Texas Voting Rights Report

7/27/2019 Texas Voting Rights Report

1/69

Democracy in Texas?

Texas' Faulty Voter

Registration Procedures

December 2013

AHUMAN RIGHTS REPORT FROM THE TEXAS CIVIL RIGHTS PROJECT


2/69

CREDITS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are particularly indebted to Emily Pendleton who gave her time, effort, and skill,

helping to research, oversee, and coordinate this report.

This report also could not have been possible without the hard work and dedication ofmany TCRP volunteers and staff. We give each and all credit and thanks for their efforts:

Gus Bunin Whitney Knox Maisie KaiserScott Jameson Lane Kazmierski Patricia Kelly

Cooper Shear Amanda Hill David ChincanchanMichael Kurban

Also, a special thanks goes out to other contributors with knowledge of matters in this

report for their time and expertise, without which we could not have completed this report.

Alex Canepa Janet Monteros Jacklyn Williams

Bruce Elfant Dianne Wheeler Dee Lopez

TEXAS CIVIL RIGHTS PROJECTMichael Tigar Human Rights Center

1405 Montopolis DriveAustin, TX 78741

Board of Directors

Pablo Almagur, Roxann Chargois, Molly Gochman, Renato Ramirez,Leona Diener, Carlos Crdenas, Chuck Herring, and Tom Gutting

www.texascivilrightsproject.org

(512) 474-5073 (phone) * (512) 474-0726 (fax)

Texas Civil Right Project, 2013

All Right Reserved


3/69

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction: Voting Registration ComplaintsJust the Tip of the Iceberg.. ............. 1

II. Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 2

III.

Texas Long and Turbulent History of Racial Disenfranchisement ............................ 7

A. Texas History .................................................................................................... 7

B. The Voting Rights Act. ..................................................................................... 13

C. The Shelby Countyv. HolderDecision ............................................................... 17

IV. Current Voter Registration Practices are Convoluted and Ineffective ...................... 20

The Department of Public Safety Registration .................................................... 21

V. High School Administrators Disregard Responsibility to Register Students.............. 23

School District Survey Response Map ................................................................ 27

VI. League of Women Voters: Dissatisfied with Cooperation from High Schools .......... 28

VII. Elections Director: Keith Ingram ............................................................................. 31

A. Summary of Interview........................................................................................ 31

B. Follow-Up to Ingram Interview .......................................................................... 33

VIII. Public Agencies Fail Their Duty to Provide Registration Assistance to Patrons ........ 35

A. PublicAgenciesHaveDutytoProvideVoterRegistrationAssistance

toPatrons ........................................................................................................... 35

B. The Texas Election Code Mandates Specific Voter Registration

Services by Designated Agencies ....................................................................... 35

C. Additional Duties for DPS and Marriage License Offices ................................... 36

D. Voter Registration Agencies Fail to Adhere to Duties Mandated

by the Texas Election Code ................................................................................ 37

E. The Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) ...................................... 37

F. The Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS) and

the Department of State Health Services (DSHS) .............................................. 37

G. The Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services (DARS) .................... 38

H. The Department of Public Safety (DPS) ............................................................. 38

I. Marriage License Offices and Public Libraries ................................................... 39

J. Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 39

IX. Volunteer Deputy Registrars: Lacking in Uniformity and Haphazard ....................... 41


4/69

ii

A. Methodology ...................................................................................................... 43

B. Maps .................................................................................................................. 44

C. Deputy Registrar Timeline ................................................................................. 45

X. Appendix ................................................................................................................ 48

A. Election Code Excerpts ...................................................................................... 49

B. Survey Instruments for High School Compliance ............................................... 55

C. Ingram Interview Transcription .......................................................................... 59

XI. Bibliography ............................................................................................................ 64


5/69

1

I. INTRODUCTION:

This human rights report has its origins in the November 2012 national election.

Immediately after that election, the Texas Civil Rights Project began to receive anecdotal reports

form Bexar and Harris Counties that people who had registered to vote were actually not able to

cast their ballots because their names did not appear on the voter lists.

The more we investigated these complaints, the more it became clear that this was a

result of the hodge-podge way with which voter registration cards are processed by state and

local agencies and within agencies. Peoples registration certificates simply sit on desks for long

periods of time before finally wending their way to the local county clerks for official entry onto

the electoral list.The same appeared to happen in high schools, which must offer the opportunity for

students, who will be eligible for the next election, to register to vote. Often this doesnt happen,

and even when it does, these enrollment forms somehow never even make it to the county voter

registrar or clerk.

These two issues alerted us to the fact that the voter registration procedures around Texas

might be broken and in need of repair. We therefore decided to embark upon an analysis of the

process around Texas, and found that, indeed, it is in disarray with no clear uniformity and no

clear direction from the Texas Secretary of State, who serves in an election oversight role. In

fact, the Secretarys Elections Division director admitted in an interview that he wasnt even sure

what his job was, other than to follow the law. He certainly did not reflect the d ynamic

leadership of earlier predecessors in office.

Given that the legislature has made it more difficult to vote in recent years, reversing an

earlier trend of facilitating voting, it is critical that people be able to register to vote promptly and

properly.

To that end, then, this report presents an overview of problematic voter registration areas

and suggests a series of recommendations to correct the situation.


6/69

2

II. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING VOTING IN TEXAS:

In reviewing the policies and procedures under the Texas Election Code and by

interviewing voter registrars and high school administrations, representatives of voter

registration agencies, as well as Keith Ingram, the Elections Division Director for the Texas

Secretary of State, several areas for substantial improvement are evident.

To address those issues, TCRP makes the following recommendations.

1. Voter Registration Agencies Should Employ Best Practices in Registering Voters

by Using or Replicating DPS Electronic Monitoring System

Voter registration agencies like the Department of Public Safety are critical in registering

voters. It is important that these agencies accurately and competently perform their function of

registering voters. In recent years, DPS has initiated an electronic registration system that

simplifies the registration process. When applying for licenses or changing personal information

on file, the applicants information is entered directly into a computer database. The system

allows registrant information to be sent to the Secretary of States office electronically,

eliminating delay and errors associated with mailing paper registration forms and manually

entering information onto a database. The system also reduces costs by minimizing data entry

personnel and mailing expenses.

This system should be utilized by all voter registration agencies. Availability of such a

system on a wide-scale basis would result in increased cost savings as well as more accurate and

efficient conveyance of voter registration information.

2. The Texas Education Agency Also Must Take Responsibility in Holding High

Schools to Their Duties Under Section 13 of the Texas Election Code and

Facilitate Teacher Deputization

The Texas Education Agency (TEA) must participate in ensuring high schools meet their

duty under Section 13 of the Election Code. High school officials tend to be unaware of their

obligation to administer voter registration cards to eligible seniors twice a school year.

To better implement Section 13 of the Election Code, TEA should enact and enforce a

policy that allows teachers of government and economic course curricula to distribute and collect

voter registration forms. Such a policy would automatically deputize government and economic

course teachers as registrars for their schools. Teacher deputization would aid in the overall goal

of high schools taking an active role in registering young voters, and would help schools meet


7/69

3

their Section 13 duty. High school officials also must be held accountable for assuring the

delivery of completed registrations to the proper authorities, something that currently occurs

haphazardly.

3. Registration Confirmation Receipts Must Be Provided to All Voter Registrants

A formal receipt must be provided to all voter registrants, whether they are registering to

vote in conjunction with applying for benefits or registering with a deputy registrar. Receipts are

vital to the registration process. Without receipts, citizens have no proof or confirmation of

registration and have no recourse if they are denied the opportunity to vote on Election Day.

Some voter registration agencies and voter registrars do provide registrants with a receipt, but

others do not. The current system is also haphazard at best.

Even where receipts are provided, in some cases the receipt serves as a dual receipt for

registration as well as agency-specific services received that day. Such is the case with DPS

where only one receipt is given to confirm both electoral registration and that a person received

services. In these instances, it is not always clear that the receipt serves to confirm registration

rather than serving only as a receipt of agency services. For this reason, separate and formal

receipts are necessary to distinguish voter registration from a receipt the client obtains for

receiving services.

