Print 🖨

Senate State Affairs met on July 10 to consider SB 1 (Hughes et al.) and SB 31 (Perry), both regarding elections. The report below includes all invited testimony and a spotlight on the individuals who provided public testimony. A recording of the hearing can be found here.

 

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 – This is a bitterly partisan issue; Texas is not the hardest state to vote in
  • Notes voter ID was said to stifle voter turnout, but voter turnout is up
  • Some will say voter fraud does not exist, but that is not true
    • Attorney General’s office currently is processing 500 counts of voter fraud
  • Some aspects of the election bill that did not pass, passed in separate bills; including paper backup for electronic voting systems, ability to track a mail-in ballot
  • Bills expands early voting hours and cures defects in certain ballots
  • Bill adds transparency to the counting process, allows poll watchers to completely view the process, creates a criminal penalty to obstruction of poll watchers
  • Cameras will be placed in counting to assure an accurate count
  • Builds a record for those who have cheated the election process; aimed at vote harvesters
  • Overviews testimony from court cases of those who testified they were coerced to vote
    • That is why SB 1 addresses unlawful assistance
  • Bill contains limitations to the types of assistance that can occur during voting
  • Intend to talk to the AG’s office on how this will affect unlawful assistance
  • Will add committee amendments; would be easier to vote on these one at a time rather than a committee substitute
  • Not voting on these amendments now, will do so later in the hearing; will be rolled into the CS if the committee chooses to adopt them
  • Committee Amendment 1 (Hughes) – Changes penalty structure to accept a poll watcher from entering Class B to Class A misdemeanor
  • Committee Amendment 2 (Hughes) – Strikes section 86.0105(b) to keep current law
  • Committee Amendment 3 (Hughes) – Shortens list of information provided in application registered to vote that can be automatically filled; has to be filled in majority by the applicant
  • Committee Amendment 4 (Hughes) – Neave house floor amendment; to ensure a person’s information will not be flagged if they had certain exemptions from jury duty; citizenship and non-residence will be flagged
  • Committee Amendment 5 (Hughes) – Office of court administration will create a certain application, not the court of appeals
  • Committee Amendment 6 (Hughes) – Clarifies a political party/candidate is allowed to distribute voter application forms; bill provides county election officials cannot
  • Committee Amendment 7 (Hughes) – Transparency between voting system vendors section; exclusions from open records request/public information: trade secrets, financial information, and financial proprietary information
  • Menendez – Election administrator has concerns about the video/livestream; addressed these?
    • Not in the amendments laid out, could be addressed on the floor
  • Menendez – Requirement to scan both sides of the document included?
    • Yes
  • Menendez – More signatures still included in this bill, what happens if a signature changes?
    • More signatures can be used to qualify the vote, yes
  • Menendez – Bexar County is estimating a cost of $71,000; do not want to create unfunded mandates
    • Have not seen a fiscal note for local government impact so far; will discuss
  • Menendez – What about a ratio of poll watchers to employees?
    • Need to talk about it, SB 1 does not increase the number of poll watchers
    • Menendez – Could help the process if we could prevent interference from them
    • Can work with you on that language
  • Menendez – Have you discussed legislation with NAACP and other outside groups?
    • Not outside groups
  • West – You cited from transcripts, where were they from?
    • Both from Hidalgo County court
  • West – What was the disposition of that case?
    • Not sure; these are trial transcripts
  • West – What about providing all students a student ID as an acceptable use of ID to vote?
    • A vast majority of that group have a drivers license; can keep talking about it
    • West – If we have money for a wall, then we can spend money on this
  • West – Indemnification of poll watchers, if they feel offended, they can seek injunctive relief?
    • Not sure if it is based on if they are offended, but yes if they feel the process was
    • If they are sued in an official capacity, they could be indemnified
  • West – Should make sure what is in the code
  • West – Training of poll watchers should be added before they perform
    • Worry is training requirements would decrease the amount of poll watchers
    • Not sure if this has been filed yet, but there is a bill for the SOS to develop a manual that has to be given to a poll watcher
  • West – Should be an impact study of how this would affect the minority vote
  • West – Drive thru voting was used in Harris County to increase voting, why take that away?
    • Is no secret ballot in drive thru, number of ballots did not equal the vote, no way to secure drive thru
  • West – Yes there are issues, but we should resolve them, not take away
    • Have curbside voting for those who are not able-bodied, but for those who are need to vote inside a polling place
  • West – Cannot vote in a facility primarily designed for motor vehicles? What about a fire station?
    • Is talking about drive thru, has been concerned a tent is not as secure
    • Would not apply to fire stations
  • Powell – You met with the Democratic Caucus after it was drafted?
    • Yes and to talk about amendments
  • Zaffirini – Will all provisions apply in primary, contested, and general?
    • Yes
  • Zaffirini – Are there republicans who are minorities opposed to this bill?
    • Do not know; will hear from testimony today
  • Zaffirini – How will the bill address the controversy in 2019 of the confirmation of the SOS?
    • Provisions related to citizenship, entered into a settlement agreement; bill certifies that
    • Does not contradict the SOS’s current practice
  • Zaffirini – Need to look at how voter turnout increased due to the increase registered voters
    • 40% increase in voter turnout last year; 12% population increase
  • Nelson – Are you aware of republicans who are minorities who support bill?
    • Have general support
  • Miles – AG’s office processed 16 voting fraud cases in 2020, most incorrect addresses; why do we need this bill?
    • There are over 500 counts pending from 43 defendants
  • Miles – Provides an anecdote of being wrongfully accused of harvesting ballots; why does the bill not address this
    • Law addresses that already
  • Miles – Has anyone collected the reward from Lt. Governor on providing examples of voter fraud?
    • Does not think so
  • Miles – Republicans in Harris County had no issues with drive thru voting in the primary, but did in the general
  • Miles – Why has the bill taken away local control from local counties?
    • State sets the parameters
  • Miles – How much fraud was associated with drop-boxes for mail-in ballots?
    • Drop-boxes are not in the election code
  • Miles – How much fraud was associated with late night voting?
    • Does not know
  • Miles – Anyone who assists a voter to submit a form to the SOS to disclose private information?
    • Current law, they have to give their name
    • Miles – Difference is having to identify their disability
    • Is not in SB 1
  • Bettencourt – Citizenship verification is important; codifies correct use of citizenship data
  • Bettencourt – Harris County should not have sent out 2 million absentee ballots
  • Bettencourt – This bill is not a voter suppression bill
  • Menendez – Concerned about students/military who could be automatically taken off the roll if their current address does not match where they registered
    • They will be flagged and notified, not taken out
  • West – Asks about those who drive others to the polls?
    • Have to provide name and address if you drive three or more, not related to you, who need curbside
  • West – Online voting would increase voting?
    • Would not be secure; not in favor
  • West – What about same-day voter registration?
    • Is not in this bill
  • West – What about automatic registration when provided drivers license?
    • Are not going to force people to vote
  • Birdwell – Intent to lay out SB 31 before testimony?
    • Yes; first need to lay out other member’s committee amendments for SB 1
  • Miles asks Hughes to read Page 33, Section 64.031 concerning those assisting voters
  • Miles – Then the one who assists does not have to disclose disability?
    • Need name, address, relationship to voter, if they received compensation for assistance
    • Miles – This was in SB 7; you have taken that out?
    • Yes
  • Committee Amendment 8 (Hall) – Puts back in requirement of printing zero tapes and tally tapes
  • Committee Amendment 9 (Hall) – To combine early voting and election day to create a single election period; additional polling locations may opened as needed

