Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

Keep ReadingShow less
People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stickers with the words "I Voted Today."

Virginia is on its way to be the 19th jurisdiction to adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, bringing the U.S. closer to electing presidents by the national popular vote.

Getty Images, EyeWolf

Virginia On The Path to Join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

NPVIC is an agreement among U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the overall popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is considered a pragmatic, voluntary state-based initiative because it aims to ensure the winner of the national popular vote wins the presidency without requiring a constitutional amendment, operating instead within the existing Electoral College framework by utilizing states' constitutional authority to appoint electors. If enough states join the NPVIC to reach a total of 270 electoral votes, the United States will effectively shift from a winner-take-all (WTA) regime to a national popular vote system for electing the President.

With Virginia's adoption, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will be adopted by eighteen states and the District of Columbia, collectively holding 222 electoral votes. The compact requires 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 total) to take effect. It currently needs forty-eight more electoral votes to become active.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less