4. The Texas Legislature Must Pass Laws To Enforce the Election Code and Grant

Enforcement Power to State Elections Officials

The Texas Election Code is admirable. However, without enforcement power, it falls

short of protecting citizens right to vote. A recurrent theme throughout researching this report

has been lack of authority to enforce. There are very few provisions in the Election Code that

allow for criminal or civil sanctions for breach of the statute. As a result, entities bound with

duties under the Election Code do not face repercussion when they fall short of their duties or

utterly fail to comply with their duties altogether.

As sections of this report discuss, virtually all of the entities bound by the Election Code

fail to fulfill their duty. This is true whether the entity is mandated to register voters, provide

outreach to potential voters, or deputize registrars.

Keith Ingram, although expressing frustration after finding that some voter registration

agencies were not in fact registering voters, stated that his office was incapable of sanctioning or

forcing the agencies to act under the Code. To encourage voter participation, promote civic duty,

and protect the right to vote, the Secretary of State and election officials, along with community


8/69

4

members, must buy into the role prescribed by the Election Code, and challenge lawmakers to

enact enforcement powers, including a citizens private cause of action with court costs and

attorneys fees if the citizen prevails.

5. Improvements Must Be Made to the Voter Deputization Process

(a) The Volunteer Registrar Deputization Process Should Become Streamlined

and Standardized Across Texas

The process required to become a volunteer deputy registrar needs to be streamlined so

that deputization in one county applies statewide. When training sessions are inconsistently

offered across the state and each county requires different procedures and deputization within

that county, a great burden is placed on volunteers to navigate the process. Not only can it be

difficult to identify and locate the training for the particular geographic region, but also requiring

persons to become deputized in each county they wish to serve creates unnecessary hardship.

In fact, such requirements may deter volunteers from participating at all. Promoting civic

engagement and protecting against voter fraud was the initial intention of instituting the

volunteer deputy registrar position; the government must be on guard that county practices do

not become a barrier to legitimate political involvement.

(b)Volunteer Deputy Registrars Must Be Permitted To Receive Completed

Registration Forms from Citizens Registered in Any County

As it stands, volunteer deputy registrars are only authorized to collect completed

registration forms from citizens of the county for which the volunteer is deputized. This serves as

a barrier where, as often happens, registrars volunteer at large gatherings and events to register

citizens, many of whom may not be from the same county as the volunteer deputy registrar. This

is particularly problematic, for example, where cities cross county boundaries. It makes no sense

to require multiple-county deputization.

Although mail-in registration forms help to better alleviate this inconvenience,

authorizing volunteer deputy registrars to accept these registrations is a better guarantee that the

registration will be submitted if returned by the deputy registrar to the proper authorities.

6. The Secretary of State Must Take a More Pro-Active Role in Encouraging High

School Voter Registration by:

a) Establishing and promoting regular contact with, and coordination between, voter

registration agencies and high schools.


9/69

5

b) Actively seeking confirmation that voter registration agencies and high schools

are fulfilling their duties under the Election Code.

c) Providing more outreach to high school administrations regarding their duty to

register voters and the importance of registering students to vote. Contact with

administrations should require response and encourage dialogue between

administrations and the Secretary of State.

d) Take responsibility in making sure citizens are knowledgeable about voting laws

and requirements by directing outreach efforts to communities. This includes

vigorous use of both traditional and social media making outreach materials

available in at least ten languages: Arabic, Chinese, English, German, Hindi,

Italian, Korean, Spanish, Urdu, and Vietnamese

7. Additional Acceptable Documents for Purposes of Identification Should be

Considered

The implementation of the new voter ID law has created a significant barrier for some

citizens. It can be time consuming and costly to obtain a currently required ID. Although the

DPS has stepped in to help cover the costs of getting an Election Identification Certificate, other

obstacles remain. There are those who do not have reliable means of transportation or have work

obligations that make it difficult to find the time to make a trip to a DPS office that may be miles

away. Moreover, many citizens, who are eligible to vote, obtain IDs which contain their photo

and full name, such as badges for public employees, school issued IDs for university students,

among many others. Since The Secretary of State is not taking measures to monitor the issues

that arise due to the voter ID requirements, these alternative IDs should be sufficient proof of

voter identity.

8. The Federal Court in San Antonio Should Accept the U.S. Department of

Justices Efforts to Re-Subject Texas to the Voting Rights Acts Pre-Clearance

Requirements

Texas is vulnerable to regressive and discriminatory voting practices without the

protection of the pre-clearance requirements of the Voting Rights Act. On July 25, 2013, a month

after the Supreme Courts Shelbydecision, Attorney General Eric Holder asked the U.S. District

Court in San Antonio to re-subject Texas to federal preclearance. The Attorney General cited

Texas recent history of racial discrimination as the main motivation behind his request to bail -

in Texas.


10/69

6

This was the Department of Justices first such action after Shelby Countyv. Holder. The

DOJ decision to make Texas a top priority shows the threat that Texan minority voters face.

The Texas Civil Rights Project supports the DOJs motion to bail-in Texas to a pre-

clearance regime because, in the words of Attorney General Holder, [we must] use every tool at

our disposal to stand against discrimination wherever it is found.1

1 Eric Holder. National Urban League Annual Conference, Philadelphia, PA., July 25, 2013.

http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/ag/speeches/2013/ag-speech-130725.html.


11/69

7

III.TEXASLONG AND TURBULENT HISTORY OF RACIAL DISENFRANCHISEMENT:

Like many areas of the country, Texas has a long and turbulent history of voting

discrimination and suppression. Minority voters have endured electoral obstacles for nearly a

century and a half, and recognizing this history is essential to understanding the need for

improving voter registration procedures across the state and generally facilitating the franchise.

The right to vote is the heart of a democracy. Each citizen should be able to exercise this

fundamental liberty without discrimination or impediment. History, however, chronicles the

opposite tale. Efforts to suppress the vote of minority persons, often violent, have recurred since

adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.2

From the Nineteenth Century on, the South in particular has been rife with voter

suppression measures and machinations. The Ku Klux Klan took passage of the Fifteenth

Amendment and enfranchisement of black males as a threat to white supremacy, a way of life

which only Democratic dominance in southern state legislatures would protect. Indeed, African

American voters tended to vote in high numbers, proportionate to their population, and voted

Republican because of President Abraham Lincoln and the post-Civil War Republicans, who

ushered through the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments and various protective

federal civil rights laws.3

Throughout the 1880s and well into the Twentieth Century, the KKK used violence and

intimidation to scare African Americans away from the polls. The suppression of opposing party

affiliation votes continues into todays Texas, especially in light of the states increasing

minority populations.

A. Texas History4

Since gaining statehood in 1845, Texas has used various methods of disenfranchisement

to prevent blacks and Texas citizens of Mexican origin (Tejanos) from meaningful political

participation. Racial voting discrimination is an insidious and pervasive evil perpetuated in

2The Fifteenth Amendment prohibits the federal and state governments from denying a citizen the right to

vote on the basis of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." It was ratified on February 3, 1870,as the third and last of the Reconstruction Amendments, and adopted on March 30, 1870.

3In fact, it was the civil rights movement in the mid-Twentieth Century that saw the seismic realignment

of African Americans into the Democratic Party and then, as a result, the massive shift of Southern whites

into the Republican Party

4We are grateful to Cooper Shear for his historical research and authorship of this section.


12/69

8

certain parts of our country through unremitting and ingenious defiance of the Constitution.5

The fight for equal suffrage for blacks and Tejanos has continued only in fits and starts,

advancing only grudgingly against minority interests and with compromising steps.

Anglo Americans disenfranchised Tejanos from the earliest days of Texas history by

prohibiting bilingual ballots in some southern areas.6While statewide efforts to limit the vote in

Texas at the 1845 statehood Constitutional Convention failed, protests and threat s from Anglo-

Americans in many counties were constant reminders of a fragile franchise.7 Texas used

segregation and disenfranchisement to fix its Mexican problem, much like the rest of the South

did for its Negro problem.

