Print đź–¨

Senate State Affairs met on August 9 to discuss SB 1 (Hughes | et al.), the Senate’s elections bill. Part one of the hearing can be found here and part two can be found here. At the end of the hearing, SB 1 was voted out of committee (6-3) with one committee amendment.

This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight of the discussions on the various topics taken up. It is not a verbatim transcript of the discussions 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 1 (Hughes | et al.) Relating to election integrity and security, including by preventing fraud in the conduct of elections in this state; increasing criminal penalties; creating criminal offenses; providing civil penalties

  • Hughes – Is a part of the Governor’s special session call; filed SB 9 in 2019 and part of that bill is in SB 1
  • Because of national and outside influences have made it popular to oppose this bill
  • Voter ID passage was controversial, but voting has increased 40%
  • Many say there is no fraud, but that is false; AG’s office is currently handling 500 counts of fraud
  • Several forms of the elections omnibus bill from the 87th regular session passed as separate bills
  • Many reforms did not pass, and are in this bill
  • Bill expands voting hours and ensures there are no defects in ballots
  • Bill creates criminal penalties for obstructing poll watchers, placing cameras in central counts, standardizes window of voting, prohibits drive-thru voting
  • Bill builds a record of those who cheat, such as those who help a large number of voters
  • Security measures are against ballot harvesters, not the voters
  • Reads a criminal case of an individual who claims their vote was coerced
  • Committee Amendment 1 does three things:
    • Tax assessor collectors; allows a scan or electronic copy of voter ID card
    • Consistency with closing polling place; SOS checklist for opening/closing
    • SOS said this was no problem to implement
    • Same as another added by Zaffirini; fixes mismatched voter ID number problem
  • Campbell – Concerning voter tabulation equipment, may not be used if any wireless capabilities have not been disabled/removed; what about the extension of that date
    • Will call up resources witness from the SOS
    • Is already illegal for that equipment to be wirelessly connected; is just about new machine capability

 

