s votes, not by stealing them
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Blah .. blah .. blah ...This is all about a minority of old whites and white supremacists trying desperately to hold on to power using undemocratic tactics."

The topic was about a specific Voter ID requirement in Texas that the poster said was inappropriate. You will notice that she has neither responded to my query and no alternative suggestion has been made by you or anyone else as yet that would in fact insure voter integrity of vote ballots not submittedmin pereson.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
I don't get it Boater. I register to vote. I go to vote or vote by mail. They look up my name and address. Yep. Registered. Unless someone pretends to be me to vote in my stead all is good. The likelihood of that happening is slim. There's no monetary reward. Sure, some nut could do it, planning to sway results but it's rare and doesn't work.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I see you really don't get it. What is it about providing a verification of your identity that so bothers you?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
"There's still a problem. My signature has changed a bit several times over the years. I'd need to get a peek at the one they have for me in order to match the style I had 20 years ago. "

So do you think having no checks to validate votes is a better option?


No, but I should like to be able to see the sig they have in their database, shouldn't I? Or once I become too seriously disabled I will never be able to vote?

I note that my younger brother has had his dominant arm amputed in the years since first registered to vote here. He now signs very sloppily with his left hand. I doubt his sig matches! Or my mother's--she has Parkinsons, and I have to help her sign anything.

What do you suggest for allowing the 3 of us to vote? I'd rather err on the side of accepting the votes of people who are disabled, lacking transportation, or work an inflexible job, than disallowing everyone whose sig isn't a "perfect match."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"What do you suggest for allowing the 3 of us to vote? I'd rather err on the side of accepting the votes of people who are disabled, lacking transportation, or work an inflexible job, than disallowing everyone whose sig isn't a "perfect match."

Perhaps the state could issue a numbered disability exemption that could be used along with a drivers license number and last 4 Soc Security number verification. Identifying oneself to vote should not be viewed as a problem.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
You will notice that she has neither responded to my query

If you're referring to me, I only saw your post a few minutes ago.

I read threaded. Always. Sometimes I remember to go back to past threads to see if anything of interest was added, but I do miss posts (and depending on mood or poster, and while I don't permanently ignore posters, I often skip posts from certain people, although not usually yourself...yet, anyway ;-)

In addition, as a full-time caregiver, my day is continually interrupted (I stopped my husband from peeeing in the den wastebasket 3x so far today). Just now I was finally able to get him washed up & dressed for the day as I need to deliver dinner to my disabled brother so I can't just let him hang out in pj's today. I had to wait for his after-lunch nap in order to shower & dress myself.

Some peoples' lives are not as predictable or easy as others. Don't assume it's as easy for others to vote--or even participate in TMF--as it is for you.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Perhaps the state could issue a numbered disability exemption that could be used along with a drivers license number and last 4 Soc Security number verification. Identifying oneself to vote should not be viewed as a problem.

Good as far as it goes, but I don't qualify as disabled. Just a person of changing signature.

I think I'm confusing boater and brerbear....
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Identifying oneself for the ...privelege...of voting is not an insurmountable requirement, not the one confused.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So if your signature has changed...what then?

=alstro, happy to provide name, address, license #, SS#, phone #...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 14
Some folks don't drive. Some folks don't live near a DMV where they can get an ID instead of a license. Some folks have photo IDs but not one given out by a DMV and those IDs aren't accepted by the place they vote. You just don't get it. There are poor, old and less fortunate individuals that would like to vote but a DMV supplied ID is difficult for them to get. It's a hinderance to voting, not an assurance of identity which is not needed in the first place.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I get it, you just don't get it. You are merely trotting out the old tired memes that may have been true in the 1950's but do not apply in 2022
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 13
Identifying oneself for the ...privelege...of voting is not an insurmountable requirement, not the one confused.
boater123

These are applications for people who are currently registered to vote. These people have voted in previous elections. Last year, Texas led the US south in an unenviable statistic: closing down the most polling stations, making it more difficult for people to vote and arguably benefiting Republicans. Large cities will have a half dozen walk in polls for hundreds of thousands of voters, whereas rural counties will have a half dozen walk in polls for a couple thousands voters.
Get the picture?
So to make it fair Texas is telling heavily populated counties to vote by mail...
And here's the trick
The registered voter has to remember whether he registered with his driver's license or his social security number and he can't provide both numbers for his mail in ballad.
So you have a 50/50 Chance to pick the correct number...
And what do republicans say about that?
Well at least you've got a better chance than counting the jelly beans in the jar.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
this was already discussed upthread
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If Texas required that both numbers be reported that problem goes away.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
If Texas ... wasn't trying to subvert free and fair elections ...
Then
Texas would required that both numbers be reported (and)that problem goes away.

