Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Texas puts its new elections law to the test

Opinion

Texas primary

Voters arrive at a community center in Houston to cast early ballots in the Texas primary.

Brandon Bell/Getty Images

Levine is an elections integrity fellow at the Alliance for Securing Democracy, which develops strategies to deter and defend against autocratic efforts to interfere in democratic institutions.

Fueled by false conspiracy theories about a stolen presidential election, at least 19 states passed measures in 2021 that make it unnecessarily harder to cast, count and/or certify votes. A Texas law known as SB 1 may be the worst of the lot, and the state’s March 1 primary elections could provide the first hints of how such efforts will impact the conduct of the 2022 midterm elections and beyond. With voting now upon us, concerns abound, but it’s not too late to begin mitigating some of them.


First, the challenges. Thanks to SB 1, Texas applications for mail ballots must now include either a driver’s license number or the last four digits of a voter’s Social Security number, depending on which one the voter provided when they registered to vote. Because many voters don’t recall which number they provided at registration, and local election officials don’t have reliable ways to cross-reference this information, thousands of applications across the state are now being rejected. More recently, thousands of voters who returned completed mail ballots have also had them rejected by local officials, due to similar problems with the ID requirements in SB 1. Either of these issues could impact whether some voters are successfully able to vote in the primary.

SB 1 has also banned several procedures that maintained the security of the voting process while making it more accessible in 2020, including drive-thru voting, 24-hour voting and the distribution of mail-in ballot applications. These prohibitions will undoubtedly lead to more in-person voting on Election Day, which makes it more likely that an attack against or failure in a jurisdiction’s election infrastructure on March 1 could disenfranchise larger numbers of voters.

Texas also appears to be taking steps that undermine confidence in a system that has worked well. Although the Texas secretary of state who oversaw the 2020 election declared it “ smooth and secure,” Texas has taken a number of steps that seem at odds with this declaration. For example, SB 1 empowers partisan poll watchers to roam nearly anywhere in the polling place, with little recourse for malfeasance. This could lead to more interference in voting, including the intimidation of voters and election workers.

Despite being a bill ostensibly aimed at improving the security of Texas elections, SB 1 missed the opportunity to do just that. It failed to push for the quick replacement of paperless voting systems and did not include robust requirements for a post-election audit — two of the well-established ways to boost election security.

Over 92 percent of votes in the 2020 presidential election were cast on a paper ballot, which proved to be critical in the days following the election, when falsehoods about hacked voting machines began to spread among the public. States with paper-based systems can rebut baseless assertions of this kind by hand counting portions of the ballots to verify the accuracy of their machine-counted results. But jurisdictions whose systems produce no independently auditable record can’t as easily disprove such claims. According to Verified Voting, about 12 percent of Texas’ registered voters live in jurisdictions using paperless voting systems for all voters.

Notwithstanding the shortcomings of Texas’ elections system, those participating in the March primary should not allow pessimism to turn into resignation or despair. It’s important that Texas voters vote (early, if possible), whether in-person or by mail. Because SB 1 made several changes to when and where many Texans can cast a ballot, they should reach out to their local election officials to confirm their options and come up with a plan to vote.

Texans should also try to serve as poll workers because SB 1 is likely to increase the number of votes cast in person at Election Day polling places. Persons with disabilities or language-access issues could face more difficulty getting assistance than before because SB 1 established potential criminal penalties for those who assist voters. Additionally, some voters could be more likely to find themselves subject to harassment by partisan poll watchers. It’s critical that the individuals staffing polling places have the customer service skills to work with poll watchers while ensuring a smooth and secure experience for these voters.

Finally, it’s important that Texans, in concert with local election officials and other trusted sources, continue to amplify accurate information about the primary while combating false information. A lot of changes have been made to Texas elections since 2020; it’s imperative that Texas voters be aware of them so that they can make informed decisions about when and how to cast their ballot.

Texas’ 2022 election may not be as smooth as its 2020 presidential contest, but that shouldn’t prevent election officials and voters from taking steps to ensure that the election is safe and secure.

Read More

ICE Policy Challenged in Court for Blocking Congressional Oversight of Detention Centers

Federal agents guard outside of a federal building and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center in downtown Los Angeles as demonstrations continue after a series of immigration raids began last Friday on June 13, 2025, in Los Angeles, California.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

ICE Policy Challenged in Court for Blocking Congressional Oversight of Detention Centers

In a constitutional democracy, congressional oversight is not a courtesy—it is a cornerstone of the separation of powers enshrined in our founding documents.

Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD) has filed an amicus brief in Neguse v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, arguing that ICE’s policy restricting unannounced visits by members of Congress “directly violates federal law.” Twelve lawmakers brought this suit to challenge ICE’s new requirement that elected officials provide seven days’ notice before visiting detention facilities—an edict that undermines transparency and shields executive agencies from scrutiny.

Keep ReadingShow less
How Billionaires Are Rewriting History and Democracy
Getty Images, SvetaZi

How Billionaires Are Rewriting History and Democracy

In the Gilded Age of the millionaire, wealth signified ownership. The titans of old built railroads, monopolized oil, and bought their indulgences in yachts, mansions, and eventually, sports teams. A franchise was the crown jewel: a visible, glamorous token of success. But that era is over. Today’s billionaires, those who tower, not with millions but with unimaginable billions, find sports teams and other baubles beneath them. For this new aristocracy, the true prize is authorship of History (with a capital “H”) itself.

Once you pass a certain threshold of wealth, it seems, mere possessions no longer thrill. At the billionaire’s scale, you wake up in the morning searching for something grand enough to justify your own existence, something commensurate with your supposed singularly historical importance. To buy a team or build another mansion is routine, played, trite. To reshape the very framework of society—now that is a worthy stimulus. That is the game. And increasingly, billionaires are playing it.

Keep ReadingShow less
an illustration of pople walking with brief cases from a UFO.

Echoing Serling’s To Serve Man, Edward Saltzberg reveals how modern authoritarianism uses language, fear, and media control to erode democracy from within.

To Serve Man—2025 Edition

In March 1962, Rod Serling introduced a Twilight Zone episode that feels prophetic today. "To Serve Man" begins with nine-foot aliens landing at the United Nations, promising to end war and famine. They offer boundless energy and peace. Unlike the menacing invaders of 1950s sci-fi, these Kanamits present themselves as benefactors with serene expressions and soothing words.

The promises appear real. Wars cease. Deserts bloom into gardens. Crop yields soar. People line up eagerly at the Kanamits' embassy to volunteer for trips to the aliens' paradise planet—a world without hunger, conflict, or want.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person in a military uniform holding a gavel.

As the Trump administration redefines “Warrior Ethos,” U.S. military leaders face a crucial test: defend democracy or follow unlawful orders.

Getty Images, Liudmila Chernetska

Warrior Ethos or Rule of Law? The Military’s Defining Moment

Does Secretary Hegseth’s extraordinary summoning of hundreds of U.S. command generals and admirals to a Sept. 30 meeting and the repugnant reinstatement of Medals of Honor to 20 participants in the infamous 1890 Wounded Knee Massacre—in which 300 Lakota Sioux men, women, and children were killed—foreshadow the imposition of a twisted approach to U.S. “Warrior Ethos”? Should military leaders accept an ethos that ignores the rule of law?

Active duty and retired officers must trumpet a resounding: NO, that is not acceptable. And, we civilians must realize the stakes and join them.

Keep ReadingShow less