Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

What happens when two Texas counties forget to put a race on the ballot

Steven Denny (left) and Larry Doss

Steven Denny (left) is leading Larry Doss by 319 votes in a Texas judicial race, but the state needs to hold a do-over.

Facebook

At a time when confidence in elections is sagging, a particularly odd snafu in Texas this month won't help.

A virtually tied election for a spot on a regional appeals court will have to be conducted again — because officials in two counties under the court's jurisdiction did not put the contest on the ballot.

The election administrators in Cochran and Collingsworth counties, in the rural panhandle of north Texas, both filed papers this week admitting to a shared oversight and insisting they did not intentionally exclude the race from a long roster of federal and state contests March 3.


The new election, which could cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars, will likely be conducted May 26. And it's a virtual certainty far fewer people will turn out than this month, because it will be the only item on the ballot the day after Memorial Day.

It is a special election primary between two Republicans for one of four seats on the 7th Court of Appeals, based in Amarillo, which reconsiders civil and criminal decisions from 46 mostly sparsely populated and deeply conservative counties. The primary amounts to the election because no Democrat is running.

Without the two counties, unofficial results show that criminal defense lawyer Steven Denny leading by 319 votes — out of nearly 92,000 cast — over Larry Doss, who was chosen to temporarily fill a vacancy by GOP Gov. Gregg Abbott.

Records show that about a quarter of the registered Republicans in the two counties, or 890 people, voted in the Super Tuesday primary.


Read More

Fueling the Future: The Debate Over California’s Gas Tax and Transportation Funding
person in red shirt wearing silver bracelet holding red and black metal tool
Photo by Wassim Chouak on Unsplash

Fueling the Future: The Debate Over California’s Gas Tax and Transportation Funding

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

Keep ReadingShow less
A person looking at social media app icons on a phone

Gen Z is quietly leaving social media as algorithmic feeds, infinite scroll, and addictive platform design fuel anxiety, isolation, and mental health struggles.

Matt Cardy/Getty Images

Gen Z Begs Legislators: Make Social Media Social Again

Lately, it seems like each time I reach out to an old acquaintance through social media, I’m met with a page that reads, “This account doesn’t exist anymore.”

Many Gen-Z’ers are quietly quitting the platforms we grew up on.

Keep ReadingShow less
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less