Twenty-two years after Texas became a state, the Reconstruction Acts of 1867

enfranchised the states black citizens. In the years following blacks actively participated in

elections. Six of the black delegates elected during these years succeeded in blocking the poll tax

as a voting requirement at the Second Constitutional Convention in 1875.8Between 1871 and

1895 at least forty-one black legislators served in the Texas government, thirty-seven members

of the House and four Senators, as well as many more city and county officials.9 However,

gerrymandering of majority black counties diminished black access to legislative and judicial

seats. After the bright years following Reconstruction, the situation for minority voters in Texas

quickly diminished.10

The Fifteenth Amendment, passed in 1870, held that the right of citizens of the United

States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of

race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Congress possessed enforcement authority over

the states.

5 South Carolina v. Katzenbach. 383 U. S. 301. 309 (1966). Supreme Court rejected South Carolinas

challenge to the. Voting Rights Act of 1965 and holding it was a valid exercise of Congress's power underthe enforcement clause of the Fifteenth Amendment.

6 David Montejano, Anglos and Mexicans in the Making of Texas, 1836-1986 (Austin: University of

Texas Press, 1987), 130.7Ibid.39.

8 Chandler Davidson and Bernard Grofman (eds.), Quiet Revolution in the South: The Impact of the

Voting Rights Act 1965-1990 (Princeton University Press, 1994), 234.

9 Ibid.235.

10 Alwyn Barr, Black Texans: A History of African Americans in Texas, 1528-1995 (University of

Oklahoma Press, 1996), 80. Texas effectively banned blacks from elections a generation after

emancipation. Black voter turnout collaspsed from 100,000 in the 1890s to about 5,000 by 1906.


13/69

9

However, the U.S. Supreme Court began chipping away at the Fifteenth Amendment as

early as 1876 with Cruikshank v. United States, in which Chief Justice Waite declared that the

amendment did not positively confer the right of suffrage on anyone.11

In response to the

limited non-Anglo political power that existed in Texas in 1876, local whites, as in other parts

of the South, resorted to extra-legal devices, such as fraud, intimidation, intrigue, and murder, to

block black and Tejano voting.12

Anglo cattle barons in rural Texas, in the words of one Texas scholar, established an

economic, social, and political feudalism that was natural and not necessarily resented by

those who submitted to it.13

Texas annexation by the United States merely lightened the

complexion of the patrones (bosses) and consolidated the rural Tejano vote of impoverished

rancheros and indebted working class peonesbehind the now mostly Anglo landowning elite.

Farmers accused the rancherosand Democratic officials of bossism and described their tactics

as corralling and herding Mexicans.14Throughout the second half of the Nineteenth Century

new farm settlers found it difficult to gain political power in this smooth running machine of

established landowner bosses, supported by their Tejano workforce constituency.15

Urban areas with large Mexican American populations protected the franchise for

Tejanos in the latter half of the Nineteenth century. The culture of bossism was much more

difficult to implement in urban areas due to increased employment opportunities. San Antonio

had fifty-seven out of eighty-eight Tejano alderman between 1837 and 1847. Despite efforts to

protect the Tejano vote, the proportion of city officials between 1875 and 1884 of Mexican

11Walter Burnham, Voting in American Elections: The Shaping of the American Political Universe since1788 (Academia Press, 2010), 31-32.

12Darlene Clark Hine, Steven F. Lawson, Merline Pitre, Black Victory: The Rise and Fall of the White

Primary in Texas (University of Missouri Press, 2003), 72.

13 Montejano, Anglos and Mexicans, 8. See also, Arnoldo de Len, Managing the Mexican Vote, inMexican Americans in Texas: A Brief History ( Harland Davidson, Inc., 1991), 40.

14 Montejano, Anglos and Mexicans, 130.

15 Ibid. The King Ranch according to Jim Wells testimony, "directed five hundred Mexican votesthrough friendship and love': 'The King people always protected their servants and helped them when

they were sick and never let them go hungry, and they always feel grateful, and it naturally don't need anybuying, or selling or any coercion - they went to those that helped them when they needed help.'Moreover, explained Wells, this type of guidance was a natural idea among Mexicans: 'The Mexican

naturally inherited from his ancestors from Spanish rule, the idea of looking to the head of the ranch the

place where he lived and got his living for guidance and direction. It came legitimately and naturally

from that Spanish rulethat idea did.'"


14/69

10

descent dropped more significantly than the proportion Tejanos in the population.16

The early 1900s offered Tejanos the choice between disenfranchisement and a

manipulated vote. Texas Anglos believed that Tejanos were their racial inferiors who were a

political menace and supported anyone who would give them a handout.17

New farmers who

moved to Texas with political aspirations confronted politicians who were kept in power by

Tejano voters. The easiest way to defeat this machine was to disenfranchise the old-timers base

of support, the Texas Mexicans.

In 1902, some counties established a poll tax. The following year, the Terrell Election

Law shortened the poll tax registration and payment time to between October and February.

Terrell himself explained the legislation as an effort to prevent the flood gates for illegal voting

as one person could buy up the Mexican and Negro votes.18

In 1904, the State Democratic

Executive Committee approved a measure compelling county committees to require voters in the

Democratic primary to affirm, I am a white person and a democrat.19During the same year, the

Texas electorate established a poll tax using a constitutional amendment. From 1903 to 1905, the

Texas legislature enacted laws that codified the poll tax, encouraged use of the exclu sive white

primary by the major parties, and established an annual four-month voter registration period that

ended nine months before the general election.20

Language discrimination uniquely affected Mexican-American access to the ballot box.

In 1918, interpreters were banned from polling places, an effort clearly aimed to prohibit those

with limited English knowledge from voting. Combined with the segregation of Tejanos from

Texas schools, this ban created a systemic barrier to equal voting rights. Texas social and

economic oppression made it nearly impossible for minorities to effectively redress their

deprivation through political participation.

Tejanos were subjects of manorial society until they were formally disenfranchised

around 1914 in many South Texas counties through establishment of exclusive white mens

primaries; Tejanos were only able to cast their vote for candidates whom they had no

participation in selecting. Because the state was overwhelmingly Democratic, the primary was

16 Davidson and Grofman, Quiet Revolution in the South, 236.

17Montejano,Anglos and Mexicans, 131.

18Ibid.143.

19Ibid.

20Davidson and Grofman, Quiet Revolution in the South, 235.


15/69

11

the most important election. The general election was merely a de facto ratification of

candidates chosen in the primary. In response to a successful litigation by a black Waco citizen

that challenged a nonpartisan white primary in 1918, the Texas legislature passed a law in 1923

stating, In no event shall a negro be eligible to participate in a democratic primary election held

in the State of Texas.21

The Democratic Party was the only effective political body in Texas at the time the

legislature eliminated black membership. Election officials were instructed to destroy the ballots

of any Negro who attempted to vote.22

No other ex-confederate state took such an action; for

black Texans the 1923 statute ended their already limited involvement and influence in state and

local politics. The white primary was like an iron curtain, for even if blacks became literate,

acquired property, and paid poll taxes, they could not conceal or change the color of their

skins.23

After the U.S. Supreme Court struck down explicit white primaries in Nixon v. Herndon

(1927), the Texas legislature enacted a law allowing political parties total autonomy to decide

their membership. This allowed the State to transfer authority to the Democratic convention,

which rapidly adopted the policy of white-only primaries. The Texas Supreme Court held in

cases throughout the 1930s that political parties were voluntary private organizations, not state

organizations, and therefore had the right to dictate membership qualifications.

