Texas

The Future of Senate Bill 97 and its Consequences

Election Law Society · January 19, 2022 ·

By: Zachary Daniel

Shortly before former president Trump called for Texas Governor Greg Abbot to perform a “forensic audit” of the 2020 election in the state, the Texas legislature proposed Senate Bill 97 as a remedy for the concerns over the unsubstantiated allegations of election fraud. If passed, the audits authorized by the bill could easily be weaponized because the bill empowers partisan political actors and the secretary of state over the county electoral process, and simultaneously burdens the counties. The bill has raised concerns among election law activists in Texas, who argue it would have a harmful, long-term impact on the state’s election system.

In the months following the 2020 election, Republican coalitions in states across the country called for audits of election results in four swing states in the name of uncovering alleged voter fraud. In response, the Republican-dominated legislature of Arizona appointed a private firm to investigate the accusations. After months of uncertainty, as well as squandered time, effort, and money, the audit ended and the results were published, showing no indication of fraud. Unfortunately for the rest of the nation, the damage had been done.

Did the Scope of the Texas Governor’s Authority to Suspend Election Law Under the Texas Disaster Act Expand to Include Policy Unrelated to Mitigating an Emergency?

Election Law Society · October 15, 2021 ·

By: Sarah Depew

On March 13, 2020, Texas Governor Greg Abbott issued a proclamation declaring a state of disaster due to the COVID-19 pandemic, triggering gubernatorial emergency powers authorized in the Texas Disaster Act of 1975. The Texas Disaster Act gives the Governor the authority to “suspend the provisions of any regulatory statute. . . . if strict compliance with the provisions, orders, or rules would in any way prevent, hinder, or delay necessary action in coping with a disaster.” Using this authority, Gov. Abbott issued a proclamation on July 27, 2020, to expand early voting and suspend portions of the Texas Election Code to allow voters to deliver a marked ballot in person to the early voting clerk’s office before or on Election Day. An “early voting clerk’s office” is understood in both the Texas Election Code and the July Proclamation to include more than the voting clerk’s main office, but also, any satellite offices or locations. For example, Harris County’s Election Administration has ten offices serving 4.7 million residents across 1,777 square miles.

The July Proclamation was not controversial. The order stated that strict compliance with statute governing the return of marked ballots would hinder the state’s coping with COVID—an objective that is indisputably permissible under the Texas Disaster Act.

A Perfect Storm: Texas’s Polling Place Closures and COVID-19

Election Law Society · October 5, 2020 ·

By Caitlin Turner-Lafving

On September 7, Judge Jason Pulliam dismissed Mi Familia Vota v. Abbott after determining that the case presented a nonjusticiable political question. The plaintiffs’ complaint argued that Texas’s election laws impose an undue burden on the right to vote in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as applied to elections held during the COVID-19 pandemic: “Because Defendants have closed hundreds of polling places over the last eight years, voters will have to travel further to vote in person and vote in locations that service a higher number of voters, burdening the exercise of the franchise and the risk of person-to-person transmission of the virus.” Part of the relief sought was that the court order Governor Greg Abbott and Secretary of State Ruth Hughs to open additional polling places for the November election. [Read more…] about A Perfect Storm: Texas’s Polling Place Closures and COVID-19

Political Attire Bans: What Can You Wear When You Vote?

Election Law Society · November 21, 2018 ·

By: Samantha Becker

On June 14, 2018, the Supreme Court invalidated a Minnesota law that prohibited wearing any “political badge, political button, or other political insignia” inside a polling place on Election Day.” The ban was interpreted to cover a variety of attire, such as t-shirts, buttons, and hats, and versions of the law had been in place for over a century. In a 7-2 decision, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority, the Court ruled that the Minnesota political attire ban was unconstitutional.

Texas Follows the Trend of Eliminating Straight Ticket Voting

Election Law Society · November 13, 2017 ·

In June, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed House Bill 25 into law, which will eliminate the straight ticket voting option beginning in 2020. In the November 2016 elections, an estimated 63% of voters cast straight ticket ballots. The biggest selling point among supporters of the law revolves around the idea that voters will work to be more informed once it is in place, as the current straight ticket system allows voters to vote blindly for one party. A proposed amendment, requiring Department of Justice confirmation of the constitutionality of the measure prior to removal of straight ticket voting, did not pass with the bill. [Read more…] about Texas Follows the Trend of Eliminating Straight Ticket Voting