 

SB 31 (Perry) Relating to the use of certain information regarding voter qualification

  • Perry – Allows the AG to review a jury summons list
  • Adds bill passed out last session; allows DPS to do the comparison for citizenship

 

Invited Testimony

Jonathan White, AG’s Office – On

  • Zaffirini – What impact will this have on the AG’s office?
    • Currently stretched thin

Jonathan White, Office of the Attorney General – Resource

  • Voter assistance fraud and mail in ballot fraud are the two primary sources of fraud they see
  • Zaffirini – what impact will bill have on staff?
    • Do have limited bandwidth, stretched very thin
    • Have over 500 counts they are currently working on
  • Zaffirini – what impact will statement have on fiscal note?
    • We expect to be able to absorb impact of bill with existing resources, believes things in bill provides additional tools which would hopefully help them being more successful
  • Hughes – asked about voter assistance fraud?
    • One of 3 major types of fraud and second most prevalent
    • Vote harvesters go directly to where voters are located and try to get between person and ballot
    • Can also be about transporting person to a poll
    • Have seen curbside voting be abused in certain parts of the state
    • If had better data could probably show what normal level of assistance is when people need accommodations
    • Feels office acts reactively at this time
    • For both voter assistance and mail in ballot usually targets vulnerable individuals
  • Gives example of candidate near South Texas vote harvesting, but lost that case; however, says community got together and voted individuals out of office
  • Hughes – asked about vote harvesting/mail ballot harvesting?
    • Example where individual addresses voter and fills out mail in ballot for the person but down ballot the harvester fills out ballot the way they want and leaves token with voter when they leave
    • Seeding can be signing people up to get mail in ballots, can get a years’ worth which makes it easier for voter harvesters
  • Hughes – asked about pending cases?
    • Cannot discuss specific facts of pending cases, has seen a good deal of cases
    • Focus is on elderly typically
    • Did have one case where close to 50% of ballots were disability ballots vs the typical 1%
  • Hughes – asked for more details on curbside or transportation fraud work?
    • Slate of candidates provided to voter and a person is assigned to them to walk them through
    • Don’t want people’s vote cast without their knowledge, and they do see that
  • Hughes – how do you find out about these instances?
    • Usually a complaint, look at credibility and if believe offense occurred then they start investigation
  • Hughes – asked about what curbside voting fraud looks?
    • Says not happening everywhere but based on reports they hear
    • Constant stream of cars coming in being brought in by campaign worker but voter appears to be of able body
    • Chicken plate example, says he heard of this in South Texas
  • Hughes – asked if he has seen cases where people walk in with voter to vote?
    • Absolutely
    • Sometimes a handler is assigned to a person to make sure they vote and vote the right way
    • Example of teachers at polling place who are able and know how to read and write are assigned handlers, how they know of issue existing
  • Hughes – refers to transcript he read at beginning, asked if there are other examples of the ones like he read?
    • Yes, could go back to 2008 and have had unlawful assistance cases going back that far
    • There are more examples like Hughes read in the transcript
  • Hughes – reads testimony from witness, says heard cases are difficult to prosecute?
    • Mentioned the one early on they were not successful, witness went back on initial statement
    • Testimony was reversed, witness was intimidated, and it is not uncommon for them to change their stories (crowd murmur and West heard off mic questioning statement)
  • Hughes – asked more about complaint process?
    • Need complaint through appropriate channels, they do not go looking for cases
    • They take the cases they are given
  • Hughes – asked about provisions of bill in SB 1 and their ability to prosecute?
    • Causing a person to divulge if paid by campaign, etc it creates a paper trail
  • Birdwell – Chair calls Ingram since Zaffirini has questions for him and she had to leave at 2 p.m.; after Ingram testimony they will then turn back to White and Ingram as a panel