Keith Ingram, SOS’s Office – Neutral

  • Hughes – Walk us through the law today and what this would change?
  • Currently prohibits a wireless connection to a voting system
  • Provision can start immediately, does not have to be in this law, does not matter
  • Zaffirini – Temporary structures ban, how long has Texas law authorizes this
    • Current law says it has to be in a building, would not include a temporary structure
    • Exceptions are in a mobile unit
  • Zaffirini – How long have these movable polling places been used?
    • Movable structures are only used by a number of counties
    • Some in Travis County, and one other
  • Zaffirini – Are you aware of any fraud in these structures?
    • No
  • Zaffirini – Drive thru ban would be subject to a challenge?
    • Not sure; is in flux after a recent Supreme Court decisions
  • Zaffrini – Implications of historical racial discrimination due?
    • Do not have guidance on that
    • Outside of my expertise
  • Zaffrini – Prohibits early voting hours during a certain time, what other hours restrictions has the state imposed?
    • Most recent says in larger counties, they need to be open normal business hours, and then open 12 hours on the weekends
    • Are other requirements for smaller counties
  • Zaffirini – Would be the first time to have maximum hours of operation?
    • Would be
  • Zaffrini – Bexar, Harris, and El Paso include a large majority of minorities; SOS completed any studies on how this would impact communities of color?
    • No
  • Zaffirini and Ingram discuss a Supreme Court decision
  • Zaffrini – Have you learned of any fraud that occurred between 9 and 6 PM
  • Zaffirini – Opinion on those doing drive-up voting restrictions?
    • Would depend on the situation, would prefer voter to be alone
  • Zaffirini – Would provisions preclude those who cannot sign their name to get a mail in ballot?
    • No
  • Hall – Wi-Fi voter system connectivity condition could lead to confusion over what we currently have? Could affect equipment certification?
    • Would be better if it started immediately rather than 2024
  • Hall – Have three distinct voting processes; if combined early voting with election day, have you come across anything that says we should not do that?
    • Have not come across any reason to not do so
    • Hall – Most complicated part of combining is changing all parts of the election code
  • Campbell – Are machines connected to the internet currently?
    • No
  • West – New section provision, poll watcher injunctive relief against an election official?
    • Correct, would generally be a presiding judge of polling place, central count, or the county clerk/deputy
  • West – Who would the poll watcher sue?
    • Could either sue the early voting clerk at that location or entirety
  • West – Who would be responsible for providing the defense?
    • Do not know the answer; all being paid by the county, could make the argument the county could pay
  • West – Do counties have a legal obligation to provide the defense?
    • Think so, if they are working within their scope
    • West – Could you look into that before it goes through the process
  • West and Ingram discuss a disparate impact study; Ingram reiterates a recent Supreme Court case has put some “gloss” on that
  • West – Provisions that come out of the conference committee report can be analyzed using a disparate impact study?
    • Agree
  • West – Students who are without identification, mechanism for those to be vote via student ID cards
    • Current law does not have a student ID as an eligible form of ID to vote
    • West – Could get a state identification card? How long can you do
    • Do not know, got it at 16
    • West – Can you look at that? If they are 17.5 can they get that?
    • Presume 18, but will look into that
  • Birdwell – Are on the floor at 11 and witness registration closes at 11:30
  • Powell – How is a registrar able to determine voter eligibility at registration?
    • Is no way to determine at the time of registration
    • Most of system determines eligibility afterwards
  • Powell – Requires SOS and county clerks to refer to the AG to investigations if certain marks are on a jury form?
    • Agrees it expends current non-resident process
  • Powell – Subjecting members of the armed services because they have been stationed somewhere else? College students?
    • Do not think so
  • Powell – Lowers standard for evidence by removing “complaint” with “information” is there a definition of information that is different?
    • Standard of reasonable cause is the same
    • Changes it to mean it does not have to be a formal election complaint
  • Powell – Could it be a letter from someone out of state, a Tweet that could overturn an election?
    • No, does not refer to overturning elections
  • Powell – Referral
    • Is referral for criminal action, not overturning an election
  • Powell – What is the purpose in giving this information to another office?
    • Is a policy choice; is a limitation of using data for list purposes, aims to broaden use
  • Powell – What would be the AG’s office’s responsibility as an additional information caretaker?
    • Cannot currently refer anything under provisions

 

Spotlight on Public Testimony

Colleen Vera, Self – For

  • Work in central count in Harris County
  • Do not think we can pull out counting votes by voters; should be done before the official canvas
  • Mail in ballots still need signature verification even if it is signed by a witness
  • Vote harvesting should count for non-in-person encounters as well

 

Alan Vera, Harris County Republican Party – For

  • Ensures all ballots are weighted the same
  • Should be free from paid voter’s assistance
  • Hall – Any other suggestions?
    • Notes a poll watcher was blocked from entering election code signature verification committee; should prevent that
    • Should certify the voter roster before they the election county
  • Hall – Support eliminating gap between early voting and election day?
    • Could simplify the process; would be a part of a team who would look at that
  • Zaffirini – Foresee problems in the Republican primaries in terms of drive-up voting?
    • Cannot see any that the one that has already been raised
    • Have seen issues raised in terms of sending mail-in ballot forms
    • Zaffrini – Has been resolved?
    • Have not seen the final bill yet; counties should not send in mail-in ballot forms, if parties do, they should limit what fields are already filled out

 

Kay Tiner, Self – For

  • Member of the Signature Verification committee in Harris County
  • Harris County has been taking notes already to determine eligibility and resolve minor mistakes
  • Recommend a change to the provision that requires ID on application to match voter ID on registration
    • Should change to any ID on file with the office

 

John Balgiano, Self – For

  • Glad to see provision for a training manual for poll watchers
  • Have heard negative things said about poll watchers; are an important part of the process
  • Bettencourt – Added that part as an amendment to ensure uniformity

 

Michael Belsick, Self – For

  • Need to ensure everyone can vote, but need processes and rules to ensure voter integrity

 