White primaries had obvious and negative effects on minority populations. Texas

congressional candidates could effectively ignore their black constituents and close their eyes to

brutality such as lynching and KKK activities, and still win elections because minorities could

not vote for a candidate who would represent their interests.24

It was not until 1944, when then-attorney Thurgood Marshall took on Smith v. Allwright,

that the Fifteenth Amendment would finally apply to white primaries in Texas. Marshall was the

counsel for a black Texas doctor who was denied the vote in a primary election. He lost the case

in Texas, but won on appeal to the U.S Supreme Court in 1944. The high court ruled that the all-

21 Davidson and Grofman, Quiet Revolution in the South, 238.

22 Darlene Clark Hine, Steven F. Lawson, Merline Pitre, Black Victory: The Rise and Fall of the WhitePrimary in Texas (University of Missouri Press, 2003), 69.

23Ibid.

24Juan Williams, Foreword to Voting Rights and Wrongs: The Elusive Quest for Racially Fair Elections

by Abigail Thernstrom, (Washington D.C: AEI Press, 2008), xvii.


16/69

12

white primary violated the Fifteenth Amendment because it endorses, adopts and enforces the

discrimination against Negroes.25Justice Thurgood Marshall later would recount this case as his

favorite.

Texas looked for new ways to limit minority voters impact after the Court struck down

the all-white primary in 1944. Black enfranchisement seemed all but inevitable, given minority

participation in World War II. However, vote dilution rendered the minority franchise ineffective

in many Texas towns. Vote dilution can occur through a variety of means, some as innocuous as

local newspapers that run articles hinting there will be high minority turnout at upcoming

elections.26

Bloc voting of one group to keep another from adequate political representation is nearly

impossible to quantify; it is not giving minorities half a vote, but instead making minority votes

worth half by pitting one group against another. An example of the effectiveness of vote dilution

is found in Taylor, Texas, where forty percent of the population was black or Latino, but where

no minority members were elected to city positions until 1965.

The Twenty-Fourth Amendment prohibited the poll tax in federal elections in 1964.

Texas was one of only five states to maintain its poll tax even after the amendment was ratified.27

The poll tax operated another two years in state elections. In 1966 the U.S. Attorney General

brought Texas to court under the authority of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment and the recently

passed Voting Rights Act of 1965 to have Texas state poll tax invalidated because of its

purposeful disenfranchisement of black and Tejano voters. All previous attempts to abolish the

tax had failed, even though the tax clearly had negative effect on minority voter turnout.

Shortly thereafter, excessive candidate filing fees were found unconstitutional in Bullock

v. Carterbecause the very size of the fees imposed under the Texas system gives it a patently

exclusionary character [and] there is the obvious likelihood that this limitation would fall

more heavily on the less affluent segment of the community, a segment primarily made up of

disadvantagedminorities.28

In 1975, Texas was subjected to federal preclearance under the Voting Rights Act. The

25Ibid.

26Chandler Davidson,Minority Vote Dilution(Harvard University Press, 1984), 2-5.

27Davidson and Grofman, Quiet Revolution in the South, 240.

28Bullock v. Carter,405 U.S. 134 (1972).


17/69

13

Texas government now had to gain federal permissionpreclearance for any changes to its

voting procedures and prove that any proposed legislation did not have the effect of denying or

abridging the right to vote on account of race or color.29

B. The Voting Rights Act

One of the nations premier civil rights accomplishments is the Voting Rights Act of

1965. This legislation was passed by the 89th

U.S. Congress and signed by President Lyndon B.

Johnson and established rigorous protections for the right to vote. The law initially aimed to

safeguard the franchise for African Americans against impediments by Southern states, such as

the notorious literacy tests. The VRA eventually expanded to protect the integrity of voting

rights for minority citizens across the nation.

The act has nineteen sections; among most important is Section 5, which requires certain

areas to gain federal permissionpreclearance for any changes to their voting procedures. A

jurisdiction subject to Section 5 preclearance must submit all changes to voting laws or practices

to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

for review. If the proposed legislation has the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on

account of race or color, then the law will be blocked.30

When Congress originally enacted the VRA, it determined that discriminatory voting

practices were more prevalent in certain areas of the country than in others. Section 4 addresses

this issue by generating a formula to target those jurisdictions subject to Section 5 preclearance.31

Areas covered by the Section 4 coverage formula include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia,

Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, most of Virginia, four counties in California, five

counties in Florida, two townships in Michigan, ten towns in New Hampshire, three counties in

New York, forty counties in North Carolina, and two counties in South Dakota.32

Texas was not originally subject to Section 5 preclearance. As a result, the states

minority communities continued to face rampant electoral discrimination and disenfranchisement

until 1975, when Congress extended the preclearance requirement to Texas. Preclearance has

29 Voting Rights Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 107-296, 79 Stat. 437 (1965).

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=100&page=transcript.

30 Ibid.

31 Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. U.S. Department of Justice: Civil Rights Division,

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/misc/sec_4.php#sec4

32 Section 5 Covered Jurisdictions. U.S. Department of Justice: Civil Rights Division,

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/sec_5/covered.php.


18/69

14

been a useful tool used to reject a host of clear discriminatory measures by the Texas legislature,

including a re-registration requirement for all the states voters.33Indeed, since its application to

Texas, preclearance has blocked every legislative and congressional redistricting scheme as

discriminatory.

In the past decade and a half, there have been significant VRA successes for Texas

minority voters. In 2001, for example, the initial Congressional redistricting plan caus[ed] the

net loss of three districts in which the minority community would have had the opportunity to

elect its candidate of choice.34

The state was forced to create a new, equitable redistricting

scheme.

In 2006, the North Harris Montgomery Community College District attempted to cut

election-day polling locations from 84 to 12 for the May election. Not only would this have

decreased convenient polling location opportunities for all citizens, but these 12 locations were

positioned at strategic spots around the district favoring the white vote. The site selected to serve

the smallest amount of minority voters would serve approximately 6,500 voters whereas the site

to serve the largest percentage of minority voters within the district would serve more than

67,000 voters.35

The Justice Department determined the district was unable to prove that this

change would not have a retrogressive effect on minority voters.36

Harris County became known as a hot spot for voter suppression actions as the Hispanic

population rose and elections became increasingly tighter. Paul Bettencourt served ten years as

the elected Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector until he resigned in late 2008, right after being

re-elected to a third term, to pursue a private business venture. However, there was more to his

untimely resignation than just a new business endeavor. Only a few days prior to his formal

resignation, the Texas Democratic Party and the Harris County Democratic Party filed a federal

suit against him for failing to process approximately 7,000 provisional ballots and 1,000 mail-in

33 Chandler Davidson and Bernard Grofman (eds.), Quiet Revolution in the South: The Impact of the

Voting Rights Act 1965-1990, Princeton University Press, 1994, 240.

34 Ralph F. Boyd, Jr., (Assistant Attorney General) to Geoffrey Connor (Acting Texas Secretary ofState), Section 5 Objection: Redistricting Plan (House), November 16, 2001.

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/sec_5/ltr/l_111601.php.

35 Rachel Maddow, Little Faith House Can Secure Voting Rights after SCOTUS Blow, The RachelMaddow Show,MSNBC.

36The United States of America, Plaintiff, v. North Harris Montgomery Community College District, and

the Board of Trustees of the North Harris Montgomery Community College District, Defendants., WL

2515711 (S.D.Tex. 2006).


19/69

15

ballots, and failing to register voters due to overly technical reviews of their applications.

Further, Bettencourt refused to provide requested information on voter registration procedures,

which were not discovered until after the 2008 election deadlines had passed. Therefore, many

provisional ballot votes went uncounted.37

Upon Bettencourts resignation, the Harris County Commissioners Court had to appoint

his replacement, with a special election to follow in 2010 to fill the remainder of the term. Rather

than appointing Bettencourts Democratic opponent in the 2008 election, Dr. Diane Trautman,

the Commissioners Court appointed Republican Leo Vsquez.

A year later, the Texas Democratic Party and the Harris County Democratic Party filed a

complaint against Vsquez for similar election suppression activities, including improper denial

of approximately 65,000 voter registration applications. In August 2010, Vsquez admitted to

rejecting over 1,000 applications for not providing a Texas drivers license number or Social

Security number, even though federal law does not require these items to register to vote.38

Vsquez admitted to rejecting over 1,500 citizens for allegedly submitting multiple applications

even though submission of more than one application is not a lawful reason for rejection.