 

Keith Ingram, Elections Division of Secretary of State – Resource

  • Zaffirini – any evidence of curbside voting fraud?
    • Not aware of evidence of fraud
  • Zaffirini – are there measures that would allow curbside voting would happen securely?
    • Need more training
  • Zaffirini – early voting hours limits, any instances of increase fraud at night?
    • Not aware of fraud that occurred
  • Zaffirini – any evidence to suggest any specific person taking advantage of light night voting?
    • Heard about medical workers utilizing
  • Zaffirini – what about people who work during voting hours? Caretakers of elderly individuals
    • Would hope they could get off within those two weeks at some point
    • There was legislation that would have allowed full time caregivers to vote by mail but the bill did not progress
  • Zaffirini – what security purpose does having numbers match in bill help?
    • Does not see numbers should have to match, not a basis for rejection
  • Zaffirini – what is current training for poll watchers, any other suggestions?
    • Bill does not require anything, have some current training and will be putting something on website in the future to go in hand with handbook
  • Zaffirini – do you see training as barrier for poll watchers?
    • Will make it available but requiring it is up to legislature
  • Zaffirini – defining “political favor”; how do you interpret it?
    • I don’t know how we would interpret it
  • Zaffirini – asked White from AG
    • Offer of employment, building something specifically that benefits that individual
    • Zaffirini – talking about a snow cone?
    • No something a bit more substantial
  • Zaffirini – what is candidate list priorities to encourage vote and care of same issue is that political favor?
    • Both witnesses answer no