Jeff Miller, Disabilities Rights Texas – Against

  • Some positive changes have been made from the last bill
  • Are still provisions in this bill that will disenfranchising voters with disabilities
  • Limits types of accommodations, assistance, and creates new paperwork/oath restrictions; subjects them to harsh penalties for mistakes
  • Is a wording issue that needs to be looked at
  • Because of the new variants in the virus, has not been an opportunity for those who wish to testify virtually
  • Lucio – What can be done to this bill to make sure there are no additional hurdles?
    • Need a provisions that nothing precludes those with disabilities are entitles to federal voting rights assistance
    • Need to ensure those who are assisting are not treated as suspect
  • Hughes – Written testimony can be submitted via email
  • Zaffirini – How would you change the “wet signature” provision?
    • Would depend on the support needs of the individual
    • In many instances, witness provisions already in law would allow for this
    • Voters are entitled to have a private ballot; use of technology should be in statute and ongoing conversations with county officials
  • Zaffirini – Signature can change over time; how would change current related provisions?
    • Keep the law as it is now; looking at last two signatures
    • Cure provision needs to be a part of legislature that passes; would be notified before their ballot is not counted
    • Could possibly be done over the phone or over technology rather than in person
  • Zaffirini – Curbside voting requirements could have what you call a “chilling effect” on assistors?
    • Requirement limiting the number of those who are driven does not make sense
    • Information of driver transmitted to the AG’s office is one of the biggest issues here; could subject them to closer scrutiny
  • Zaffirini – New requirements for assistors could violate current law?
    • If a simple mistake is made concerning the oath, should not be a state felony
    • Voter’s eligibility should not be asked of the assistor, should be the voter
    • Should remove new language being proposed
  • Powell – What topics should be put in to the poll watcher training manual?
    • Needs to specifically talk about the types of assistance people are entitled to under federal law
    • Needs to be explicit of accommodations that need to be present at a polling place that those with disabilities are entitled to

 

Chase Bearden, Coalition of Texans with Disabilities – Against

  • Issues in the bill need to be corrected for the disability community
  • Continues to be issues with signatures changing; cure language is missing major pieces
  • ID number issues should be eligible for a cure
  • Current cure process does not work for some people; should accommodate those who cannot go in-person to cure the ballot
  • Need a remote cure similar to what other states have done
  • Previous work with Bucy on mail-in ballot software would be the ideal place to cure it
  • Allowing those who are visually impaired have access to an accessible mail-in ballot
    • Added Florida’s language
  • Zaffirini – Solution you proposed for visually impaired voters; more specific recommendations?
    • Technology at home to fill out the application, would be printed out and then sent out
  • Zaffirini – Language to adopt
    • Wanted to put Florida’s language out there because it is the least prescriptive
  • Zaffrini – More suggestions?
    • “Wet” signature; many will use the computer to fill out the application
    • A signature stamp be allowed
  • Zaffirini – What other recommendations?
    • Making others get out of the vehicle is impossible for many
    • Curbside voting how it functions now is working fine
  • Zaffrini – That particular language was changed Hughes? In response to their feedback
    • Hughes – Was changed during the first special session; was a floor amendment from the Senate
    • Should look at this more proactively; should think about setting money aside for educating people on voting machines

 

Joe Murphy, Self – For

  • Must not perpetuate illegal activities
  • For every illegal vote that is cast, a legal vote is cancelled out

 

Bob Kafka, Self – Against

  • A part of Rev-Up Texas
  • Are many with disabilities who are people of color and across the spectrum
  • Disability vote has historically not been recognized as a group that votes
  • Studies show there was a 15% increase in the disability vote; some due to accessibilities, but mostly due
  • Amend parts mentioned by previous testimony
  • Provides an anecdote of a large number of mail-in ballot drop boxes in a precinct out of state where there is virtually no fraud
  • Zaffirini – Any additional changes you want to see on this bill?
    • Worked with the previous two speakers on changes we want

 

Will stand in recess until 12 PM or 30 minutes after adjournment of the Senate

 

