Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Suit challenges subjective system for rejecting Texas mail-in ballots

Suit challenges subjective system for rejecting Texas mail-in ballots

Mail-in ballots await counting in Modesto, Calif., during the 2018 general election.

Alex Edelman/Getty Images

Election officials in Texas, the nation's second largest state and one that's rapidly becoming politically competitive, are being sued by voters and advocacy groups who say the way they reject mail-in ballots is unconstitutional.

The lawsuit was filed Wednesday in federal court in San Antonio by two voters and groups who advocate for the disabled, older and disabled veterans, people in jail, and young voters on college campuses.

People in all of those groups tend to make extensive use of mail-in ballots, not only in Texas but across the country. And litigating to ease the rules for this type of voting is becoming an increasing popular tactic for those pushing for better access to the ballot box.


Last year the American Civil Liberties Union won suits to liberalize mail-in voting in California and New Hampshire, for example, and the group is now pursuing a similar effort in Georgia.

The Texas suit says 1,873 ballots were rejected in 2018 after local election officials made completely subjective assessments that the signatures on the envelopes weren't similar enough to the signatures on file.

Although that's a tiny amount compared with the nearly 8.4 million votes cast statewide last fall — and where Republican Ted Cruz's 3-point margin in the marquee Senate race was still 215,000 votes — those mail-in results could nonetheless have been dispositive in particularly close state legislative contests or even a couple of congressional races.

More such tight contests seem destined to be part of the near-term future of Texas politics. Though no Democrat has won statewide in a quarter-century, rapid urbanization and demographic shifts have already changed Texas's color on the national partisan map from deep red to pinkish purple. (The Hispanic population, which votes solidly Democratic, has surged 20 percent this decade alone, according to Census estimates, and their ranks will exceed the white population in the next few years.)

Democrats picked up two House seats last year and have a shot at several more next year, when some party leaders are proposing a heavy investment in winning the state's 36 electoral votes, the second biggest presidential prize.

One plaintiff in the new litigation, George Richardson, found out after the midterm was over that his write-in paperwork had been rejected. Richardson, a physician who says he who signs hundreds of prescriptions each year, confronted Brazos County election officials who said that a panel that "eyeballs" the signatures determined his did not match.

Often the decision to reject a write-in ballot is made by an Early Voting Ballot Board. State election law also allows for creation of Signature Verification Committees. But the law sets no qualifications for the people who serve on either group nor are there any standards for how to determine whether a signature matches.

The suit claims the mail-in process violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act.

It asks the court to invalidate the signature comparison procedure, or else mandate that voters with rejected signatures be notified so they can try again before Election Day.

The suit notes that signatures may vary for a variety of valid reasons including aging, illlness, injury, changes in eyesight — and even the types of pen used, the ink and the signing surface.

Almost 370,00 Texans voted by mail last year, about 3 percent of the votes cast.

The second plaintiff voter, Rosalie Weisfeld, sent in a write-in ballot for a McAllen municipal runoff in June. A letter she received 10 days after the election said the envelope was rejected because of a perceived signature mismatch – meaning her streak of voting in every election for at least 30 years was broken, according to the lawsuit.

The secretary of state's office has yet to respond to the lawsuit.

Read More

An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less
Once Again, Politicians Are Choosing Their Voters. It’s Time for Voters To Choose Back.
A pile of political buttons sitting on top of a table

Once Again, Politicians Are Choosing Their Voters. It’s Time for Voters To Choose Back.

Once again, politicians are trying to choose their voters to guarantee their own victories before the first ballot is cast.

In the latest round of redistricting wars, Texas Republicans are attempting a rare mid-decade redistricting to boost their advantage ahead of the 2026 midterms, and Democratic governors in California and New York are signaling they’re ready to “fight fire with fire” with their own partisan gerrymanders.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stolen Land, Stolen Votes: Native Americans Defending the VRA Protects Us All – and We Should Support Them

Wilson Deschine sits at the "be my voice" voter registration stand at the Navajo Nation annual rodeo, in Window Rock.

Getty Images, David Howells

Stolen Land, Stolen Votes: Native Americans Defending the VRA Protects Us All – and We Should Support Them

On July 24, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked a Circuit Court order in a far-reaching case that could affect the voting rights of all Americans. Native American tribes and individuals filed the case as part of their centuries-old fight for rights in their own land.

The underlying subject of the case confronts racial gerrymandering against America’s first inhabitants, where North Dakota’s 2021 redistricting reduced Native Americans’ chances of electing up to three state representatives to just one. The specific issue that the Supreme Court may consider, if it accepts hearing the case, is whether individuals and associations can seek justice under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). That is because the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, contradicting other courts, said that individuals do not have standing to bring Section 2 cases.

Keep ReadingShow less