Q&A Panel 1

  • Hall – protecting each persons individual right to have vote count and every time there is a discrepancy someone’s vote is discounted, not always about looking for fraud
    • Ingram agrees
  • Hall – talks about tally before movement of machines
    • Ingram agrees with his assertions
  • Lucio – virtual/online voting potential? Future of voting?
    • Policy by legislature is set, if directed to investigate they will do so
    • Lucio – would like to look at best practices in other parts of the country
  • Powell – asks Ingram but notes White can answer as well, SOS required to contract with DPS to verify accuracy of roll monthly so how does this comply to previous court settlement?
    • Ingram reviews agreement in settlement, bill language is exactly what settlement agreement contemplates and actually will do this on a weekly basis
  • Powell – confirms newly naturalize person will not get caught up in this?
    • Not really, only possibility is to go say they are not a citizen at DPS and then get naturalized
  • Powell – can SOS and DPS absorb this prevision?
    • Will not cost anything
  • Powell – Perry bill amends same section and differs in language from SB 1, how will different versions be reconciled and will they for sure comply?
    • Language is different because they helped modify it and its same language in settlement
  • West – asked White about Hidalgo County, how did case resolve?
    • Election was overturned but they did not litigate the case because it was private
    • Believes case is still being litigated on appeal, outcome is still in limbo
    • West – can’t say one way or another if its credible since you were not litigating
    • Do have a prosecution pending relating to actors in the case, for just over 3 years or more
  • West – asked if case was set for trail?
    • Not currently, still pending in court
  • West – confirms in Texas there are 44 defendants that have 500 counts
    • Those are cases his staff is working on
  • West and White discuss number of active prosecutions and for how long
    • Oldest case will be about “3-4 years probably”
    • West – you don’t know
  • West – wants to know how many have been not guilty
    • White – thinking two and there may be more
  • West – agrees there is an issue in the state
  • West – do you know if cases filed against are African American?
    • White – probably have a good idea, not more than 50% are
  • West – would you agree to look at cases if disproportionate amount were African American?
    • White – if that were the case, if doubt..since its not something we base decisions on then the number will be what it is
  • West – assumes talks to both sides on the complaints or just one side?
    • White – don’t always get both sides
  • West – asked about being backing out of prosecuting because they have been intimidated?
    • White – did not quantify the number but there are cases
  • West – asked Ingram if there are other states that allow online voting?
    • W. Virginia uses block chain technology for military voters
    • Believes has heard Denver, CO piloted with all voters
    • West – asked him to further look into those
  • West – For the SOS’s office are there other states that allow online voting?
    • Yes West Virginia uses blockchain voting for military members overseas
    • Denver experimented with it
  • West – Are there any other technologies we could use to increase voting accessible?
    • Have been looking at blockchain
  • Miles – Hervis Rodgers Case, got arrested this last Tuesday for voter fraud
  • Miles – Stood in line for 6 hrs to cast vote and on Tuesday he was arrested, moved him to conservative county – Montgomery to prosecute him
  • Miles – Want to know African America numbers and Latino numbers on prosecuting
  • Miles – Law should be equal
  • Miles – Are dealing with bias in terms of prosecutions of voter fraud for minorities; office will be requesting information on a specific case
  • Hughes – Have 44 people with 500 counts of fraud, specifically the AG’s office deals with these?
    • White – Yes, three lawyers in the AG’s office handle these cases
  • Hughes – What is the percentage of fraud for local, primary, general
    • White – 90% of voter fraud and vote harvesting happens in local/primary elections
    • White – Office is referral-based
  • West – Only cases you know about are 44 in the whole state for several years?
    • White – 386 active investigations
  • West – Are 44 cases considered massive fraud? Were 11 million votes in the state last election
    • White – 44 compared to 11 million is a small number
  • West – Do not know what is going on federally, is not accurate to say the house is on fire
    • White – Can be read as evidence for a larger problem
  • West – Are you familiar with forum shopping; why was this case not litigated in Harris County?
    • Cases are switched counties are a number of reasons, having relationships in certain counties
  • West – SOS, cannot disclose information about who made the complaint? Could be a legislative privilege?
    • Do not believe it is a legislative privilege
  • Miles – Is forum shopping regular in cases? Is this case voter fraud?
    • That term does not apply to our prosecutions
    • It is illegal voting, is a violation of the election code

 

Chuck DeVore, Texas Public Policy Foundation – For

  • Both sides agree that poll watchers are necessary for integrity
  • Agree rules should not be changed close to elections
  • Public generally support voter identification
  • 89% agree should be regular auditing of voter lists
  • TPPF submitted PIR to the AG’s office on
  • In the last couple years, 140 individuals prosecuted for voter fraud, 72 concerned mail-in-ballots
    • 14 cases were dismissed, expunged, etc.
  • Most cases are from 2016 forward
  • Only for the last two years, the AG’s office has had three prosecutors in voter fraud
  • Hughes – What other information do you have?
    • Overviews historic voter fraud cases
    • Is possible we would have more cases if there were more than 3 prosecutors
    • Have a system with some vulnerabilities, including ID for mail-in ballots
    • Supports current bill language that if drivers license or other information that validates identity, the signature is presumed valid
    • Some counties are rejecting mail in high percentages, most highly the RGV
  • West – Information you provided, in February 2021, general public was split between mail-in ballot; broken down by partisan affiliation?
    • 84% Republicans opposed, 86% of Democrats support
  • West – Your data says a majority of people believe votes have been cast illegally; how do Republicans feel about that?
    • Do not have that data
  • West – With the number of cases versus the total who voted, is 0.000004% fraud; the SOS and Bar said that the election was smooth/secure
  • West – Do not know why we did not confirm the SOS after she came out that the election was secure; Democrats did not decide to not confirm her
  • West – Given your background, is there evidence to the magnitude this bill is attempting to address?
    • Only have 3 prosecutors for voter fraud for the whole state
    • 44 cases are pending, only 1 is from 2020; takes time to determine there is a case to go after
  • West – I asked you for the evidence that the house is on fire, has only been 140 cases in 15 years
    • If there were more prosecutors, there would be more cases
    • Is an issue of a lack of a desire at a local level to prosecute these cases
  • West – That is one opinion, but also could conclude there was not a problem according to the SOS
  • Lucio – Any pending cases from the RGV? Any of these were officeholders?
    • Most from 2018
    • Could be an officeholder, most are not
  • Lucio – What causes them to be pending for several years?
    • Complexities of the cases; takes time like federal counterfeiting
  • Lucio – Number of fraud cases do not matter, need to put them through the process more speedily

 

Spotlight on Public Testimony

 

Birdwell – About 250 people are signed up for public testimony; that could take us well into the early morning

 