Maybe Ken Paxton the Attorney General could look in to that...

Oh Wait, He's busy trying to throw out all of the votes from 6 States that went for Biden.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Texans seem to like to talk about secession.

Could we save some time and just expel Texas?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
If Texas ... wasn't trying to subvert free and fair elections ...
Then
Texas would required that both numbers be reported (and)that problem goes away.


I suspect that this problem will get fixed eventually, though perhaps not for an election cycle or two. Simply because there are just too many Republicans who vote absentee for this to continue in the long term.

In a number of states that adopted new voting legislation, including Texas and my home state of Florida, absentee balloting has traditionally been skewed in favor of Republican voters - so that things which interfere with absentee balloting would generally hurt Republican GOTV efforts more than Democratic ones. It's easy to see why, given that the GOP base has a lot of rural, elderly, and military voters that have a harder time getting to polling places. Plus, the Democratic party places a great deal of emphasis on live, in-person voting drives (most notably Souls to the Polls efforts).

Trump almost certainly hurt his own chances and the GOP by disparaging mail voting in 2020. You may recall a number of GOP elections folks tried to distinguish between absentee voting and mail voting in order to mitigate the negative effect. Making it harder to vote absentee - especially in states like Texas where only the elderly, disabled, and military can qualify for absentee ballots - probably hurts the GOP as much as, if not more than, the Democrats in a lot of jurisdictions. Few people are really mentioning that now, though, since it's inconsistent with both parties' current take on elections (Trump is driving the GOP to insist that mail ballots are rife with fraud, and the Democrats are arguing that these restrictions are schemes to help the GOP).

But because this specific problem is going to end up hurting lots and lots of Republican voters, especially elderly Republican voters, this will eventually get fixed. It might not happen until Trump has had his last election in 2024, but you'll eventually see a 'glitch' bill that corrects this problem.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I suspect that this problem will get fixed eventually, though perhaps not for an election cycle or two. Simply because there are just too many Republicans who vote absentee for this to continue in the long term.

I would agree.

In a number of states that adopted new voting legislation, including Texas and my home state of Florida, absentee balloting has traditionally been skewed in favor of Republican voters - so that things which interfere with absentee balloting would generally hurt Republican GOTV efforts more than Democratic ones. 
>>>Trump is driving the GOP to insist that mail ballots are rife with fraud, and the Democrats are arguing that these restrictions are schemes to help the GOP

There is a perception in the Trump camp (Trump esp) that lower voter turnout favors Republicans in National Elections. This line of thinking (Trump) perceives that Hillary Clinton would have significantly increased her lead in the national popular vote — and triumphed in the Electoral College — if turnout had been slightly higher across the board.  Trump has continued to promote those loyal to him this thesis and thus create barriers to high voter turnout.

Trump and his voter restriction loyalists have continued to use the “Stop the Steal” campaign to reduce the turnout of the Voting-Eligible Population. Personally, I don’t believe that Trump believes the voter fraud propaganda, rather Trump believes that voter turnout is his nemesis to reelection. The voter fraud propaganda is the “stick” to motivate voter restrictions and thus voter turnout.

This is not a prelude to a “voter turnout” polemic, I don’t believe that high voter turnout necessarily improves the Democrat chances; Trump does. Trump will forever myopically compare everything he does to Barak Obama, and Obama’s high voter turnout in 2008 is what Trump is motivating the party to dampen.

This is just like his Coronavirus Testing theory, if you don’t test people there will not be as much coronavirus.

Trump almost certainly hurt his own chances and the GOP by disparaging mail voting in 2020. You may recall a number of GOP elections folks tried to distinguish between absentee voting and mail voting in order to mitigate the negative effect. 