Vsquez also admitted to the pending status of about 10,000 applications that were properly

filled out and timely received prior to the 30-day election cutoff and more than seven days before

the time when county voter registrars were required to process applications. But, under Vsquez,

those applications were also ignored.39

In 2011, the Texas Legislature passed a law that required all voters to present state-issued

photographic identification in order to vote. It justified this law by claiming that it protected

against voter fraud. The U.S. Department of Justice saw through this guise, noting that the state

did not provide evidence of significant voter fraud. DOJ found that the Voter ID law unfairly

targeted Hispanic voters who were 120 percent more likely than a non-Hispanic registered voter

37Texas Democratic Party & Harris County Democratic Party v. Paul Bettencourt, Harris County Tax

Assessor & Voter Registrar, No. 4:08-CV-03332 (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas,Houston Division 2008).

3842 U.S.C. 1971.

39 Texas Democratic Party & Harris County Democratic Party v. Leo Vasquez, Harris County Tax

Assessor Collector & Voter Registrar, No. 4:08-CV-03332 (U.S. District Court for the Southern District

of Texas, Houston Division 2008).


20/69

16

to lack this identification.40 In addition, the cost associated with these IDs placed strict,

unforgiving burdens on the poor; Attorney General Eric Holder even denounced the Voter ID

law as a poll tax.41

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia also found that Texas 2011

redistricting plan was retrogressive. The states population had grown by 4.3 million, the

majority of which were minority persons (two-thirds Hispanic and 11 percent African

American). Nevertheless, the new districts were drawn to allow Republicans to win three out of

the four new seats.42

The U.S. Justice Department moved to block this extreme case of

gerrymandering. The most compelling evidence of discriminatory redistricting was the

substantial surgery and removal of districts economic engines from Congressman Al Green,

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, and Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnsons districts.

Circuit Judge Griffith pointed out in his opinion that No such surgery was performed on

the districts of Anglo incumbents. In fact, every Anglo member of Congress retained his or her

district office, and there was unchallenged evidence that the legislature removed the economic

guts from the Black ability districts.43

This is just the latest in what has become standard

practice for Texas voting legislation. As we remember, every redistricting cycle for the last four

decades has found Texas in court for racial gerrymandering, discriminatory vote dilution, and

other voting-rights infringements.44

The gerrymandering issue does appear like it will be resolved anytime soon. In a

response to a lawsuit concerning the latest oppressive redistricting proposal, the State claimed:

DOJs accusations of racial discrimination are baseless. In 2011, both houses of

40 Thomas E. Perez (Assistant Attorney General) to Keith Ingram (Director of Elections) Section 5

Objection: Voter Registration and Photographic Identification Procedures Contained in Chapter 123 (S.C.

14), March 12, 2012. http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/sec_5/ltr/l_031212.php.

41Tom Kludt and Catherine Thompson. Federal Court Rules Texas Voter ID Law Is Discriminatory.Talking Points Memo, August 30, 2012. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/federal-court-rules-

texas-voter-id-law-is-discriminatory.

42Ari Berman, Federal Court Blocks Discriminatory Texas Redistricting Plan, The Nation, 2012.

43Texas v. United States, 831 F.Supp.2d 244 (D.D.C. 2011)

44See, e.g.,League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006); Vera v. Richards,861 F.Supp. 1304 (S.D.Tex. 1994), aff'd sub nom. Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996); Terrazas v. Slagle,789 F. Supp 828 (W.D. Tex. 1992), affd sub nom.,Richards v. Terrazas, 505 U.S. 1214 (1992) (mem.)

and Slagle v. Terrrazas, 506 U.S. 801(1992) (mem.); Upham v. Seamon, 456 U.S. 37 (1982); White v.

Weiser, 412 U.S. 783 (1973); White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973). See also Texas Redistricting Cases:

the 1990s, http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/departments/scr/redist/redsum/txsum.htm.


21/69

17

the Texas Legislatures were controlled by large Republican majorities, and theirredistricting decisions were designed to increase the Republican Partys electoral

prospects at the expense of the Democrats. It is perfectly constitutional for aRepublican controlled legislature to make partisan districting decisions.

45

Party lines, however, coincide with racial lines. In the 2012 presidential election, eightypercent of minority voters voted for the Democratic candidate, President Obama.

46So, even if

we assume that Texas legislators are motivated by politics and not racism, their actions still have

the effect of suppressing the minority vote.

C. TheShelby County v. HolderDecision

Despite the many instances of ongoing racial discrimination, the U.S. Supreme Court

struck down the coverage formula outlined in Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 on

June 25, 2013. Chief Justice John Roberts, speaking for the majority, determined that, while

Section 4 was rational and necessary for holding jurisdictions accountable for the election

procedures at the time of the enactment of the original law, it is outdated and thus

unconstitutional: Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too

much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to

current conditions.47

The Section 4 coverage formula of the VRA decided which jurisdictions would be

subject to Section 5 preclearance. Without the formula, Section 5 becomes essentially null and

void because no jurisdictions are subject to federal preclearance. The Supreme Court called on

Congress to create a new formula, yet as of today, no action has been taken.

So, without preclearance, how will minority voting rights be protected? Even the

Supreme Court admits that voting discrimination still exists; no one doubts that.48

As it stands

today, the only way to challenge a discriminatory voting law is to file suit under Section 2 of the

VRA. Section 2 explicitly bans laws or practices that hinder the ability of individuals to vote

because of their ethnicity or race.

45Perez v. Texas, 891 F.Supp.2d 808, 838 (W.D. Tex. 2012).

46Study: Minority Groups Who Voted 80 Percent Obama To Become Majority. CBS-DC, November 8,2012. http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/11/08/study-minority-groups-who-voted-80-percent-obama-to-become-majority/.

47Ryan Reilly, Mike Sacks, Sabrina Siddiqui, Voting Rights Act Section 4 Struck Down by Supreme

Court,Huffington Post, 2013.

48Shelby County, Ala. v. Holder, 133 S.Ct. 2612, 2615, 186 L.Ed.2d 651 (2013).


22/69

18

Reliance on Section 2 to bring suit causes numerous issues. Litigation is long, expensive,

and arduous. It may take years before the courts pass a final verdict on a lawsuit. During that

time, minority communities are left to suffer under discriminatory practices. Additionally, the

change in the law shifts the burden of proof onto citizens to prove discrimination. Before the

recent changes, the burden was on local government to prove that its practices were not

discriminatory.

Minority voting rights in Texas now face a grave threat. On June 25, 2013, the day of the

Supreme Courts decision concerning the VRA, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbot announced,

with todays decision, the states Voter ID law will take effect immediately. Voters now must

provide one of the following in order to vote: a Texas driver license issued by the Department of

Public Safety (DPS); a Texas Election Identification Certificate issued by DPS; a Texas personal

identification card issued by DPS; a Texas concealed handgun license issued by DPS; a U.S.

military identification card with the persons photograph; a U.S. citizenship certificate with the

persons photograph; or a United States passport.49

In addition, without preclearance protection, the Texas legislature will have free rein to

gerrymander to its hearts content,. This could be disastrous for minority voting rights. Keith

Ingram, the Texas State Elections Division Director, believes that the repeal of the Voting Rights

Act will have no effect on voting practices in Texas. He thinks that counties will not institute

regressive tactics because they want to get it right.50

Recent history has shown, however, that

getting it right and winning frequently become convoluted, and without proper regulation,

Texan officials cannot be trusted to protect the voting rights of all individuals.

On July 25, 2013, just one month after the Supreme Courts VRA decision, Attorney

General Eric Holder asked the U.S. District Court in San Antonio to re-subject Texas to federal

preclearance. The Attorney General cited Texas recent history of racial discrimination as the

main motivation behind his request to bail-in Texas.51

This request was the Department of

49Photo ID now required for Voting in Texas, Texas Secretary of State: John Steen, 2013. Interestinglyenough, official college or university photo identification cards or photo clergy identification cards are

not acceptable under the statute, or any other official agency-issued ID cards.

