We Found a Way to Increase Voter Turnout in Texas, but Texas Isn’t Interested(medium.com)
medium.com
We Found a Way to Increase Voter Turnout in Texas, but Texas Isn’t Interested
https://medium.com/s/story/texas-rejected-1000s-of-legally-submitted-voter-registration-forms-days-before-the-deadline-d4dbc7fa8504
51 comments
Not surprising insofar as we Texans require a little thing called verified identity to vote. I have heard that the majority of those registrations were invalidated because they could not be matched to real people living in Texas cities.
I dunno... It took me all of 15 minutes to get TX license and voter registration (too bad they do not share it across the board, and I am getting bombarded with all those fake "surveys" about yet another stupid California proposition XYZ). Granted, it was in a more civilized part of TX, but is there really an actual problem with registering to vote?
And did anyone look at TX code to check that submissions from a third party rather than the actual applicant are valid?
And did anyone look at TX code to check that submissions from a third party rather than the actual applicant are valid?
It's well-known that younger generations tend to put off or not do things if they can't do it online. Also, not everyone has access to the same resources you do. If you work 60 hours a week and don't have a car and it takes you an hour by 3 buses to get o the nearest library or DMV, it's going to be hard to get registered. Maybe you don't even have a drivers license and can't get one. Maybe you don't know your social security number and haven't been able to get access too it. There are any number of things that make this hard, just because you're privileged enough not to have to deal with them doesn't mean everyone else is.
But of course you don't have to go to DMV (or rather DPS, in Texas). If you can go to vote.org you surely can go to https://webservices.sos.state.tx.us/vrapp/index.asp and have it generate an official application form with your information that you sign and mail. Even when I was going to school, and working two jobs, I could drop off an envelope in a mailbox.
Somebody who finds this to be too much effort probably should not be voting in the first place.
Somebody who finds this to be too much effort probably should not be voting in the first place.
The point is that it's not about effort; it's about resources and the fact that you can't anticipate what is easy or not for other people. The easier we can make this the better. If you can't afford a printer, or are bedridden and can't get out easily, it's probably nice that someone will mail you a pre-filled out form. There are plenty of reasons why someone might have trouble with the existing mechanisms of getting registered, be it due to financial circumstance, physical ailments, or some other reason. It doesn't really matter why, it just matters that we make it easier for those less fortunate than us to register.
I'm all for making it easy. Why couldn't Vote.org just do what the official site does, but add the function of printing it out on their end and mailing the pre-filled form to the voter. Maybe even with a stamped envelope included?
There are other places that do that; they just took an alternative approach that also appeared to be legal under Texas law, which seems perfectly reasonable.
Well, obviously somebody in Texas disagrees, and from my layman's cursory reading of the law, I don't think Vote.org is unquestionably right. They might be, but I would not be claiming "voter suppression" right away.
I am all for voter turnout, but chalking it up to millenials being too lazy to register is pretty lame.
No one actually did this, you're focusing on the first sentence of a longer reply. It doesn't "chaulk it up" to that at all.
[deleted]
While it's nice that states have voter registration when you get or renew a drivers license (the motor voter bill passed at the federal level under Clinton, so, the state is required to offer it), not everyone will have a drivers license. Many consider requiring a drivers license or ID an effective poll tax, since it costs money to maintain, and also can be very difficult to obtain for those without a permanent residence.
"And did anyone look at TX code to check that submissions from a third party rather than the actual applicant are valid?"
Of course. There's a whole system in place for it. Anyone meeting a few basic requirements can become a volunteer deputy registrar (https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/pamphlets/deputy.shtml). It is not uncommon or new. It's been going on for decades.
"And did anyone look at TX code to check that submissions from a third party rather than the actual applicant are valid?"
Of course. There's a whole system in place for it. Anyone meeting a few basic requirements can become a volunteer deputy registrar (https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/pamphlets/deputy.shtml). It is not uncommon or new. It's been going on for decades.
Of course you could just register to vote by itself. So while I would not put some nefarious motives past people who elect Ted Cruz, this particular instance seems less about voter suppression, and more about millenials wailing that they have to lift their behinds from their comfy chairs .
And to be more cynical about it, if someone can't be bothered to mail the application (that you can generate on the same TX Secretary of State site just as well as on Vote.org) then i am not sure I want them voting.
I would assume that Vote.org also is a person (which the deputy registrar statute seems to require) and they have been appointed such for every county in Texas, as it also seems to require.
And to be more cynical about it, if someone can't be bothered to mail the application (that you can generate on the same TX Secretary of State site just as well as on Vote.org) then i am not sure I want them voting.