Alan Vera, Harris County Republican Party – For

  • Are gaps in the election code that need to be cleared up
  • A majority of the bill does not deal with the
  • Would like to add; any precinct that has more ballots than voters automatically needs a recount
  • Need real time intervention to stop election fraud
  • Hall – How does registration with post office boxes happen?
    • In 2018, found 4,027 people registered at commercial P.O. boxes
    • After the election, half of those voters had gone
    • Have 5,000 registered at commercial P.O. boxes
  • Hall – Were these all unique?
    • In 2018, yes; can game the system
    • Now finding 400 registered to vote at a single P.O. box; are used for commercial people overseas
    • Have to register where you live; can use a P.O. box as a mailing address,
  • Hall – What about the drive thru voting situation in Harris County
    • Was a decent idea, but executed horribly
    • When there were 3 or more in a vehicle; were 18,000 fewer counts for JBCs
  • Hall – How many drive thru locations? Where were they? Republican or Democrat areas?
    • 10; were scattered around the county, most were on edges of minority communities
    • Do not have that data, do not register by part in Texas
  • Hall – What about mail-in ballots?
    • Have about five brief cases for voting fraud using those who have passed away
  • Hall – What about chain of custody issues?
    • Is horrible; Harris County sent out 400,000 mail-in ballot applications, was confusion about the ones turned in
    • Were overwhelmed by ballots, was no log for them
    • SOS brought in unqualified
  • Hall – What about poll watcher obstruction?
    • Brought one case of obstruction to the AG for a poll watcher was rejected
    • SOS could not do anything to intervene
    • Do not want random untrained poll watchers to be appointed
  • Hall – Any other areas you have concerns about?
    • Need to have some problem solving, and actually following the code
  • Miles – How long have you been in politics?
    • Began training poll watchers in 2010
  • Miles – Problems were in 2010 too?
    • Some have and some have not
  • Miles – How long have you been involved in Harris County?
    • Have not, started with True the Vote
    • Now with the ballot security committee
  • Miles – How long have they had a Democrat clerk? Recently, there has not been an issue until Democrats gained control
    • Not true
  • Miles – There was no problem in the primary; there is a back and forth between the two on whether the question was answered or not
  • Birdwell reminds the witnesses and the Senators to be respectful
  • Miles – There was a committee of Republicans and Democrats who initiated drive thru voting, was successful, but had issues
  • Miles – SB 1 is about suppression and intimidation
  • Hughes – Did you testify about voting issues even when Republicans had control?
    • Yes, have enemies in both parties
  • Hughes – Was not aware there was a drive thru voting station during the primary?
    • Was a pilot program at one location, invitation only
    • Miles – Was a pilot program, not invitation only
  • Nelson – That was as a COVID-19 measure?
    • Yes
  • Miles – It was designed to increase voting before COVID-19, and was decided to be rolled out during COVID
  • West – Is there fraud? Where?
    • Yes, is some
    • There is in Harris County in different forms, have heard about it throughout the state
  • West – Is enough to change election results?
    • In some House races
  • West – Has this been reported to the AG?
    • Have those instances been reported
    • Began collecting evidence
  • West – Cannot request to review the ballot until 22 months later?
    • AG told us we had sufficient evidence, but the statute of limitations had run out, is 24 months
  • West – Dismissed then? How many?
    • Three harvesters, 90 ballots
  • West – Have other Republicans experienced the same thing?
    • Do not know
  • West – Could we have the SOS back? When is a ballot cast is subject to the open records act?
    • Ingram – 22 months
  • West – How many complaints have been investigated, but no action?
    • That 1; 17 others are pending from 2020
  • West – With what you have heard, you think there is a voting problem?
    • Have verified instances of voting fraud
  • West – There will be some degree of fraud, question then becomes what is our tolerance level? If we have 0.0004% of 11 million, is that a reasonable level?
    • Depends on how many were swayed by that difference, like for House races
  • West – Do not disagree, but need to be real that every system in this state has audits to reduce fraud
  • West – Tell me about the poll watcher training?
    • Background checks, take a 90 minute class, then a test
    • Notify the party they have passed the test
  • West – Are no training requirements? What are the eligibility requirements?
    • No training requirements; need to be an eligible voter, no election offense on the record
  • West – Agree there needs to be standardized training? Could be done with the SOS?
    • Would be helpful; do not necessarily agree, but it could be done
    • West – Do think there should be some certification
    • Agree; would secure and standardize the process
    • West – Non standardization could increase conflict
  • West – Drive thru is a good way to engage Texans?
    • Do not know yet, did not flesh the problems out
  • West – We can work those out, then could be available for Texans?
    • If those issues are worked out, should be piloted in multiple locations, could be an option
  • Nelson – West, what level of fraud is acceptable, zero right?
    • In a perfect world, but this is not a perfect world
  • Menendez – This legislation may make the system so restrictive to disenfranchise those with disabilities

 

Kyle Huang, Self – Against

  • SB 1 would disenfranchise the most vulnerable
  • Provides an anecdote of a county proactively sending a mail-in ballot application that helped an elderly voter
  • Voting should be more assessable, not less

 

Amy Litsinger, Self – Against

  • Has a disability that would cause their signature to be different every time
  • Bill needs to be less prescriptive in language; including curb-side, signature language, etc.
  • SB 1 could prevent those with disabilities from voting
  • Menendez – Thanks for grounding the issues in reality

 