I don’t know if this argument can be sustained any better than the idea that lower voter turnout favors Republicans.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
There is a perception in the Trump camp (Trump esp) that lower voter turnout favors Republicans in National Elections.

I agree, but with the caveat that Trump and his team took especial aim at absentee/mail-in ballots. Both before the election (where they were trying to head off some early proposals to switch the entire election to mail-only because of the pandemic), but especially after the election when they won the in-person vote in a few states where they lost the overall vote.

I don’t know if this argument can be sustained any better than the idea that lower voter turnout favors Republicans.

We'll never know for sure, of course, given the nature of the secret ballot. But the vote counts really point in that direction. Trump did far better in the election day results than in the absentee/mail results in almost every state where such data are available - by an amount that is shocking compared to 2016. In an election where a lot of voters switched from in-person voting to mail voting, the GOP underperformed in the mail voting:

At the very least, the magnitude of this divide would have shocked anyone looking at the same data for 2016. Of these 15 states, 11 also broke down the results of the 2016 presidential election by voting method. And although absentee votes in 2016 were consistently more Democratic than Election Day votes (just as in 2020), the average gap between them was much smaller than in 2020 — just 14 points in 2016 compared with 65 points in 2020.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-absentee-voting-lo...

So we don't know for sure, but it seems likely that discouraging GOP voters to use the absentee/mail-in system in 2020 have would negatively affected GOP performance.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I agree, but with the caveat that Trump and his team took especial aim at absentee/mail-in ballots.


Trump took special aim during the 2020 election with the Voter Fraud meme at mail in ballots, true. The current round of voting restrictions though are aimed at both in person voting and mail in voting, yes there's more emphasis on limiting mail in ballots.
The current round of laws in at least nine states also restricts the number of in person polls and limited the time period when ballot drop boxes are available.
Texas in particular has drastically reduced the number of in person voting polls. Places like Harris Co are infamous for six hour lines to get in to vote. With the current law in Texas(which is the subject here), this year there will be even fewer in person voting polls in Harris Co, and elsewhere.
Although the Voter Fraud meme focuses on mail in ballots, this propaganda is merely the "stick" to reduce Voter Turn out by any means.


the GOP underperformed in the mail voting

Which is the opposite of what you originally stated,
In a number of states that adopted new voting legislation, including Texas and my home state of Florida, absentee balloting has traditionally been skewed in favor of Republican voters
Republicans are betting that reducing mail in voting will benefit Republicans this time around
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Texas in particular has drastically reduced the number of in person voting polls. Places like Harris Co are infamous for six hour lines to get in to vote. With the current law in Texas(which is the subject here), this year there will be even fewer in person voting polls in Harris Co, and elsewhere.

Why? My understanding is that the Texas bill doesn't really have any significant provisions that effect in-person election day voting. Here's a summary, and a link to the bill text below that:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/07/politics/what-texas-voting-bi...
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/872/billtext/pdf/SB00001F....

Almost all of the major voter-facing changes relate to absentee and non-election day voting (drop-boxes, early voting, etc.). None appear to affect election day polling places.

There were some significant changes to polling place locations in earlier versions of the bill (particularly one of the Senate proposals), but those all got dropped prior to adoption. I couldn't find any that survived into the final version of the bill - was there something else?

Republicans are betting that reducing mail in voting will benefit Republicans this time around

That may certainly be true. After Trump convinced so much of the GOP base that absentee voting is bad, that has created a massive skew - so trying to cut down on absentee voting might now help them more than it would have in elections past.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
>>>Why? My understanding is that the Texas bill doesn't really have any significant provisions that effect in-person election day voting. Here's a summary, and a link to the bill text below that:


Correction
It seems that it was the policy before the 2020 election:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/02/texas-pollin...
Last year, Texas led the US south in polling station closures.

At up to 10,000-plus voters per polling station in a State that doesn't allow unrestricted absentee voting.

>>>Almost all of the major voter-facing changes relate to absentee and non-election day voting (drop-boxes, early voting, etc.). None appear to affect election day polling places.

As I pointed out, in person voting restrictions in Texas include limiting in person voting by reducing the hours available.
In 2020, Harris County, the home of Houston, opened eight locations for around-the-clock early voting -- an option that was popular with shift workers in the racially diverse county.
Counties will now be prohibited from offering 24-hour voting by a provision that limits the window in which counties can offer voting to 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.