I would assume that Vote.org also is a person (which the deputy registrar statute seems to require) and they have been appointed such for every county in Texas, as it also seems to require.
"Of course you could just register to vote by itself."
Though without an ID, you still can't vote in Texas. I don't believe voter suppression (and that's what all of this is) or gerrymandering is compatible with a functioning democracy. The harder it is to register and to vote, and the less your vote counts because of systemic manipulations, the fewer people will vote...not for lack of desire or right to vote. It always costs time to vote, and some folks don't have a lot of time to spare, due to work, or because they are caregivers for children or older family members, or because they have limited transportation options, etc., and in the end they often feel their vote won't count for anything (and, in Texas, they'd historically be right...we have among the most gerrymandering districts in the country, and we have among the strictest and most onerous voting laws).
"I would assume that Vote.org also is a person (which the deputy registrar statute seems to require) and they have been appointed such for every county in Texas, as it also seems to require."
Did you read the article, even a little bit? They discuss the fact that legal counsel was involved from the beginning of the process, discussions were had with the relevant counties, etc. They did everything by the book. The state just changed the rules afterward.
Though without an ID, you still can't vote in Texas. I don't believe voter suppression (and that's what all of this is) or gerrymandering is compatible with a functioning democracy. The harder it is to register and to vote, and the less your vote counts because of systemic manipulations, the fewer people will vote...not for lack of desire or right to vote. It always costs time to vote, and some folks don't have a lot of time to spare, due to work, or because they are caregivers for children or older family members, or because they have limited transportation options, etc., and in the end they often feel their vote won't count for anything (and, in Texas, they'd historically be right...we have among the most gerrymandering districts in the country, and we have among the strictest and most onerous voting laws).
"I would assume that Vote.org also is a person (which the deputy registrar statute seems to require) and they have been appointed such for every county in Texas, as it also seems to require."
Did you read the article, even a little bit? They discuss the fact that legal counsel was involved from the beginning of the process, discussions were had with the relevant counties, etc. They did everything by the book. The state just changed the rules afterward.
I read the law that you linked, and with all the IANAL disclaimers, deputy registrar does not apply to Vote.org.
Lawyers might have to fight it out, but the SOS position seems to have at least some merit -- whatever Vote will send to the counties is not exactly the original signature, as required. And with filling out the same form on SOS website and then signing/mailing it doesn't exactly take some critical amount of extra effort compared to filling out exact same information (and then sending your signature to... somebody) on Vote.org. I'm still not convinced that this is what voter suppression looks like.
As for voting without ID I can't even begin to comprehend how verifying that a person voting is eligible to vote is "voter suppression". And with TX allowing you to use even an expired ID to vote, this seems to be more about TX voting "wrong" than anything substantial.
Now, I think CA's "permanent absentee voter" (which is what I had there) is a convenient thing, and if anything voting should be done on a non-working day, but this is hardly something one state can be faulted for.
Lawyers might have to fight it out, but the SOS position seems to have at least some merit -- whatever Vote will send to the counties is not exactly the original signature, as required. And with filling out the same form on SOS website and then signing/mailing it doesn't exactly take some critical amount of extra effort compared to filling out exact same information (and then sending your signature to... somebody) on Vote.org. I'm still not convinced that this is what voter suppression looks like.
As for voting without ID I can't even begin to comprehend how verifying that a person voting is eligible to vote is "voter suppression". And with TX allowing you to use even an expired ID to vote, this seems to be more about TX voting "wrong" than anything substantial.
Now, I think CA's "permanent absentee voter" (which is what I had there) is a convenient thing, and if anything voting should be done on a non-working day, but this is hardly something one state can be faulted for.
Presidents can wet sign bills into laws using an autopen[1]. Would it be possible to sign a form on your phone and have an autopen wet sign the form?
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/28/us/politics/28sign.html
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/28/us/politics/28sign.html
Sounds like they found a corrupt official. Is anyone planning a lawsuit? If not I doubt a medium post is going to do the trick.
Seems a classic case of idealistic technologists running into squishy and yes, sometimes corrupt human systems they aren't prepared for.
Not excusing the behavior of the official, but I really hope this goes further than an angry blog post.
Seems a classic case of idealistic technologists running into squishy and yes, sometimes corrupt human systems they aren't prepared for.
Not excusing the behavior of the official, but I really hope this goes further than an angry blog post.