Robert Green, Travis County Republican Party – For

  • SB 1 is a “fire prevention” bill; to reduce the likelihood of fraud
  • Every Democrat argument devolves the provisions are discriminatory, racist, and voter suppression; this is “BS”
  • Lucio – Should work together to have a system everyone thinks if fair; would be careful making this partisan, a majority of Democrats will vote for the amendments on this bill
    • Have witnessed “irregularities” in the process
    • Lucio – Fraud is not widespread, but it matters even if there is one case

 

Lucinda Caprel, Self – Against

  • Not representing today, but is a member of the League of Women Voters
  • Concerned SB 1 will allow poll watchers to disrupt voting

 

Linda Listsinger, Texas Parent to Parent – Against

  • Bill negatively affects those who need rides/those with disabilities

 

Andrew Eller, Self – For

  • Bill addresses many of the issues in the election process
  • In favor of Committee Amendment 1; would like to take it further to a felony

 

Adrian Shelly, Public Citizen – Against

  • Texas remains one of the hardest states to vote in
  • Texas has a history of disenfranchising poor and minority voters
  • Provisions in SB 1 will do so; such as a ban on drop boxes, limitations on voting hours, ban on drive thru voting
  • Automatic registration and other bills filed should be heard instead

 

Cynthia Brehm, Self – For

  • Election administrators should not be able to recreate ballots
  • Disagree with Menendez in limiting poll watchers
  • Has witnessed thousands of mail in ballot creases as a poll watcher
  • Election judges should be the only one to run a zero tape
  • Should go back to one day elections
  • Menendez – Do not think I should handcuff poll watchers, point is a balance between poll watchers and those doing their job
    • Should not be any reason to limit poll watchers from watching the central count
    • You are up for re-election –
    • Menendez – I am not worried about that; do not know what the issue is
    • Obstructing a poll watcher exists, leave the law alone

 

Bill Sargent, Self – For

  • Should make changes to the bill
  • Need to give SOS right to step in violation of the election code
  • Polling locations should not be open for as long, need to limit that time
  • County wide vote centers need to be open at the same time
  • Counties over 1 million should have an equal amount of polling locations for a party
  • Hall – Something in Fort Bend County?
    • In 2020 election, DA put people from his office in the polling place, and the staff felt intimidated, but they refused to leave
    • SOS should intervene in cases of voting fraud/violation of the election code
    • Need real-time enforcement
    • Should add to amendment number 6, cannot pre-fill-in party and ballot designation

 

Alex Mede, Self – Against

  • The Economist found there was a growth in COVID-19 cases for U.S. counties who mainly voted in person
  • Need to utilize mail-in ballots, not decrease their use

 

Birdie Kelly, Self – Against

  • Provisions would adversely affect seniors to vote
  • Most are elderly in my precinct and do not understand technology

 

David Wineburg, Brennan Center for Justice – Against

  • DeVore made an analogy from voter fraud to those who speed; is no comparison
  • This is not an appropriations bill that adds resources to the AG’s office, is a policy bill
  • Bill makes it harder to vote, not easier
  • Powell – Could you speak to how potential penalties concerning poll workers could impact how many we could get in those jobs?
    • Hughes noted training for poll watchers would disincentivize poll workers, agree with that
    • Civil penalties above their head is a real problem
    • Bill is “nonsensical” for how election judges should run the election, especially concerning poll workers

 

Kristin Bikham, Dallas GOP Ballot Integrity Committee – For

  • Were initially against, with first Committee Amendment, are for
  • Central counting stations go to great lengths to keep watchers out
  • Penalty for obstructing watchers should be raised to a state felony
  • Support Sen. Hall’s amendments
  • Hall – You have personal experience about this; were there vendors who had a laptop connected to a machine?
    • Laptop was not directly connected to the accumulator, but had internet capabilities and went in and out of the room
    • November 2018 was the most poll watcher obstruction I have ever experienced

 

Cyrus Reed, Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club – Against

  • Opposed to bill including the amendments
  • Have seen increases in voting numbers because of expansions in mail-in ballots and other innovations
  • SB 1 makes it harder to vote and takes away those tools
  • Poll watcher provisions could allow for intimidation of voters
  • Should pass bills that are for mail-in and curbside voting
  • Hall – We need to increase people voting, what about consideration of the eligibility of those who would be voting?
    • Want to increase the ability to vote for those who are eligible
    • Hall – Cannot overlook importance of preventing ineligible votes
    • Bill takes away options for voting, against it

 