50SeeAppendix C, Keith Ingram (Director of Elections) interview by Emily Pendleton, Lane Kazmierski,and Whitney Knox. September 18, 2013.

51Eric Holder, Attorney General Eric Holder Delivers Remarks at the National Urban League Annual

Conference (speech, National Urban League Annual Conference, Philadelphia, PA, July 25, 2013)

http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/ag/speeches/2013/ag-speech-130725.html.


23/69

19

Justices first action after the Shelby County decision. The DOJs decision to make Texas its top

priority shows the dire threat facing Texas minority voters. The court has yet to respond to the

request, but hopefully, either Congress or the court system will take the necessary steps to

protect voting rights in Texas in the near future.

Denial of voting-rights is not a mere political maneuver; it is a grave offense that goes

against the deep-seated tenets of our nation. Depriving us of suffrage, Frederick Douglass said,

you affirm our incapacity to form intelligent judgments respecting public measures to rule us

out is to make us an exception, to brand us with the stigma of inferiority.52

Voting rights are the capstone of democratic citizenship, but the Supreme Court has

recently chosen to uphold federalism over protecting the nations most vulnerable citizens

fundamental right. Constitutional and statutory law, in addition to evolving jurisprudence,

developed to protect Texass minority citizens voting rights; however, no measure has been able

to ensure complete protection.

Texas history proves constant vigilance is necessary from both the courts and lawmakers

to overcome the persistent attempts to diminish minority voting rights. Too many people have

died, suffered beatings, and given their all to assert the right of all citizens to vote for us not to

honor their work for the benefit of our society, our children, and our grandchildren. The future of

our country may well depend on our efforts.

52Frederick Douglass, What the Black ManWants (speech, Annual Meeting of the Massachusetts Anti-

Slavery Society, Boston, 1865).


24/69

20

IV.CURRENT VOTER REGISTRATION PRACTICES ARE CONVOLUTED AND INEFFECTIVE

Travis County Tax Assessor-Collector Bruce Elfant is a strong advocate for registering

citizens to vote. He holds the position of voter registrar for the county.

As of November 2012, 82 percent of the voting age population in Travis County was

registered to vote. A record high was recorded in 2004 with 94 percent of the voting age people

registered. Mr. Elfant is determined to raise these numbers back to the 2004 pinnacle. When

compared to other metropolitan areas in Texas, Travis County registers a large number of voters.

As of January 2012, the county registered over 10 percent more of its voters than Dallas and

Harris Counties.53

The voter registrar for each county alone cannot register all the voters within the county.

Texas requires each county to approve volunteer deputy voter registrars to help with this process.

But not just anyone is allowed to register eligible citizens to vote. If someone wishes to help

Texas citizens register, that individual must go to a training session held by the voter registrar for

the county in which the person wishes to register voters.

There are many provisions that attain to the role of deputy voter registrars. For example,

they must:

Hand deliver all voter registration applications to the county voter registrar within 5

days of receiving the application

Provide some form of receipt to applicants acknowledging their submitted application

Check that the application is complete before it is accepted

Either Bruce Elfant or his training assistant presents these requirements to Travis County

volunteer registrars during their 30-60 minute training session. The importance of following the

guidelines is emphasized during this training session for Travis County volunteers, but each

county holds deputy registrars to its own level of expectation. Training sessions are required for

each county. However, the extent to which the requirements are conveyed varies from county to

county.

Between the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections, Travis County stepped up its volunteer

deputy registrar training, which, in effect, reduced the number of errors on the voter registration

cards and therefore lessened the number of rejected applications due to missing information.

53 Tina Morton, Travis County Honors Over 2,000 Volunteer Deputy Registrars, Register U+2

Campaign, 2012.


25/69

21

The most reliable way to ensure a voter application reaches the county voter registrar is

by mailing or personally delivering the form to the registrars office. But mistakes happen.

Therefore, to guarantee proof of registration, the Texas Election Code requires that receipts be

provided to all citizens who turn in a registration form to deputy registrars or other intake

locations. This allows voters the ability to provide verification of registration prior to the 30-day

processing period.

If a voter has not received the registration certificate in the mail by Election Day and

presents his or her receipt at the polls, the election judge is required to permit the person to vote a

provisional ballot. The ballot and receipt are then delivered to the citizens county voter registrar

to determine why that person has not received a voting certificate, why his or her name does not

appear on the rolls, and whether or not the individual is eligible to cast the ballot.

In Travis County, receipts are attached as a stub at the bottom of the registration card by a

perforated seam, and detached once the deputy registrar approves the completion of the

application. Receipt forms vary across intake locations and differ in every county.

The Department of Public Safety Registration

The Department of Public Safety is one of the main locations where citizens register to

vote. Across Texas, every DPS office is required to ask each customer if he or she wishes to

register to vote. The Secretary of State receives a large majority of registration applications from

DPS locations and, in turn, transfers those forms to the appropriate county voter registrar to be

processed and placed on the voter rolls.

This process has evolved over the years. Prior to 2009, the registration applications from

the DPS offices were based off printed forms, which presented a larger issue for voters. Whether

DPS clerks simply forgot to check yes when a customer confirmed the desire to register or the

printed application got lost in other piles of DPS paperwork, situations would occur in which the

Secretary of State would not receive the citizens registration application to be transferred to the

county voter registrar.

This situation allowed citizens to believe they had registered, when in actuality, for no

fault of their own, they had not. There is no way of knowing which citizens applications fell

through the cracks in this process until they presented themselves at the polls. The only way of

verifying their registration was through an extensive search of DPS data files, which DPS

employees were reluctant to perform during the November 2012 election. The 2012 election was

the first time many DPS registrants, who registered prior to 2009, appeared at the polls.


26/69

22

Hopefully, the majority of these unprocessed applications have been recovered and resolved, but

there is still no way of knowing.

The DPS registration process has improved since changes in 2009. Currently,

applications are transferrable electronically so clients information on their license is used to fill

out a registration form and directly passed on to the Secretary of State along with the applicants

electronic signature. This process provides fewer opportunities for errors. In addition, the data

received by the Secretary of State is easily matched against the DPS database for registration

application transfers.

The Voter Registrar Director for Travis County, Dee Lpez, expressed concerns for voter

registration at DPS offices. During the November 2012 elections, the ability to renew expired

licenses online confused and misinformed voters about their registration status. During the online

renewal process, there is an option for the applicant to check yes for registering to vote. But

checking yes did not actually register the applicant, because the only way to register is by

performing the renewal process in person at the DPS office.

The Texas Department of Information Resources responded to the complaints of the

confusing question by making a note under the proposed registration question stating, Selecting

yes does not register you to vote. A link to the Secretary of State Voter website (where a voter

application may be downloaded or requested) will be available on your receipt page. This issue

caused many citizens to remain ineligible to vote in the November 2012 election.

Another current problem is the way proof of registration receipts are administered. The

only existing form of receipt provided by DPS is located on the customers temporary paper

license. On the form, in small print, it indicates whether or not that person registered to vote

when renewing or registering for a license. The majority of people discard this form once they

receive their actual license, therefore discarding the evidence that they registered to vote. This

means they will not be eligible to vote if for some reason they do not receive their certificates of

registration in the mail before elections or their names do not appear on the voting rolls. It would

be beneficial to create a more formal receipt to give DPS customers who registered.54

54 Bruce Elfant and Dee Lopez, (Travis County Voter Registrar and Director), interview by Emily

Pendleton, "Travis County Voter Registrar Meeting Report," May 30, 2013.