Honorable Glenn Maxey, Self – Against

  • Number should identify the voter; should not aim to just match the number
  • Urges this to be put on the carrier envelope
  • Need to go further in the cure process for missing/incorrect information
  • Zaffirini – Do you foresee problems in the primary or just in the general election?
    • Same issues like how this effects communities of color and the disability community
  • Zaffirini – What about poll watchers?
    • Poll watchers are included in the primaries as well; will have the same problems
  • Zaffirini – Could you explain why some view this bill as suppression and some see it as security?
    • Do not know how to explain it
    • It is very real the issues what the disability rights testimonies were talking about
    • Anything that moves a voter away from participating is much more harmful than going after one bad actor

Claudia Yoli Ferla, Self – Against  

  • A part of the MOVE Texas Action Fund
  • Voter trends are changing, but are not seeing the representation we deserve
  • Instead of focusing on the issues, you push one of the most voter restrictive bills in the nation
  • Thousands have spoken out against these dangerous bills, but here we are again

 

Bill Sergeant, Self – For

  • Voices support for this bill; have three improvements
    • SOS needs authority to step in on violation
    • Prohibits the pre-filling in on unsolicited absentee ballots
    • Strike part of the Government code that prevents election judges from hiring family members
  • Hall – Support combining early voting and election day?
    • Support looking at it and doing it
    • Dwight Sullivan, county clerk, agrees
    • Hall and Sergeant discuss how the zero tapes are run and how combining the voting period would prevent fraud

 

Zenen Jaimes PĂ©rez, MOVE Texas, Self – Against

  • Frustrated these community suppressing provisions are still in this bill
  • Provides a personal anecdote; took 25 years for their mother to become a citizen
  • Zaffirini – Are you aware this committee is divided on support of this bill?
    • Yes; I wish others cared more about my community

 

Dr. Laura Pressley, Self – For

  • Concerning wireless language for voting system machines
  • Hughes – Intent to strike that provision of the bill; machines that could connect to the internet is already illegal
  • “Sit” or “stand” language concerning poll watchers is already in the Texas Supreme Court as being unclear
    • Is the intent the poll watcher has the ability to choose?
  • Chain of custody on electronic devices, would like to see a paper backup for the early vote result
  • Hall – Support combining early voting and election day?
    • Have seen issues on the gap between early voting and election day
    • Provides an anecdote on possible mishandling of memory cards in Dallas County and Bexar County

 

Isabel Longoria, Self – Against

  • Bill severely impedes office from conducting fair elections
  • Mandating voters share number and email to help cure issues
  • Harris County held safe and secure elections and engaged voters in a way that helped increase voting
  • Stop giving into conspiracy theories and listen to the voters
  • Zaffirini – Do you have any amendments?
    • Technical issues with when and where you put the social security and other ID numbers
    • Opening carrier envelopes gives those on the signature verification committee access to that private data
    • Technical issue with special districts that have enacting legislation for those who need an enacting vote
    • Issue is people just think it is their job to investigate people’s private data
  • Zaffirini – Any evidence on how this would effect communities of color?
    • Yes, can forward TCRP data
  • Powell – Do you believe this bill makes it easier for people to vote?
    • No; is wrapped in red tape
    • Officials are asking ourselves why tools we used in elections are being impeded by this bill
  • Powell – Concern about penalties in this bill?
    • Number of election officials have dropped out; is a “terrifying” prospect
    • Is a question whether the county would provide protection for election officials
  • Powell – What would be the effect on elections officials?
    • Harris County is big enough to handle the loss, but issue is smaller to mid-size
  • Powell – What would this do to voting times?
    • Decreasing hours and removing drive thru voting can cause long lines and delays
  • Alvarado and Longoria discuss Harris County’s voting practices in the 2020 election
  • Bettencourt discusses complaint filed by a poll watcher in central count that states there were 1800 more votes than were on the voter roll
    • Harris County used old machines and now we have the newest machines
    • Drive thru votes were not nefarious
    • People like to allege a lot of things about Harris County
    • Bettencourt – SOS has not asked you about this?
    • No
  • Bettencourt – You stated that this bill is racist, how?
    • Removal of the drive thru and 24-hour voting
  • Bettencourt and Longoria discuss a Harris County clerk decision based upon “structure” versus “building”
  • Bettencourt asks about 2 million absentee ballots sent out in Harris County in the 2020 election
    • Want to ensure that voters know how
  • Bettencourt – How many people used drive thru voting in the November 2020 election?
    • 127,000
  • Bettencourt notices votes cast during the late night and early morning were 1,600
  • Hall – Were 10 drive thru voting locations, why was one left open on election day?
    • It was in the Toyota Center, counts as a building on election day
  • Hall – Why do you support drive thru voting?
    • Originally aimed to maintain safety during the pandemic
    • Once we know it has a racial impact, we need to keep it
  • Hall – It is racist if you treat one group differently than another
  • Alvarado – Do not think the bipartisan group aimed for this to effect one group
    • Was to provide voting access for those who work shift work
  • Zaffirini – When you talk about racial impacts, do you mean ethnic as well?
    • Yes
  • Bettencourt – Deputy SOS said Harris County was contacted on the roll count complaint