The articles addresses this:
> Vote.org strongly disagrees with the Secretary of State and is exploring all avenues of recourse. We suggest that the Secretary of State implement Online Voter Registration, a common sense solution to increase voter registration rates while reducing costs. There are no downsides to online voter registration — unless, of course, your goal is to suppress voter turnout. We hope that this isn’t the case, and look forward to Texas joining the 38 other states that have taken steps to secure and modernize their voter registration solutions. In the meantime, we will do everything in our power to increase voter turnout in Texas — including pursuing legal action, should it come to that.
> Vote.org strongly disagrees with the Secretary of State and is exploring all avenues of recourse. We suggest that the Secretary of State implement Online Voter Registration, a common sense solution to increase voter registration rates while reducing costs. There are no downsides to online voter registration — unless, of course, your goal is to suppress voter turnout. We hope that this isn’t the case, and look forward to Texas joining the 38 other states that have taken steps to secure and modernize their voter registration solutions. In the meantime, we will do everything in our power to increase voter turnout in Texas — including pursuing legal action, should it come to that.
Disappointing. Democracy doesn't work if every voter doesn't get an opportunity to vote. I guess the people who specialise in suppressing turnout don't care.
The reluctance to let people register to vote is understandable, if your allegiance is to your party before your country. I suppose they rationalise it by convincing themselves that what's best for the country is for their party to be elected, rather than a free and fair election. Or maybe they tell themselves "I'm sure the other side uses similar tactics". Or maybe they just don't care.
The reluctance to let people register to vote is understandable, if your allegiance is to your party before your country. I suppose they rationalise it by convincing themselves that what's best for the country is for their party to be elected, rather than a free and fair election. Or maybe they tell themselves "I'm sure the other side uses similar tactics". Or maybe they just don't care.
Democracy doesn't work even when people get an opportunity to vote (unless the vote is 2-options, one round): See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theore...
But it works even worse if voters don't get to vote. True.
But it works even worse if voters don't get to vote. True.
For readers who may encounter the Arrow's Impossibility Theorem for the first time, its conclusion is shockingly true but also doesn't prescribe doom. There are reasonable alternative voting systems that don't run into the same "Impossibility" problem https://ncase.me/ballot/
Sure, they don't run up against /Arrow's/ impossibility theorem, but Gibbard's 1978 theorem shows that "Any straightforward game form (deterministic or not) is a probability mixture of game forms each of which is either unilateral or duple."
(For an explanation of what that means, see : https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/14245 )
Edit: though, if I had to recommend one, I'd probably either recommend "ranked pairs" or something exotic with a substantial deal of randomness.
Or, really, maybe I'd advocate that the primaries use ranked pairs, and that the general use FPTP (or something very similar) because it is easier to understand the mechanism, so easier for people to trust it / keep results seen as legitimate, and because parties narrow down the options to 2 for the most part anyway, and all the usual systems are the same once it gets down to two candidates (in random ballot voting, it is still different though)
(For an explanation of what that means, see : https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/14245 )
Edit: though, if I had to recommend one, I'd probably either recommend "ranked pairs" or something exotic with a substantial deal of randomness.
Or, really, maybe I'd advocate that the primaries use ranked pairs, and that the general use FPTP (or something very similar) because it is easier to understand the mechanism, so easier for people to trust it / keep results seen as legitimate, and because parties narrow down the options to 2 for the most part anyway, and all the usual systems are the same once it gets down to two candidates (in random ballot voting, it is still different though)
> The reluctance to let people register to vote is understandable, if your allegiance is to your party before your country.
I think many concerned believe that making sure their party gets elected - no matter how - is allegiance to their country. It's internally consistent if you genuinely believe that the other party seeks to destroy your country, and therefore is to be opposed by all available means.
I think many concerned believe that making sure their party gets elected - no matter how - is allegiance to their country. It's internally consistent if you genuinely believe that the other party seeks to destroy your country, and therefore is to be opposed by all available means.
It becomes even more problematic when one of the political parties view compromise as a part of its ideology and the other doesn't. One side is politely fighting and the other is waging a guerilla war.
doesn't get an opportunity to vote
[deleted]
Sending a photo of your signature so it can be transposed onto a document by a third party without power of attorney doesn’t sound like a great idea to me. Political motivations aside, I think I agree with Texas. This is a bad idea.
Is it all that different from DocuSign's entire business model? I'm curious if the state of Texas recognizes agreements signed via DocuSign.
You can use DocuSign for agreements and the state will recognize them. There are only a handful of exceptions where e-sign is not allowed in Texas.
In addition to business documents, I have used DocuSign to sign county and state government documents in Texas.
In addition to business documents, I have used DocuSign to sign county and state government documents in Texas.
Genuine question: with online voter registration, where is the check for voter eligibility? Actually, when is this supposed to happen in any voter registration? When I registered and voted in CA in 2016, I never had to present any form of ID. Is this the intended system?