27/69

23

V. HIGH SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS DISREGARD RESPONSIBILITY TO REGISTER STUDENTS

Young adults persistently rank lowest when comparing voter turnout by age group. In the

2012 general election, 50 percent of citizens between ages 18 to 29 voted nationally. This was

8.7 percent lower than the voter turnout of all eligible voters.55

These figures demonstrate the

necessity for stronger youth outreach. As citizens turn 18, high schools across the state are a

critical resource for registering newly eligible voters. Statistical analysis helped gather and assess

the information regarding student registration practices from schools across Texas.

There are over 1,000 school districts throughout Texas and over 1,150 public high

schools. Through the Texas Education Agency, TCRP was able to obtain a listing of all public

high schools and districts within Texas. The data included contact information for each principal

and superintendent.

For this report, TCRP generated three samples in which to collect survey data. The first

sample consisted of 75 random high schools across the state. High schools were chosen at

random using the excel software randbetween function, which assigned random numbers to

every high school. We proceeded to sort the random numbers, selecting only the first 75 schools

that appeared as to avoid bias of the schools selected to receive our survey.

The second sample was generated using the same process as the first, with the

information provided for the districts across Texas. 75 school districts were selected at random.

For the final sample, we used data provided by the Nation Center for Education Statistics

(NCES) website. NCES data is based on 2010 census results and reports on the demographic

make up of each school district. TCRP took the numbers supplied by the NCES School District

Demographic System to look at each school district separately to determine total numbers of

Hispanic and African American student population under age 18. These numbers were then used

to find an accurate representation of the minority student population within the district. Each

districts minority population total was then compared to the total white population under the age

of 18. If the minority population outnumbered the white population by a ratio greater than 2:1,

then all schools within that district were eligible for the final sample. Once we attainted all

55Pillsbury, George and Julian Johannesen. America Goes to the Polls 2012: A Report on Voter Turnout

in the 2012 Election. NonprofitVOTE.org. March 11, 2013.

http://www.nonprofitvote.org/doc_view/504-america-goes-to-the-polls-2012.


28/69

24

minority-populated schools with a ratio greater than 2 minority students to every 1 white student,

the first 75 schools were selected at random using the same method as the first two samples.

Each of the schools principals, and each of the districts superintendents received a copy

of the survey (Appendix B and C). The questionnaires were administered four times via email

during the months of June, July, and August of 2013 through Google Forms. Those of which had

yet to respond by mid-August, were mailed a printed form.

The results from the survey distributed to high schools throughout the state indicate that

Texas schools, more often than not, are neglecting their statutory duty to promote voter

participation among young people.

The responsibilities of Texas high schools with regard to student voter registration are

clearly set out in the Texas Election Code. Chief among these responsibilities is the task of

distributing voter registration forms to all eligible students at least twice a school year.56

Of the superintendents responding to the TCRP survey on behalf of their districts, only

22 percent reported that high schools within their districts are distributing voter registration

applications at least twice a year; 38 percent served in districts where applications are distributed

only once a year, and 41 percent stated that they never distribute them.

The survey results from principals who responded on behalf of their high schools indicate

that 37 percent of Texas high schools are distributing voter registration applications at least twice

a year; 39 percent reported distributing them once a year, while 23 percent never distribute

applications to students. Both district-wide and individual high school samples reveal that about

two thirds of high schools in Texas are not meeting the minimum requirement mandated by the

Texas Election Code. A compilation of the results by district and individual school responses can

be seen in the School Survey Response Map followingthe end of this section.

Those high schools that are registering students to vote conduct the registration process in

a variety of different ways. Roughly 50 percent of all samples reported that government teachers

most commonly carry out the task. This is arguably the most effective means of student

registration, because it gives schools the ability to best incorporate voter registration and the

importance of civic engagement into the students curriculums. Currently, all that is required of

government teachers by Texas Education Agency standards is to inform students about their

56Texas Election Code 13.046.


29/69

25

right and civic duty to become registered and how they might go about doing that. The

administration of registration forms by government teachers, however, is not mandatory.

The second most common manner of supplying voter registration applications is by

making them available at the schools front office or similar location, as reported by roughly 30

percent of all samples. Approximately 10 percent of all samples reported that they never

formally administer applications, but make them available on request. A small number of schools

will distribute registration cards at events, such as pep rallies. Dedication to voter registration

across Texas high schools unfortunately varies a great deal. While some schools take field trips

to the polls and invite candidates to speak on campus, others ignore the process entirely.

Even schools that do participate in student voter registration often fail to adhere to state

laws that could affect the successful approval of registration applications. One critical, yet

frequently ignored, registration guideline under Section 13.042 of the Election Code. It requires

that all applications must be transferred to the county voter registrar within five days of

completion. Of the schools reporting that they conduct voter registration at least once a year,

only 56 percent state that applications are submitted within the mandated time frame. Failure to

adhere to this provision could prevent students from successfully registering.

High schools have also been failing to provide voter registrants with receipts upon

completion of their applications, despite the fact that this is too legally required.57

Of the high

schools that distribute applications at least once a year, only 32 percent are providing receipts to

student applicants. Receipts serve the important function of acknowledging that students

submitted applications before the registration deadline and provide proof of registration if

applications are lost when being transferred to the county voter registrar. If ones attempt at

registration is unsuccessful, a receipt guarantees an individual a provisional ballot.

The lack of initiative to register high school students appears to be a statewide issue. It is

unclear whether or not any particular racial or geographical demographics are disproportionately

affected. In a survey distributed to majority-minority populated schools in Texas, 61 percent of

schools reported distributing voter registration applications at least twice a year, compared to

majority-white schools, of which only 37 percent reported doing so. It is possible that schools

with large minority populations are putting greater effort into voter registration because they are

more conscious of voter suppression in the state. However, due to their low response rate to the

57Id.13.040.


30/69

26

survey, it is difficult to determine whether or not voter registration laws in majority-minority

high schools are actually more commonly implemented than in their majority-white counterparts.

Texas high school principals who have responded to the survey commonly indicated that

they were unaware of state laws regarding student voter registration. This is particularly

troubling, as their position requires that they either become or appoint a volunteer deputy

registrar for their school, as stipulated under Section 13.046 of the Texas Election Code.

According to the Director of the Elections Division for the Texas Secretary of State,

Keith Ingram, high school principals are reminded of their duties with regard to voter registration

via email once per year, which may explain why many schools only conduct registration once

annually. This form of outreach is only heightened during election periods. Ingram notes that it is

normal for inexperienced high school administrators to be unaware of their responsibilities when

there is no upcoming election. Ingram has stated that he has little authority when it comes to

enforcing such laws. Therefore, their implementation relies on the knowledge and motivation

of high school administrators. Student voter registration will only increase once a central

authority takes responsibility for educating high school administrators and enforcing the Texas

Election Code.


31/69

27

SCHOOL DISTRICT SURVEY RESPONSE MAP


32/69

28

VI. LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS RESPONSES:DISSATISFIED WITH COOPERATION FROM HIGH

SCHOOLS

The League of Women Voters of Texas is a nonpartisan organization that formed in San

Antonio in 1919. In its early days, the League worked to help give newly enfranchised women

access to the polls, and did not support any political candidate. Over the years, the League has

fought to eliminate obstacles to the polls and expand voter rights to all citizens. Recently, the

League has pursued its goal of encouraging informed and active participation in government

by conducting Get Out the Votecampaigns in Texas high schools.

Section 13.046 of the Texas Election Code requires high school principals or their

designee to at least twice each school yeardistribute an officially prescribed registration

application form to each student who is or will be 18 years of age or older during that year.

Despite this law, the majority of principals do not actively participate in registering students to

vote. In attempts to correct this situation, the League has found outright hostility by principals

and school districts toward their voter drive efforts in high schools.

In 2012, the Austin chapter of the League took on a project focusing on ten local Title I

high schools. Title I schools are those which have a student poverty rate of at least 40%. The

state provides these schools with funding to supplement instruction for students who are

economically disadvantaged or at risk for failing to meet state standards. Economics, not

political motivation, drove the League to target Title I schools. Austin Leagues efforts and

funding focus on schools that would otherwise not have voter registration opportunities. The

schools with the greatest need tend to be those with higher minority populations.

