Mail-In Ballot Law? What Mail-In Ballot Law? We Have Elections to Win!
The actions in the courtroom and in some of Texas' largest counties strongly suggest that the fight over illegally expanding the use of mail-in ballots is far from over.
June 21, 2020 at 06:26 PM
6 minute read
There's been a yearslong political fight over the issue of mail-in ballots in Texas. This struggle has taken on a new intensity in the wake of the coronavirus from China and the feeling that Texas' shift from red, if not to blue then at least purple, is one election cycle away.
Texas law on mail-in voting is simple enough. A voter qualifies to receive a by-mail ballot if they're 65 and older, have a disability—defined as a "sickness" or a "physical condition" that prevents them from appearing at the polling place without assistance or without injury to their health—will be out of the country on Election Day and early voting, or (rarely) are in jail and otherwise eligible to vote. That's it.
As campaigns and independent political committees seek every advantage at the ballot box, the use of mail-in ballots has ballooned from less than 1% of the votes in 2006 to more than 6% during the hotly contested U.S. Senate race between Sen. Ted Cruz and then-Rep. Beto O'Rourke. Campaigns love mail-in ballots as it's one nearly sure way of locking in votes for a candidate. But one odd thing happened during the 2018 cycle: the average age of those using mail-in ballots who were under 65 plunged by six years compared with 2016. In 2016, the average age of those voting by mail in the general election who were under 65 was 42 years old, exactly where it should be statistically near the midpoint between 18 and 64. But in 2018, the average age of those using mail-in ballots in Texas plunged to 36. While there were additional college-age voters who had their ballots mailed to them, the massive statistical shift suggests something else was happening: campaigns, organizations, or voters under age 65 were illegally checking the "disability" box to inappropriately receive a ballot at home.
That this happened in 2018 presaged 2020's preelection maneuvering where there have been multiple legal pushes as well as independent county efforts to overturn Texas election law—or at least undermine it—to allow anyone to receive a mail-in ballot under the novel theory that fear of being infected by COVID-19 constitutes a disability.
This fight has already generated decisions in the Texas Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit leading to Attorney General Ken Paxton issuing yet another guidance letter to Texas county judges and election officials. Paxton's letter warned county officials that voters cannot claim a disability based on fears of contracting a virus, contrary to claims made by elected officials and activist groups.
Following an adverse ruling from the Texas Supreme Court, Democrats and allied independent groups who had sued to expand voting by mail moved to drop their case in state courts, but continue to pursue action at the federal Fifth Circuit in spite of that court's ruling that blocked a lower court's order to overturn Texas law and allow any Texas voter to vote by mail.
So, why the huge fight over voting by mail in Texas? With five states conducting all elections by mail (Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah and Washington), what's the problem for Texas?
First of all, it took those states many years to transition to an all-mail election. Systems and safeguards had to be developed and capacity to verify voter lists and returned ballots had to be built up. For Texas to execute a wholesale revision of the way it conducts elections—without a change to election law and no allocated funds—is a recipe for disaster, with disputes over valid ballots and delayed election results (which, of course, may be the point in the first place).
Second, significantly increasing mail-in ballots in Texas would effectively bypass Texas' voter ID system.
Third, mailing ballots to all Texas voters exposes every voter to coercion by family members or ballot harvesters, an illegal practice well known in the Rio Grande Valley and in many urban precincts.
Fourth, because ballots will be at people's homes, ballot harvesters and campaign activists will have a far greater incentive to go door-to-door to literally collect votes, greatly increasing the chance of spreading the coronavirus as compared to voting early in person at the local polling place while maintaining social distancing protocols. Recent protests, sometimes accompanied by violence, add an interesting dimension, with many of the same officials calling for expanded mail-in balloting to protect voters from the virus also supporting densely packed crowds in the streets while also urging people to stay home and not go shopping or go to work—it's enough to give a person cognitive whiplash.
Fifth, all-mail elections can significantly increase the costs to run an election. Harris County, in anticipation of court rulings or expecting campaigns and independent groups to violate Texas election law by assuring nondisabled voters under age 65 to go ahead and check the "disability" box anyway, appropriated $12 million in additional funds for mail and printing of ballots and envelopes.
Mail-in ballots have a less secure chain of custody than does voting in person. This opens mail-in ballots to tremendous vulnerability. That's why the Texas Legislature, in the 2017 special session, moved to tighten the rules for how mail-in ballots may be handled by campaign workers.
But just because something has been made illegal, doesn't mean that election activists, with great power at stake, won't try to get around the law. The actions in the courtroom and in some of Texas' largest counties strongly suggest that the fight over illegally expanding the use of mail-in ballots is far from over.
Chuck DeVore is a vice president at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and was a California state assemblyman from 2004 to 2010 and is a veteran of dozens of election campaigns.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllUber Not Responsible for Turning Over Information on 'Dangerous Riders' to Competitor, Judge Finds
5 minute readInfant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
4 minute read'Something Really Bad Happened': J&J's Talc Bankruptcy Vote Under Attack
7 minute readMass. Judge Declares Mistrial in Talc Trial: 'Court Can't Accommodate This Case'
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-68
- 2Friday Newspaper
- 3Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 4Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 5NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250