Nina Perales, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund – Against

  • SB 1 takes away federal voting assistance rights; SB 1 limits assistance to reading and marking a ballot
  • Current election code is adequate in terms of poll watchers; raises the inference of purposeful racial discrimination
  • Powell and Perales discuss how SB 1 could not match the settlement from the 2019 voter roll lawsuit against the SOS’s office
  • Hughes – Do you think this violates federal law?
    • 5th circuit has said current assistor statute is not in line with federal statute
    • Adding “reading” is one step, but federal law goes further
  • Hughes – Violates Section 208 of federal law?
    • Issue is with the assistor oath
    • Problem is when the assistor is to swear under a penalty of perjury to not assist in certain ways
  • Hughes – Ingram, settlement agreement from the 2019 lawsuit with the SOS, does the language not match the settlement? Concern the information will be old in terms of determining citizenship
    • Ingram – SB 1 does align with settlement language
    • Ingram – Happy to make it different if Perales does not believe it does
    • In settlement language he said data “fresh” DPS data from the last month; temporal component is not a part of SB 1 currently
    • Now says “previously”
    • Could say data “created after vehicle registration”
  • Hughes – Could you give Ingram that document, can talk more about this offline
    • Ingram – Her language looks good
  • Hughes – Will work on that

 

Beto O’Rourke, Self – Against

  • This is already the toughest state to vote in
  • No online registration, 40 other states do
  • Polling locations in minority and poor communities have been closing
  • Texas is racially gerrymandered
  • Voter ID laws disadvantage minority voters, older voters and younger voters
  • Ending 24 hour voting, making it harder to vote by mail and giving free reign to poll watchers make it harder to vote in the state
  • Bill aims to solve a problem that is not there
  • Need to pursue a bill that provides same day registration
  • Need to have online/automatic registration
  • Need to contest elections
  • Powell – Appreciates support of automatic/online registration; are restrictions with voter registration, can you speak to that?
    • 7 million Texans did not vote last election, shows that there is an ease of voting problem
    • Do not allow online voter registration
    • Should make registration automatic
    • Should have same-day registration
  • Powell – Signature matching is the biggest issue for me in this bill; notes their father’s disability would prevent signature verification
  • Menendez – You are a voluntary deputy registrar, is there no reason to have a statewide deputy registrar? Have a bill for that
    • Do not see why that would not be feasible; overviews different standards across countries
    • Should have a focus on ease of registration
    • The big lie is the source of the voter suppression bills in Florida, Georgia, Iowa, and the insurrection
    • Are big issues that need to be fixed like the electricity grid or healthcare; this is not one of those problems
  • Menendez – What is the number one reason people chose to not vote?
    • Voter registration
    • Some cannot afford to take off; taking away 24 hour voting worsens this
    • Poll watchers could be intimidating
    • Some do not have the time to wait in long lines to vote
    • Removing drive thru voting, signature matching requirement and other provisions will negatively impact those voting in the state
  • West – Drive thru voting and 24 hour voting helped those who work in the service industry, one of the largest industries
  • West – Would a disparate impact study to this bill be necessary?
    • Yes; to look at the data – minorities mainly used these tools getting removed
    • West – If we do not do a disparate study, this would just feed into the big lie
  • Lucio – Are some things in this bill that are good; bipartisanship is important with this issue
  • Hall – Could talk all about the misleading thing you said; the drive thru voting stations were put in black and brown communities
    • Yes it was, but should be expanded throughout the state
    • It was a tool for that community and now will be taken away
  • Schwertner – You said that Texas is the hardest state to vote, but Delaware and other states do not have early voting at all; is it not a personal responsibility
    • Should make election day a national holiday
    • Early voting period is superior to other states, and they are expanding the ballot box
    • Schwertner – So they are following Texas?
    • Yes, but we are going the opposite way

 

Stephanie G., Workers Defense Action Fund – Against

  • Not first time Workers Defense has had to come to warn against use of DPS data
  • Gives personal story of Carlos and notes those are just of the reasons why they oppose

 

Susan Lucas, Self – For

  • Served as poll watcher for number of years
  • Supports the bill with the amendment to make a class A change from class B
  • Texas would be foolish to ignore election security of state

 

Crystal Chisum, self – Against

  • Also a council woman and served two tours in Iraq as a service woman
  • Heartbreaking to think of time sacrificed for country and community
  • Bill impacts people that look like her and with similar background of being poor
  • Did not see voting in home but as veteran learned how important voting is to her
  • Can not figure our how bill language actually benefits election integrity, need to make it easier to vote
  • “I don’t want to choose my voters, I want my voters to choose me.”
  • Sen. Lucio – thanks her for service to country and for her testimony

 

Shenita Cleveland, Self – Against

  • Believes need to come together and not do bills like this
  • Blackout was experienced by a witness, that is what needs to be addressed

 

David Carter, Self – For

  • Served as poll watcher and judge
  • Concerned of low penalty for obstructing watchers but thanks amendment for taking care of it
  • Lot of ignorance of law, need to train election judges as well
  • Recommends flow naturalization process through DPS
  • Lucio – what language would you suggest to make bill better?
    • Help make it easier for naturalize citizens to vote
  • Training is important but needs to be based on knowledge of law

 

Anna Isabel Garcia, Workers Defense Action Fund – Against 

  • Want transparent process of election process they can know and trust
  • Handful of officials want to silence their voices based on where they live or what they look like
  • This bill will make it harder for people to vote
  • Lucio -spoke to her in Spanish and noted he puts issues over party

 

Melinda Roberts, Self from Bexar County – For

  • Originally signed up against but now for with amendment change from Class B to a Call A misdemeanor
  • Discuss her personal experience as a poll watcher
  • Elections in Bexar County are corrupt, poll watchers protect process for candidates
  • Fraud is in Texas, they have seen it and reported it but legislature is not hearing about it because it is not being investigated
  • West – you said you were denied entry, was it a minority community?
    • Yes was denied but not minority community

 

Emily Timm, Workers Defense Action Fund – Against

  • Bill will create additional barriers for voters
  • Bill creates liability for those who would provide assistance to voters
  • Prohibits 24 hour voting areas, takes away drop boxes, etc.