[From your link]
In another provision that targets Harris County, the law prohibits drive-thru voting.
[Frokm your link]
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
As I pointed out, in person voting restrictions in Texas include limiting in person voting by reducing the hours available.

....for early voting. Not for election day.

And of course, it goes without saying that things like 24-hour voting and drive-through voting are highly unusual, even among deeply liberal/democratic jurisdictions in the U.S. They appear to be unique, and adopted only in response to the pandemic. It's hardly beyond the pale for a legislature to decide that they didn't want county officials to decide to implement such measures going forward. Hardly a "you can't vote" type of measure.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 17
It's hardly beyond the pale for a legislature to decide that they didn't want county officials to decide to implement such measures going forward. Hardly a "you can't vote" type of measure.


Well, I've never waited six or seven hours to vote, but you may have had that experience in your state. The longest I've ever waited to vote in person in California was twenty minutes.

For Hervis Rogers, the last man to vote at the polling station located at Texas Southern University – one of the nation’s largest historically black universities – the wait ended up being nearly seven hours. By the time he was finally able to cast his vote at the Houston location, news outlets had already called the state for former Vice President Joe Biden.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/...

Maybe you can say with all honesty to yourself that this is hardly a you can't vote measure, but forcing citizens to wait seven hours to vote falls under my definition of, "you can't vote" type of measure.
Maybe yes, you can vote, but many would be desuaded... and thats the objective
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Maybe you can say with all honesty to yourself that this is hardly a you can't vote measure, but forcing citizens to wait seven hours to vote falls under my definition of, "you can't vote" type of measure.

Except that this specific voting issue doesn't have anything to do the reasons why Mr. Rogers had to wait that long. His long wait was due entirely to other factors. After all, the 24-hour voting period was not for Election Day voting. It was only for early voting. And it was only available for the general election, and his long wait was in the primary.

And as noted in the article, the reason for the delay was because so many more voters chose to vote in person rather than absentee or early, and because the Democratic primary ballot was extraordinarily long. The number of polling locations was on par with previous primary elections.

Long lines at polling places are terrible, and are indeed a dissuasion to voting. But that doesn't mean that the absence of 24-hour voting is problematic, or that a measure to limit 24-hour voting is somehow problematic. Since, of course, there are no other jurisdictions - no matter how liberal - that appear to have 24-hour voting.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Mr. Rogers had to wait that long. His long wait was due entirely to other factors.
>>>The number of polling locations was on par with previous primary elections.


Thank you for the well-informed discussion, as always. You and I may not agree with what constitutes free and fair elections. I've never lived in a state where Mr Rogers couldn't vote weeks in advance by absentee ballot or within a few minutes on election day in person. Perhaps the custom in your state is much like Texas, so as, seems to be the normal affair.
Thanks for the thoughtful responses, I agree with you on the greater part of what you've opined.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Thanks for the thoughtful responses, I agree with you on the greater part of what you've opined.

Thanks, TB - and the same to you. I also think we agree with each other on most of these matters. And perhaps we can revisit this conversation once the various states (and particularly Texas) have run an election cycle under the new rules in 2022.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Well, I've never waited six or seven hours to vote, but you may have had that experience in your state. The longest I've ever waited to vote in person in California was twenty minutes.

Everywhere I lived where there was in-person voting, the place was run by volunteers being coordinated periodically by government election officials. Are the long waits because there are no volunteers? I can't see any state no matter how biased making a law restricting the number of volunteers or polling stations.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I can't see any state no matter how biased making a law restricting the number of volunteers or polling stations.


Texas, closed 44% of its polling places from 2012 to 2018
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/02/texas-pollin...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Thank you for the reply. I read the Guardian story. Here is a key portion:

The rush of poll closures in Texas cannot be attributed to any one policy. Just over half of the closures are part of a push toward centralized, countywide polling places, called “vote centers”, which exist in almost a third of US states. Under countywide voting schemes, voters are no longer assigned to a polling place in their local precinct and can instead cast their ballot at any polling location in the county.

Voting rights advocates and both Republican and Democratic leaders have largely been in favor of vote centers because they can make it more convenient to vote – by allowing people to vote near work, for instance – and because they can reduce the number of people whose votes are thrown out because they went to the wrong polling place.

