The House Committee on Elections met on May 13, 2019, to take up a number of bills. This report covers only SB 974 (Campbell), SB 1048 (Fallon), and SB 1569 (Fallon).

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.

 

SB 1569 (Fallon) – Relating to the use of public money and resources by employees of an independent school district to distribute a communication that advocates for or opposes a political measure, candidate, or party; creating a criminal offense.

Klick lay out

  • Prohibits ISDs from using school resources or instructing students to advocate for or against measures.

 

Public testimony

Alan Vera, Harris County Republican Party Ballot Security Committee – For

  • Every political activity has been seen and documented. This is not addressing some imaginary or hypothetical issue.
  • ISDs have supported preferred statewide candidates and some Senators and have spent public money and resources to support these candidates.
  • Bill does not address videos run in movie theaters, that should be added. Should also include any organization created by ISD employees or their contractors using public money.
  • County school boards of trustees should also be included in the bill.

 

Cindy Weatherby, League of Women Voters – Against

  • This could discourage educators and students from civic engagement.
  • This law will prevent educators form doing what is legal from fear of being charged with a criminal offense.

 

Ed Johnson, self – For

  • There have been examples of school buses driving kids to polling places with district employees driving them. This was used to support frivolous bond measures.

 

Mark Wiggins, ATPE – Against

  • Agree with the principle that public funds should not be used for political advertising.
  • This bill expands the definition of political advertising. This would be a problem because under this definition two teachers discussing politics in a break room could be a violation.
  • This will prohibit a behavior encouraged in the TEKS, which includes interacting with representatives.

 

Michael Openshaw, self – For

  • There has been a concerning politicization of school communications.

 

Rosemary Kaminsky, self – Against

  • This bill is unnecessary, there are already rules in place that govern the conduct of school districts.

 

Lonnie Hollingsworth, Texas Classroom Teachers Association – Against

  • Agree that dsitrcit facilities should not be used for electioneering.
  • Problem is that the bill opens up email communications to political activities. Many teachers use district emails for limited personal communications, which could create some constitutionality issues.
  • Middleton – Based on what court precedents does this create constitutional issues?
    • Hollingsworth – There are a number of court precedents. There was one 5th circuit case involving Garland ISD which said that if teacher mailboxes were open for personal communication then those communications could not be restricted based on the nature of those communications.
    • Middleton – This targets school districts as a political subdivision, not teachers.
    • Hollingsworth – Yes and I agree with that target, but the bill is overly broad and could have serious unintended consequences for teachers. If it was limited for administrators and supervisors then I would support the bill.
    • Middleton – The intent of the bill is to target political subdivisions. Based on 1st amendment precedent it is well established that government does not have the same rights as businesses and individuals.
    • Hollingsworth – Agree with that but restricting what can be sent from a district email used for personal communications could run into some constitutional issues. Superintendents would not have the same constitutional issues as teachers.
    • Middleton – Would appreciate in the future if you could bring those precedents rather than just making the claim without being able to support them.
    • Hollingsworth – I did cite a case, and I can certainly provide you with more.

 

Ruben Longoria, Texas Association of School Boards – Against

  • Electioneering is wrong but is covered by current law. Any loopholes or things that have been discussed today should be brought up with a judge.

Β 

SB 1569 left pending.

 

SB 1048 (Fallon) – Relating to an independent school district holding elections on the November uniform election date and to the ballot for certain independent school district elections.

Goldman lay out

  • Would require a uniform November election date for all elections of school board trustees and all school district bond elections.

 

Public testimony

Jim Sewell, self – Against

  • November elections would create funding problems for smaller districts with population growth.

 

Alan Vera, Harris County Republican Party Ballot Security Committee – For

  • Passage of school bonds and election of school boards is chosen by elections with less than 3% turnout, meaning just 1.6% of the electorate can drive the other 98% into debt.
  • Fierro – In regard to the 3% you brought up, where are you from?
    • Vera – Cypress Fairbanks.
    • Fierro – And there is 3% turnout in the May election there?
    • Vera – In the May election for the school district, yes.
    • Fierro – And there are other elections happening at the same time?
    • Vera – Sometimes, but often you have to go to different places to vote on different elections.
    • Fierro – 3% was the turnout?
    • Vera – That is the average, yes.
    • Fierro – What is it in November?
    • Vera – In the 30s.
  • Swanson – Is the 30% in even or odd year Novembers?
    • Vera – In even years.
    • Swanson – What about odd years?
    • Vera – Depends on what else is on the ballot.
    • Swanson – Important to understand if there are no city elections then there are no odd year elections, and that is why there is often low turnout.
    • Vera – May elections are also often held in unfamiliar locations.

 

Chris Davis, Texas Association of Election Administrators – Against

  • 2020 will see the elimination of straight-ticket voting, so the timing of this bill is of concern. It might take too long for voters to complete the ballot.
  • This bill would place school board trustees and bond elections at the top of the ballot even above President and Governor, which could confuse voters.

 

Shelby Sterling, Texas Public Policy Foundation – For

  • It is the responsibility of the government to ensure voters have adequate opportunity to make their voices heard.

 

Reben Longoria, Texas Association of School Boards – Against

  • This will mandate both trustee and bond elections to move to November without discussion with local trustees or voters, which is an evisceration of local control.

 

Ed Johnson, self – For

  • In Harris County even year May elections go from around 3% to over 30%, and that is only counting people who actually voted in school board elections. In odd years it increases from 2-3% to a 25-30%. This is similar across the state.

 

Christina Adkins, Secretary of State’s Office – On

  • Bucy – Chris Davis mentioned this would change the ballot order, can you explain that?
    • Atkins – Section 6 of the bill makes reference to school board races. The language is written broadly and would indicate that school board races would go above any other race on the ballot.
    • Bucy – That would mean these go ahead of voting for President or US Senator?
    • Atkins – Yes, that is how I read that section of the bill.

Β 

SB 1048 left pending.

 

SB 974 (Campbell) – Relating to policies and programs that permit the use of public money to finance political campaigns.

Klick lay out

  • Prevents taxpayer dollars from funding political campaigns.
  • Amends the local government code to prohibit the adoption of publicly-funded campaign policies.

 

Public testimony

Ed Johnson, self – For

  • Have heard of a practice where voters can receive vouchers from cities and then donate to whichever campaign they want, a system which is often used on the east coast.
  • This practice is not needed and would be a windfall for vote harvesters who β€œassist” voters.

 

Dave Jones, Clean Elections Texas – Against

  • This is a misguided bill and would be bad law from any perspective. Local citizens should have as much control of local elections and government as possible.
  • This bill shows a misunderstanding of how public funding works. Public funding is always optional.

 

Joanne Richards, Common Ground for Texans – Against

  • Voucher systems allow the voter to choose who to donate to, it does not provide funding to an opposed candidate.
  • Public funding of elections supports younger, more diverse candidates and removes some of the influence of wealth in elections.

Β 

Anthony Gutierrez, Common Cause Texas – Against

  • Publicly funded voucher programs can allow people who do not have access to wealth to have more say in elections.

 

Lon Burnam, Public Citizen – Against

  • This bill will undermine public control. It is not up to the state to decide to prevent experimentation to get a more even playing field.
  • This would disproportionately hurt people of color and poorer people.

 

Michael Openshaw, self – For

  • Government controlling election funding would cause serious issues.

Β 

SB 974 left pending.