 

Richard Bolee, Self – Against

  • No solid number to indicate there is an issue
  • Innocent until proven guilty means fears or assertions don’t count, but actual convictions
  • Bill is solution in search in problem

 

Mary Ann Quimby, Self – For

  • From Bryan; personal experience story
  • Supports amendment one
  • Thinks stricter enforcement such as felony to not allow poll watcher access

 

Bryan Sunderland, Opportunities Solutions – For

  • Bill strengthens integrity of voting by mail
  • Bill could further strengthen transparency by increasing surveillance
  • Poll watchers have been denied access which impacts trust
  • Further reviews portions of the bills he supports and had recommendations he was mentioning as time ended

 

Carol Nichols, Self – For

  • From Brazos; support with amendments that were offered
  • Discuss poll watcher; said penalties should be severe enough from preventing poll watcher interference

 

Anna Gonzalez, Workers Defense – Against

  • Bill will disenfranchise people of color and make it harder to vote

 

Maggie Stern, Children’s Defense Fund – Against

  • Dangerous and anti-voter provisions
  • Emboldening of partisan poll watchers in bill is harmful for first time voter
  • Poll watchers in Texas have historically gone into brown and black communities to harass voters
  • Body should spend time looking at online voter registration, school registration and civic instruction

 

Nicole Tate, Self – Against

  • Concerns of voter suppression
  • Alteration of rights, notes disabilities are not always visible
  • Changing hours at polls concern
  • Allowing group transportation is needed because some areas don’t have public transportation

 

Mackenzie Jenkins, Self – Against

  • Provided history of organization she is a member of and knows importance of her vote

 

Pam McDonald, Self – Against

  • Legislature should want to increase voter participation not decrease it
  • Argues language is not fair and exemptions should be provided in bill language

 

Quinn Bradding, Self – Against

  • Thinks those supporting bill look like him, traditionally Texas has been racists and bill threatens to continue that legacy
  • Don’t take away 24 hour voting or drive thru ability

 

Susanna Corrinza, League of Women Voters – Against

  • Bill adds more barriers and criminal penalties
  • Adds barrier to vote by mail, match numbers punishable by invalidating ballot, etc.

 

Steve Chamberland, County Chair for Bastrop Democrat Party – Against

  • Voting can be intimidating and then adding bill language makes it worse
  • Never had any problems in Bastrop and if there is a problem could just call the police

 

Taylor James, Self – Against

  • Curbside, drive-thru, 24 hour voting, mail in are all language in the bill she is concerned with
  • Provided personal story on voting experience, need to protect Democracy and not limit voting ability

 

Ray Bats, Self – Against

  • Make decisions that don’t punish everyone else
  • Comes down to drive thru voting, voter registration and hours in early voting

 

Jennifer Fleck, Self – For

  • Ran for HD 47 and audit log revealed irregularities
  • Deletion of USB, several electronic violations
  • Problem is not voter fraud or ballot harvesting
  • Crime is electronic fraud
  • Poll watcher experience she was arrested and jailed

 

Amber Mills, Self and Move Texas Civic Fund – Against

  • Work to get young Texans to vote
  • Bill would make it harder by putting up more obstacles

 

Sarah Toby, Self – Against

  • Believe in fair elections but not at expense of disenfranchising voters
  • Request put effort towards making things more accessible

 

Angela Rodriguez, Self – Against

  • Role of government to protect right and ability for all eligible voters
  • Remove ability to innovate and access keeps Texas in dark ages

 

Laurie Gallagher, Self – For

  • Williamson County concerns
  • Poll watchers denied access, discusses her experience in Williamson county and numerous problems
  • Hall – this gets at the heart of concerns, would like to hear rest of what she has to say
    • Software glitches never generated precinct by precinct results
    • Boxes were sent in not in secure boxes
    • Not even enforcing laws currently on the books
  • Hall – do you think bill will help?
    • Yes, will help poll watchers, they are there to help on voters that are not there
  • Hall – was anything done to get action taken?
    • Going to County Commissioner court asking for answers to these failures with no answer
    • Yes, have been to AG office

 

Isabel, Texas Rising – Against

  • Spent finals week opposing SB 7 and doing it again
  • Bill is about silencing voices

 

Lisa, Self – Against

  • Discusses son who wants to vote but is disabled
  • Matching signatures would discriminate against his disability of dysgraphia

SB 1 left pending

SB 31 left pending