But Texas state law allows a county that transitions to vote centers to operate with half as many locations as they would otherwise have needed under a traditional precinct-based system.



It goes on to say that reasons for closing the previous locations are ADA accessibility and how many people were using them. I saw nothing showing evidence of intentionally targeting minority district voting places like often alleged. If Guardian didn't find them ... hard to think some particular policy exists.

The GOP person responding to queries said that the actual vote count went up after implementing those changes. Guardian verified true.

The Dem person responding said there are "large areas of her county" without a polling location. She subtly acknowledges that there was low turnout (the justification for the centralization to begin with) but that only means they have to recruit voters harder.

And activists argue that low turnout at a particular polling place is not a reason to close it – it is a sign that the turnout itself, which is typically lower in Latinx neighborhoods, must be addressed. Closing a polling station for reasons of low turnout can have a discriminatory impact, activists say.

Activists will always find reasons to blame a conspiracy if they lose a vote for their side. It sounds like low turnout was the problem. Their solution, unlike low turnout in GOP districts, is to call it a reason to recruit more voters.

The story continues to say
Elections officials have cited tight budgets and difficulty recruiting poll workers as among the reasons for the reductions.

That confirms my earlier hypothesis that locals aren't volunteering to staff the precinct voting stations like all those little old ladies used to do when we were growing up and riding with Mom to the polls.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"That confirms my earlier hypothesis that locals aren't volunteering to staff the precinct voting stations like all those little old ladies used to do when we were growing up and riding with Mom to the polls.'

plus they've stopped having punch & cookies that those old lady volunteers used to bring.I missed them.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Activists will always find reasons to blame a conspiracy if they lose a vote for their side
>>>>The rush of poll closures in Texas cannot be attributed to any one policy. Just over half of the closures are part of a push toward centralized, countywide polling places, called “vote centers”
>>>The story continues to say
Elections officials have cited tight budgets and difficulty recruiting poll workers as among the reasons for the reductions.



If you look at the time map from 2012 to 2018 the number of urban areas that had under 4,000 voters per poll quadrupled to polls with over 10,000 per poll; and in Texas it is necessary to vote in person for 90% of eligible voters. In cases documented in the 2020 election there were multiple central polling centers in Texas with 10 machines serving a voting population of 15,000. With the new current law, voting hours will be shortened.
Furthermore, if you look at the map, urban areas are vastly underserved with over 10,000 eligible voters per one central poll, whereas rural areas that vote mostly Republican predominantly have one poll for every 1,000 eligible voters. Just look at Harris Co as one example, it went from yellow (one poll serving 1,000) to dark red (one poll serving more than 10,000) from 2012 to 2018. Harris county has fewer polling locations for a population of 4,779,880 (at least 1/3 or more of that number are eligible voters) than it did a decade ago, and Houston has been growing faster than most cities in the US.

Add to that, under the new voting law, one quarter of absentee ballots have been rejected due to technicalities. You can’t register to vote online. 24 hour drive through polling has been abolished, and walk in polls can only be open 12 hours. I agree that being able to vote at any location in the county makes it more available to people who commute. But Harris Co has a history of long voting lines since 2012 when the Supreme Court held that the 1969 Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional.

That confirms my earlier hypothesis that locals aren't volunteering to staff the precinct voting stations

There are solutions to these kinds of problems. Texas isn't looking for solutions to make it easier to vote, Texas is looking for creating obstacles to voting touting the false notion of election integrity.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
But Harris Co has a history of long voting lines since 2012 when the Supreme Court held that the 1969 Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional.

This has always puzzled me a little bit, though. In Texas (and in Georgia, where this happens a lot), who decides how many polling places there should be? Here in Florida, those decisions are made at the county level.

Is that true in Texas, and in Harris County? I can't find anything dispositive on the question.

The reason I ask is that Harris County is majority Democratic (Biden beat Trump by double-digits) and majority-minority, and appears to have a majority-democratic county commission (they have a different term for it). The three (of five) Democratic commissioners, including the county manager/chief executive, are all people of color. All three were elected in 2016 or 2018, so the commission was majority Democratic and majority minority heading well into the 2020 elections:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris_County,_Texas#County_go...