In California, the person registering is the check,
since they are completing the form under penalty
of perjury. See Section 2111 here:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xh...
In the days before high mobility in the US, there tended to be an assumption that the clerk or registrar accepting the completed registration forms would be likely to know the registrant personally, so the laws tended to not expect any form of documentation beyond a completed form and a signature. source: former registrar of voters
With the recent ginned-up moral panic over supposed voting fraud, calls for various forms of documentation now abound. My opinion is that any states that wish to require voters to have ID at the polls should be willing to provide such ID to the voters for free. To require the voter to spend money to be able to vote is effectively a poll tax, which were prohibited by the 24th amendment.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xh...
In the days before high mobility in the US, there tended to be an assumption that the clerk or registrar accepting the completed registration forms would be likely to know the registrant personally, so the laws tended to not expect any form of documentation beyond a completed form and a signature. source: former registrar of voters
With the recent ginned-up moral panic over supposed voting fraud, calls for various forms of documentation now abound. My opinion is that any states that wish to require voters to have ID at the polls should be willing to provide such ID to the voters for free. To require the voter to spend money to be able to vote is effectively a poll tax, which were prohibited by the 24th amendment.
In Texas, ID is required at the polling place at time of voting. This is regarded by some as unconstitutional (akin to a poll tax, because maintaining ID costs money), but the current government has upheld it as legal, after some back and forth in lower courts.
You can verify your own registration status in Texas (e.g., if you registered online and want to see if it's valid for the upcoming election) here: https://teamrv-mvp.sos.texas.gov/MVP/mvp.do
I think if I'd registered that way, even in a county like Travis, I'd go ahead and register again the hard way. The Beto/Cruz race is going to be close enough to make every vote count, I think (in a state where Democrats never win state-wide races), and so it's gonna get ugly if the Cruz camp can claim "illegal" voters (they're going to claim illegal voters, regardless, because it's part of the Republican playbook now, but if they have some they can throw out, even better).
You can verify your own registration status in Texas (e.g., if you registered online and want to see if it's valid for the upcoming election) here: https://teamrv-mvp.sos.texas.gov/MVP/mvp.do
I think if I'd registered that way, even in a county like Travis, I'd go ahead and register again the hard way. The Beto/Cruz race is going to be close enough to make every vote count, I think (in a state where Democrats never win state-wide races), and so it's gonna get ugly if the Cruz camp can claim "illegal" voters (they're going to claim illegal voters, regardless, because it's part of the Republican playbook now, but if they have some they can throw out, even better).
> where is the check for voter eligibility?
Two things. In California they either mail you a ballot to your address. Or you have to present as a warm body at your polling place.
Beyond that California's politicians unlike Republican controlled states have no interest in preventing people from voting. For instance San Francisco recently began registering non-citizens to vote for the city's school board.
Two things. In California they either mail you a ballot to your address. Or you have to present as a warm body at your polling place.
Beyond that California's politicians unlike Republican controlled states have no interest in preventing people from voting. For instance San Francisco recently began registering non-citizens to vote for the city's school board.
Of course. Texas wants to prevent poor and marginally attached people from voting because they tend to vote democratic, whereas California wants them to vote, because they tend to vote democratic.
You generally don't get to become a politician and have principles.
You generally don't get to become a politician and have principles.
> You generally don't get to become a politician and have principles.
This is really only true in states run by Republicans because conservatives have low expectations. And don't enforce them. That gives sociopathic politicians a large advantage.
This is really only true in states run by Republicans because conservatives have low expectations. And don't enforce them. That gives sociopathic politicians a large advantage.
> Beyond that California's politicians unlike Republican controlled states have no interest in preventing people from voting.
It's not like democrats are not above voter suppression. Did we forget what happened to sanders voters in brooklyn not too long ago?
> For instance San Francisco recently began registering non-citizens to vote for the city's school board.
I wouldn't hold SF as an example of good in anything - the wealth disparity, poor housing, it's dirty, corrupt, etc. And giving non-citizens voting rights is absurd. No sane entity would do such a thing. But SF is "special".
It's not like democrats are not above voter suppression. Did we forget what happened to sanders voters in brooklyn not too long ago?
> For instance San Francisco recently began registering non-citizens to vote for the city's school board.
I wouldn't hold SF as an example of good in anything - the wealth disparity, poor housing, it's dirty, corrupt, etc. And giving non-citizens voting rights is absurd. No sane entity would do such a thing. But SF is "special".
> It's not like democrats are not above voter suppression.