 

Stephanie Gomez, Common Cause Texas – Against

  • Do have a democracy that benefits one type of person
  • This bill would negatively affect women, people of color
  • Would make it harder for all groups to vote, especially black & brown groups
  • Would weaponize poll watchers, plans are being made by certain groups to place 10k poll watchers in Houston’s most diverse locations

 

Rose Clouston, Texas Democratic Party Voter Protection Director – Against

  • Provisions expanding poll watcher powers are very concerning, need to look at practical effect of bullying and intimidating election officials; intimidation is documented
  • Bill would lead poll watchers to think they have greater authority than election judges

 

James Slattery, Texas Civil Rights Project – Against

  • SB 1 would give partisan campaign volunteers license to run roughshod over poll locations
  • Also creating laws to limit ability of poll workers to reign in poll watcher behavior
  • Powell – What should we do to make elections more secure?
    • SB 1 not being an election security measure at heart is shown in how it doesn’t implement easy security measures like online voter registration; would make voter rolls much more secure and accurate via real time updates and access to voters
    • Could also allow voters to register closer in time to the election & allow more time for voters to update info
    • Could codify executive order allowing early voting for an extra week
  • Zaffirini – In your written testimony, you reference study detailing that Texas is the hardest state to vote in & state that this is fact; on what basis do you say this?
    • Reports is a broad base study of different states, highlights specifics like lack of online registration
  • Zaffirini – Asks for other data
    • Poll watcher intimidation is widely documented, highlights plans of Republican poll watchers to go into diverse neighborhoods in Houston
  • Zaffirini – You reference Texas Election Protection Coalition and 866 hotline receiving very high numbers of voter intimidation reports from the last election
    • Last election saw a lot of intimidation, Trump train caravan nearly ran a Biden bus of the road, caravans surrounded polling places
    • Trend line of increasing threats and brazenness of the threats is apparent

 

Luis Figueroa, Every Texan – Against

  • Is a long history against discrimination against African American and Latino voters
  • If can work with election officials, could avoid costly litigation if could compromise in the front end like we did for voter ID
  • Vote by mail database matching may still be an issue
  • Cites the Perryman report that shows a negative financial impact
  • Zaffirini – How would this effect Mexican American votes?
    • 24-hour voting and drive thru voting
    • Database/citizenship matching
    • Poll watchers could result in voter intimidation
  • Bettencourt – Did you know in the bill now, is a poll watcher training manual?
    • Yes, appreciate that
  • Bettencourt – Election officials themselves are appointed to be there
    • Yes, are appointed by both parties

 

Chuck DeVore, Texas Public Policy Foundation – For

  • Rep Anchia indicated he thought mail in balloting is where fraud occurred in Texas and the data supports that
  • Texas has seen an increase in use of mail-in ballots to 10% of votes
    • Average age of those using mail-in ballots to 33
    • A significant amount of people checked the “disability” box
  • Voices support for the bill
  • Bettencourt – Perception of mail-in ballots have changed; why are we not recognizing the obvious?
    • Push back is because you have seen an expansion in vote by mail
    • Need to bring them to the same standard as in-person ballots
  • Bettencourt – Is SB 1 cracking down on vote harvesting?
    • If you do not look for fraud, you cannot find it
    • Are 47 current cases for voter fraud; AG voter fraud team composed of 11 people
    • Elections are as important as our tax revenue, and should apply more resources in voter fraud as well