Until recently, it appears that the County Clerk was responsible for elections matters as chief elections official; recently the commission appointed a Latina to a newly created elections administration position. Both appear to be democrats of color:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_G._Hollins
https://www.houstonpress.com/news/new-local-election-chief-n...

Do they have control over the number of polling places in Harris County?

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Your first reply provided a link to a reference article, which I read and replied to.

This one doesn't, so I have no way to reply to the stated facts. So I will leave you with this:

If you honestly believed that a state government is out to keep you and your friends from voting, would you just not vote? Or would you trouble yourself to do whatever the requirements are and get registered and ready to vote in plenty of time ahead of the next election?

All these strawman "what if" cases. If Trump used them to advance his agenda, everyone here would see what they really are.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

Your first reply provided a link to a reference article, which I read and replied to.
This one doesn't, so I have no way to reply to the stated facts.


I'm referring to the same link that you read
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
This has always puzzled me a little bit, though. In Texas (and in Georgia, where this happens a lot), who decides how many polling places there should be? Here in Florida, those decisions are made at the county level.
it appears that the County Clerk was responsible for elections matters as chief elections official; recently the commission appointed a Latina to a newly created elections administration position. Both appear to be democrats of color


It appears that the clerk is responsible for setting polling locations and counting ballots, while the tax-assessor collector is responsible for voter registration, which is new in Harris Co, but the number of polling places seems to be a matter of State mandate.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It appears that the clerk is responsible for setting polling locations and counting ballots, while the tax-assessor collector is responsible for voter registration, which is new in Harris Co, but the number of polling places seems to be a matter of State mandate.

Are you certain? Again, I've had trouble finding the exact rules - but it seems from this guide prepared by the Secretary of State that the state regulations set a minimum for the number of polling places (and have a bunch of other requirements regarding their location and other factors), but not the specific number:

https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/forms/precinct-and-pol...

It's been oddly hard to find out for sure. There's lots of articles and discussion about how the new state law affects the distribution of polling places within the county, but no discussion about the basic question of who sets the number of polling places in the first place.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

Are you certain? Again, I've had trouble finding the exact rules

no, especially when I consider that You're not sure

What have seen?

Sec. 43.001. ONE POLLING PLACE IN EACH PRECINCT. Each election precinct established for an election shall be served by a single polling place located within the boundary of the precinct.

>>>the county clerk shall recommend the location of the polling place for each county election precinct, except as provided by Subsection (b)

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/EL/htm/EL.43.htm

I didn't cite this when I first saw it, because I'm not sure how precincts are established.
and...
I don't know if this ELECTION CODE has been amended.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Did this make it back into the final bill?


https://www.texastribune.org/2021/05/23/texas-voting-polling...

The number of Election Day polling places in largely Democratic parts of major Texas counties would fall dramatically under a Republican proposal to change how Texas polling sites are distributed, a Texas Tribune analysis shows. Voting options would be curtailed most in areas with higher shares of voters of color.

Relocating polling sites is part of the GOP’s priority voting bill — Senate Bill 7 — as it was passed in the Texas Senate. It would create a new formula for setting polling places in the handful of mostly Democratic counties with a population of 1 million or more. Although the provision was removed from the bill when passed in the House, it remains on the table as a conference committee of lawmakers begins hammering out a final version of the bill behind closed doors.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Did this make it back into the final bill?

I don't believe so.

Below is a summary of the major provisions of SB 1, which is the one that passed, followed by a link to the actual enrolled bill text. They're a little different than SB 7, which is the one discussed in the article you cited, and which didn't get passed. There don't appear to be any provisions that relate to the number or distribution of polling places, just some provisions relating to how and when temporary structures can be used as polling locations. It's a long bill, and I only skimmed the actual text, so maybe there's something non-obvious buried in the text, but it looks like that provision never made it into the final law.

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/08/30/texas-voting-restric...
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/872/billtext/pdf/SB00001F....

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The number of Election Day polling places in largely Democratic parts of major Texas counties would fall dramatically under a Republican proposal to change how Texas polling sites are distributed



If you look at page 14 in the original bill, you will not find this section in the bill that passed:
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/pdf/SB00007E....
Print the post Back To Top