House Elections committee met on February 11, 2019 to hear an election primer from the Texas Secretary of State’s Chief Election Officer for the State of Texas.
This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight of the discussions on the various topics the committee took up. It is not a verbatim transcript of the hearing but is based upon what was audible or understandable to the observer and the desire to get details out as quickly as possible with few errors or omissions.
Keith Ingram – Texas State’s Election Division
- Secretary of State is responsible for maintaining uniformity in election code
- Does not have power to enforce election laws or violations to laws
- Elections have two components: the election itself and maintaining a list of registered voters
- Both of elections’ functions are performed at county level
- State assists with voter registration with online database team
- County election officials include election administers, appointed by county election board (county judge, tax assessor, county clerk, party chairs)
- Texas has a decentralized election structure
- Counties and other entities do the work of having an election
- Counties bear the expense of the election
- Counties must use equipment that has been certified by both election assistance committee at Federal level and at State level
- Voter registration is county-based
- Voters belong to county, not to overall state
- County voter registrar is responsible for registering voters, and list maintenance
- County voter registrar collaborates list maintenance with our office and their counties
- Law requires our office to provide counties with data on potential ineligibilities for a person to vote
- Law requires that counties send a notification to voters if they are reasonably believed to be ineligible to vote
- County political parties are responsible for the primary election in their county
- Primary elections are funded by general revenue and filing fees from the candidates
- County remains responsible for conducting and paying for early voting in a primary election
- Parties pay for ballot preparation work and election day with money from our office
- After the election, the parties are required to send cost reports to our office to either refund unused money or get reimbursed for lingering expenses
- Our office pays the voting system benders directly for their expenses, such as the preparing of ballots
- Our office has remaining balance of $1.1 million of original federal HAVA money, which we use for team maintenance; it will pay for part of fiscal 2020 but afterwards, we will need more money for team maintenance
- Our office plans to use small portion of our money for improvements to the security of statewide voter registration database
- The remainder of our money is intended to be spent on election security at the county level
- We have worked with the department of information resources to craft an assessment of election security at country level
- Once assessment is completed, counties will receive a report regarding issues found in their severity
- Our office will not receive results, but will have aggregate data based on what is found so that we can make necessary policy changes
- The number of registered voters for the last election was almost 15.8 million
- Final turnout was more than 8.371 million, which was a record for a midterm election
- Cortez – You talked about how the Federal government sent some funds to each of the states. What did Texas receive, specifically?
- In the first round of HAVA, in 2002, we had approximately $180 million
- Of that, we have just over $1 million left
- Last year, we received an additional $23 million from HAVA
- Of the $23 million, most of it is still in the bank
- Cortez – Are we able to send some of those funds down to the counties to help upgrade their technology or their voting systems?
- We’re left with about $23 million, which in the grand scheme of things, is not that much money
- In terms of voting system replacement, it would be pennies on the dollar
- We don’t have enough to replace voting systems in Harris County alone
- Israel – Were you going to brief us on the Voter Purge controversy? In emails from the voter registration manager in your office to the county officials about list maintenance, you say ‘counties are not required to investigate the new DPS data matches,’ correct?
- That is correct
- Israel – So, this list maintenance exercise in your advisory was not laid out in federal statute. Is that correct?
- Both State and Federal law require this sort of activity
- State law in particular requires we use this data for this activity
- Israel – Tell me more about the transportation code. Is that DPS data related?
- That’s right
- It requires any data in DPS files that’s useful for voter registration shall be used for voter registration purpose
- Israel – But this particular process is not explicitly laid out?
- It’s a combination of both 16033B (If a Voter Registrar Has Reason to Believe a Voter is No Longer Eligible) and 16.0332 (a test for citizenship)
- We implemented this process because the law requires it
- Israel – I have questions about the form you’re asking counties to send out under the advisory. Is that the only form they can use?
- Yes
- Israel – Did you have a different form in the past?
- Yes, a slightly different form that was limited to jury summons process only
- Israel – Why the change in forms? What’s the difference between them?
- They both require documentation
- The only difference from the previous notice for examination of citizenship is that this one is worded more broadly so that it is not limited to just the jury summons process
- Bucy – A voter registration card is an official state document. Can you clarify why that is not sufficient if it comes after the DPS document for establishing an official record of citizenship?
- I’m not convinced people completely read the documents they sign
- Bucy – Are we at risk of creating a double standard for some people that became naturalized citizens as opposed to everyone else who can fill out that document without a follow-up check?
- No, sir
- Bucy – As counties treat this differently, I am concerned about keeping a uniform policy in every county
- The policy requires every county to use lawful means to investigate whether a person needs to be on the voter registration list or not
- The policy is uniform across every county across the state of Texas
- Bucy – There clearly are lots of reports of naturalized citizens being on the list. Is there concern, because of the high risk that we’re going to purge citizens from the voting rolls, who happen to miss the 30-day notice? Should we be concerned some people may lose their right to vote?
- In any list maintenance process, we want to leave eligible voters alone and we want to remove ineligible voters from the list
- We take great lengths to do these things to the extent we can at the state level, then train the counties to do what they’re supposed to at the county level
- However, those mistakes do happen
- 307 of the Election Code allows any voter who’s wrongfully cancelled to be reinstated after they prove they were wrongfully cancelled
- Bucy – So, any of these individuals can still show up and have their vote count. What do they have do when they show up to vote?
- They won’t be on the list when they show up to vote
- If they show evidence of citizenship, they can vote a regular ballot, be immediately reinstated, and vote that day
- Bucy – Because this list has so many naturalized citizens on it, would it be a better policy to recall this advisory notice and clean it up before sending it back out?
- We do what we can to provide data to the counties
- We do not have the data the counties have that they are using to further refine this list
- The process is working exactly how the law intends it to work
- The only difference with this process and other list maintenance process is this has a larger dataset for the initial run
- Bucy – Because of what we’ve seen with the list having so many naturalized citizens, are there any policy changes on your end as you continue to receive data from DPS?
- No, we have the same policies
- Klick – Regarding list maintenance at the county level, can you give us an example of what data the locals might have that you don’t have?
- They have voter application files, so they have an active application file for all of the voter interactions
- TEAM application files have previous activity
- A number of counties engage with newly naturalized citizens, and register them to vote; they keep those lists in their possession to check if a voter has become naturalized
- Klick – Would it be fair to say that some newly naturalized citizens might take their naturalization papers with them when they go to a county office to register to vote?
- They could have those in the application file, yes
Skylor Hearn – DPS
- Israel – What is your role at DPS?
- I oversee the law enforcement services at the agency
- Israel – Would you say the data shared with the Secretary of State used to determine if someone is a non-citizen voter registrant is up to date? Or is there a way this data could be dated?
- It is up to date to the time the individual came into our office
- Israel – What is the longest time a naturalized citizen could go without updating information with DPS?
- Typically, 6 years
- Israel – Could a newly naturalized citizen renew their Texas ID card or driver’s license without providing information to DPS that explains they were recently naturalized?
- No, when you come in, you still have to confirm that you’re a valid, lawful presence
- Israel – Are you allowed to run citizenship checks for the purposes of voter registration?
- No, that is not our function
- Klick – Are there some people who would have less than a 6 years duration of their license? If so, under what circumstances?
- It depends on the length of your visa
Rep. Klick concluding remarks:
- Will not meet next Monday since it is a holiday
- Will begin hearing bills Monday, Feb. 25th