 

Jonathan White, Attorney General’s Office – Neutral

  • Are the receiving point for complaints on election law and determine if a case needs to be brought forth
  • Hughes – How many investigators and lawyers?
    • Nine and two
  • Mail ballot fraud, illegal voting, and voter assistance fraud; mail ballot fraud is 2/3 of the cases
  • Hughes – Handle cases like the illegal assistance case I read earlier?
    • Yes, unlawful assistance applies to a multitude of cases
  • Hughes – Where do you see the most cases?
    • In elections where there is low voter turnout; typically city, municipal, special districts, or primary elections
    • These elections can be turned over by fraud; would not make economic sense to do so in a general election
  • Hughes – Cases in Texas where the outcome was affected by voter fraud?
    • Yes, at least one pending in court
  • Powell – How many cases have been overturned/effected?
    • Cannot say how many have been reversed; office does not deal with civil suits
    • These cases are difficult to succeed
  • Powell – Is a significant number?
    • Is probably a small number
  • Zaffirini – Does this bill impact the definition of residency? Court determined residency is a state of mind?
    • Did not know that is the determination; do not believe it would be impacted significantly
  • Zaffirini – Could a student chose where to register?
    • Students are free under existing law where they intend to return
  • Bettencourt – SB 1111 prohibits impossible addresses; clear residency is not a state of mind
    • Is my understanding of the law

 

Emily Eby, Texas Civil Rights Project – Against

  • In this bill poll watches are required to be given a manual, not that they have to read it
  • TCRP have testified it is racially discriminatory to use 24 hour voting and drive thru
  • Notes they will defend the use of calling this bill racist

 

Suzanna Caranza, League of Women Voters – Against

  • Supports Jeff Miller and Chase Bearden’s testimonies
  • Oppose greatly expanding the power of partisan poll watchers, criminalizing voter assistance, and other provisions
  • New mail-in ballot ID matching requirement will only cause more confusion

 

Maggie Stern, Children’s Defense Fund – Against

  • This is an anti-democratic bill that seeks to implement anti-voter provisions
  • Overviews provisions they are against including emboldening partisan poll watchers, banning drive-thru/24-hour voting, among others
  • This body should invest in online voter registration, comprehensive civic education, and student registration

 

Alex Cogan, Arc of Texas – Against

  • Bill interferes those with disabilities to participate
  • This hearing’s short notice and refusal to allow online testimony impedes a large section of the population to be able to participate
  • Where can someone find the email address to submit comments and when is the deadline?
  • Hughes – Provides the email in and put protocols in place
  • Zaffirini – Do you endorse the testimony of Jeff Miller and Chase Bearden?
    • Yes, and written testimony of Courtney Pew

 

Tanya Coleman, Self – For

  • Provides an anecdote of growing up through segregation
  • This bill is about election integrity; I am not oppressed, do not want others to speak for me

 

Lisa Neilson, Self – For

  • Was a poll watcher for years
  • Combining election periods into one would safeguard memory cards and the count
  • Notes possible corruption of Bexar County due to not following

 

Committee Amendment 1 (Hughes)

  • Hughes – Is three amendments rolled into one; discussed in layout
  • First is a change recommended by the tax assessor collectors
  • Require when a voter moves, they can send the scan of their original voter ID card
  • Second is a required checklist for opening/closing of polling places
  • Third amendment same as another added by Zaffirini; fixes mismatched voter ID number problem
  • Campbell – Asks about amendment by Hughes and Zaffirini
    • Amendment says the number put has to identify the voter
  • Committee amendment adopted (9-0)
  • Committee amendment is rolled into a new committee substitute
  • Lucio – Will not be voting for this legislation; references a handout given in during the hearing

 

CSSB 1 is voted out of committee to the full Senate (6-3)

 

Closing Comments

  • Hughes – State Affairs Committee hearing is set for tomorrow at 10 AM
  • Hughes – Will hear SB 5 concerning free speech and SB 3 concerning critical race theory