You're attempting to deflect the debate here. So let me redirect it back.
California handled redistricting via the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, which is set up to create competitive districts. And further California's jungle primary also works against politicians having safe seat. California also makes it trivially easy to register to vote and has things like the motor voter program. And California also allows mail in ballots and provides generally adequate polling polices.
So I think here your argument that Democrats are as corrupt and amoral as Republicans fails by example.
> wealth disparity
Most wealthy cities deal with poor people by driving them out via policing, taxes and zoning enforcement. How is that better than San Francisco's attempts to tolerate it?
> And giving non-citizens voting rights is absurd
You haven't made an argument here.
You're attempting to deflect the debate here. So let me redirect it back.
California handled redistricting via the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, which is set up to create competitive districts. And further California's jungle primary also works against politicians having safe seat. California also makes it trivially easy to register to vote and has things like the motor voter program. And California also allows mail in ballots and provides generally adequate polling polices.
So I think here your argument that Democrats are as corrupt and amoral as Republicans fails by example.
> wealth disparity
Most wealthy cities deal with poor people by driving them out via policing, taxes and zoning enforcement. How is that better than San Francisco's attempts to tolerate it?
> And giving non-citizens voting rights is absurd
You haven't made an argument here.
>You're attempting to deflect the debate here. So let me redirect it back.
Providing a direct example debunking your claim isn't deflecting. You claimed republicans suppressed votes. I showed you that democrats do that same. Not to mention colluding with media but that's another story.
> Most wealthy cities deal with poor people by driving them out via policing, taxes and zoning enforcement. How is that better than San Francisco's attempts to tolerate it?
Poor people have been displaced already. Not just the poor, the middle class too.
> You haven't made an argument here.
Sure I did. It's an argument of definition. No sane entity allows non-citizens to vote. It defeats the purpose of voting. It defeats the purpose of citizenship. But you are free to believe whatever you want.
Providing a direct example debunking your claim isn't deflecting. You claimed republicans suppressed votes. I showed you that democrats do that same. Not to mention colluding with media but that's another story.
> Most wealthy cities deal with poor people by driving them out via policing, taxes and zoning enforcement. How is that better than San Francisco's attempts to tolerate it?
Poor people have been displaced already. Not just the poor, the middle class too.
> You haven't made an argument here.
Sure I did. It's an argument of definition. No sane entity allows non-citizens to vote. It defeats the purpose of voting. It defeats the purpose of citizenship. But you are free to believe whatever you want.
> No sane entity allows non-citizens to vote.
You have provided no argument why letting resident aliens to vote on matters that effect them is bad. You just said it's bad. Saying something is bad without being able to say why is the mark of someone just parroting propaganda.
You have provided no argument why letting resident aliens to vote on matters that effect them is bad. You just said it's bad. Saying something is bad without being able to say why is the mark of someone just parroting propaganda.
anon49124(3)
More interesting are the county responses:
Dallas County said it would follow the directive of the state and notify affected senders that they need to mail in a signature (without needing to resubmit entirely), even though they had already processed ~800 of the registrations as valid.
Travis County (Austin) responded to the Secretary of State that no– these are valid registrations, and counted them as such.
The bulk (>50%) of the registrations were in Austin, IIRC. Both of these counties are liberal strongholds in Texas. If Beto manages to win against Cruz by a margin of a couple thousand votes, I imagine the Cruz campaign will make this a much bigger issue than it is (and, imo, deservedly gain the title of trying to win by voter suppression).
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2018-elections/2018/10/04/tr...
Dallas County said it would follow the directive of the state and notify affected senders that they need to mail in a signature (without needing to resubmit entirely), even though they had already processed ~800 of the registrations as valid.
Travis County (Austin) responded to the Secretary of State that no– these are valid registrations, and counted them as such.
The bulk (>50%) of the registrations were in Austin, IIRC. Both of these counties are liberal strongholds in Texas. If Beto manages to win against Cruz by a margin of a couple thousand votes, I imagine the Cruz campaign will make this a much bigger issue than it is (and, imo, deservedly gain the title of trying to win by voter suppression).
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2018-elections/2018/10/04/tr...
It could be an issue, though. By doing a partial roll-out, you're naturally making it easier for some groups to register. This could be partisan, and it could be innocent. But it might be best to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
True (and it should be obeyed as written)... but it's also hard to imagine the purpose behind mailing. The fax is already a copy!
Every other circumstance where I've had to mail something in addition to faxing/e-mailing it's always been because the original signature was required. Just using common sense, it wouldn't be surprising if the wording is a mistake where "original" was intended. But hey, unless they fix it, they've got to obey it, right?