Based on prior experience with high schools, the League opted not to hold the voter

drives during lunch because the students were unresponsive at that time. Instead, they held

meetings with the students during class times, during which teachers would bring the students to

the library or a similar location for an informational lecture on registration and the election

process. Of the ten Austin high schools visited, only one, Crockett High School, responded

enthusiastically to the Leagues efforts to register students. Most of the other schools were

unresponsive to efforts to hold drives there. Further, many high school students lacked essential

information needed to register, such as a drivers license number or a social security number.

Even though they were asked to be prepared with that information through posters and teacher

announcements, 90% of the students lacked the proper paperwork to register to vote.

As in Austin, the success of the Leagues student registration efforts in Dallas County


33/69

29

varied greatly from school to school. The League found that the success of voter drives hinged

on the attitude of the principal in each high school. Principals who understood their

responsibility and appreciated the importance of registering their students were more receptive to

the Leagues efforts. In the past, the Dallas chapter found that Dallas ISD did not put a high

priority on student registration, and was unresponsive to any organization attempting to visit high

schools to register students. Additionally, the Dallas chapter found the best way to incentivize

students to register is through effective communication. Giving students accurate and positive

messages about voting increased the number of students who believe in the importance of

registering and voting. Such communication increased the number of students registering and

ultimately voting.

In Irving ISD, the local chapter of the League had no success holding voter drives in the

districts two high schools; but it met success with voter registration in the local community

colleges. The League continues to have good relations with student associations within the

community colleges in which it has held voter registration drives.

In the cities and counties surrounding Dallas, the League faced many difficulties

registering students at high schools. The League did not conduct voter drives in either Denton

County or Arlington high schools. Instead, registration was left up to government class teachers.

The Denton County chapter of the League hopes to conduct voter drives in at least some high

schools during Spring of 2014.

In Collin County, the League only had slightly more success registering students. Of the

three high schools in Plano, two responded to the Leagues efforts to hold voter drives. However,

this produced limited results because the League was only allowed to conduct drives during

lunch periods and, consequently, collected a total of merely five registration cards from both

schools combined.

In rural areas, such as Smith County, public high schools are completely unwilling to

conduct voter drives with outside groups. In Tyler, the League was barred from entering the two

public high schools to register students. Instead, the school district depended on the system of

using government teachers to conduct voter information and registration sessions with students.

Tyler ISD was unwilling to collaborate with the League of Women Voters because of concern

that doing so would open the door to admitting other groups to the campuses.

In speaking with recent Tyler ISD high school graduates, it became apparent to the

League that some faculty members do not take their voter registration duties seriously and that


34/69

30

many students did not even know they could have registered. One government teacher, perhaps

unaware of her districts policy, contacted the League directly to set up a registration date during

lunch period at her school. Even though the students enthusiastically responded to the Leagues

voter registration efforts, the government teacher who organized the event with the league was

reprimanded for her actions.


35/69

31

VII. ELECTIONS DIRECTOR KEITH INGRAM:

A. SUMMARY OF INTERVIEW

Keith Ingram, director for the Texas Elections Division, is tasked with the somewhat

vague role of overseeing the division in carrying out the role of the Secretary of State as Chief

Elections Officer. Mr. Ingram manages the four sections of the elections division, coordinates

communication between the elections officials around the state regarding election law

interpretation and application, as well as serving as a resource to legislature.

Mr. Ingram met with several TCRP interviewers to discuss concerns raised from

researching information for this report. Of primary concern to the interviewers was the failure of

state agencies to adhere to their duties under the Texas Election code to ask clients if they

wanted to register to vote. In addition to asking about enforcement under the code, a substantial

amount of time was spent discussing the Volunteer Deputy Registrars and their role in elections.

Several weeks prior to meeting with Mr. Ingram, TCRP sent a copy of the interview

questions and concerns for his review. The questions posed addressed areas of concern that

TCRP identified after conducting research on compliance with the Election Code.

Here is a brief synopsis of the information gathered during the interview:

There is not a way to enforce the Texas Election Code. The Texas Legislature has not

granted power to enforce the duties mandated under the Election Code. Therefore, if an

entity bound by the code does not follow it, the Elections Division is unable to sanctionsuch failures.

The public is tasked with holding entities accountable under the Texas Election

Code by filing complaints when issues arise. The Elections Division does use a

complaint process through which grievances may be filed and sent to the appropriate

party. When an issue arises regarding the failure to adhere to a section of the code that

carries a crime, the complaint will be sent to the Attorney General for investigation.

The Elections Division prioritizes its outreach efforts toward local elected officials

rather than the public. Ingram relies on local officials to disseminate information to the

public regarding voting and elections. There is no real campaign through the media or

otherwise to educate the public about elections or voting generally and encourage people

to vote; nor is there any apparent outreach to Texas many minority language

communities.


36/69

32

High school administrations receive minimal outreach as to their duty under the

Texas Election Code.Mr. Ingram sends one or two emails a year, reminding principals

of their duty to become deputized or to appoint a volunteer deputy registrar in their place,

but does not follow up.

Voter outreach materials are primarily printed in Spanish and English.Each county

must publish all outreach materials in both Spanish and English. Harris County

additionally translates its materials to Chinese and Vietnamese. Although Mr. Ingram

reported that new voter ID materials are printed in all four languages, the Texas voting

website and Secretary of State website only make available the Spanish and English

materials. The State Bar of Texas currently makes materials available in ten languages,58

this raises the question as to why the Secretary cannot do so with regard to something far

more important, the right to vote.

The Division spends a large amount of resources on sorting duplicate registrations.

Switching to an electronic system would be beneficial for determining whether someone

needs to re-register and could otherwise help decrease the number of duplicate

registrants.

Deputization of volunteer deputy voter registrars serves an important purpose in

maintaining the integrity of the elections process and so any hardship created by

establishing such a role is outweighed by the pubic good. The Division only hasauthority to issue directives regarding minimum requirements for training deputy voter

registrars. Each county can decide for itself how to implement the directives.

Mr. Ingram has no concerns that the changes to the Voting Rights Act will result in

regressive practices in Texas. He has not received any complaints since the change of

the law and does not plan to track any changes in polling practice.

The role of Elections Division Director is vague and ambiguous to both the public

and Mr. Ingramhimself.

The lack of enforcement authority of the Texas Election Code begs the question of why a

code exists. In general, Mr. Ingram did not share TCRPs concerns regarding the areas where

entities fall short of their duty under the code. Notwithstanding, TCRP has suggested

58The State Bars website provides translations in English, Arabic, Chinese (simplified), German, Hindi,

Italian, Korean, Spanish, Urdu, and Vietnamese. www.texasbar.com.


37/69

33

recommendations to implement to help protect Texans voting rights. It is clear from the research

and subsequent discussions with elections officials that, while the Election Code purports to

protect voting rights in Texas, implementation of the code is lacking in effectiveness.

B. FOLLOW UP TO INTERVIEW WITH KEITH INGRAM

1. The Effect of the Voter ID Law

After TCRPs interview with Keith Ingram, we met with Bruce Elfant , the Travis County

tax assessor and voter registrar. In that meeting we learned that 37,000 registered Travis County

voters have been identified as not having valid state issued identification. Statewide, Mr. Elfant

estimates that there are 600,000-700,000 registered voters who do not have valid, state issued

identification. This figure was calculated by cross checking the voter registration information

with DPS data files, showing that these voters dont have a valid driverslicense or personal ID.

Mr. Elfant believes it is very unlikely these voters have an alternative form of identification, such

as a passport; however, it is slightly more likely that they will have a military identification.

Due to poor planning by the legislature that resulted in budgetary restraints, the Secretary

of State was unable to send notifications of ineligibility to vote to the 37,000 disenfranchised

voters. This is a failure of the legislature for not accounting for this issue while planning for the

implementation of the voter ID laws. To make up for this shortfall, Travis County plans to mail

out postcards to notify the 37,000 ineligible voters, however, the timeline for that