My wife asked about The Electors Trust, a group of lawyers offering “free and strictly confidential legal support to any Elector who wishes to vote their conscience,” and so at her suggestion, I’m posting the link for its relevance to the Texas electors.
I’m still working through my own thoughts regarding the Electoral College, so-called “faithless electors,” and our oddly structured Presidential elections, and will take some time to unpack them in a (very near) future post.
My apologies for having not posted more frequently lately; I guess the impending collapse of Western Democracy has been leaving me feeling a bit unmotivated. (More about that in a later post). Here are a few quick links to catch up on some Texas election news:
I. TEXAS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS DO THEIR THING
I’ll unpack this story in a separate post because it deserves more scrutiny (what with democracy teetering on the brink and all), but essentially the Standard-Times story repeats the received experiential wisdom of many election experts — that nothing exciting or new is going to happen with the Electoral College, because nothing exciting or new ever happens with the Electoral College.
The story notes in passing that Republican state officials are now considering legislation to punish any future so-called “rogue electors” in response to the defections. The text of the proposed bill (H.B. 543, filed by Representative John Raney) is here, and as currently drafted, the bill imposes a $5,000 fine on electors who fail to vote the party line.
II. IS THE TOWN OF BROCK EVEN REALLY REAL?
From the Palestine Herald-Press, this story about a dispute between the newly incorporated village of Brock and the city of Weatherford, regarding a proposed May 2017 election in Brock to choose a mayor and city council. The problem here is that when Brock incorporated, it did its incorporation election “wrong” by failing to include an initial slate of city officials in the ballot. Oops.
So the Weatherford city attorney is taking the position that the proposed May 2017 municipal general election in Brock is illegal. Meanwhile, the attorney for the putative legal entity (the town of Brock) is arguing in effect, “well, what exactly are we supposed to do? We got a judge to order a make-up election to fix our mistake, and we have to have a city council at some point, right?”
At heart, I suspect this is really a fight driven by the zero-sum game of local property tax revenue — another taxing entity in the county means another governmental competitor for statutorily limited tax dollars (because of the tax rate ceiling cap on local tax assessments).
In effect, the City of Weatherford’s attorney is saying that the town of Brock never really incorporated, because the town’s incorporation election was such an error-strewn screwed-up mess. Those are technical legal terms, by the way.
III. WHAT IS GOING ON IN KAUFMAN COUNTY?
From InForney.com comes this story about a newly elected county commissioner submitting paperwork to decline the oath of office. Greg Starek campaigned actively for the post in the March 2016 Republican Party primary, and (as with most Republican candidates in Kaufman County) was unopposed in the general election. The story gives no indication as to why Mr. Starek is now declining the seat, which will need to be filled by appointment. The lack of details means my curiosity about the circumstances is unsatisfied.
IV. SCHOOL BOARD ELECTIONS IN THE VALLEY ARE ALWAYS EXCITING!
The losing candidates (who ran together on a slate referred to as the ‘U.S.S. Restore’ team) allege that the winning candidates (who ran together on a slate referred to as the ‘Kid’s Choice’ political team) relied on 200 forged or unsigned mail ballots to carry the election, and also that election workers improperly harassed voters who requested “assistance” from campaign workers in casting their ballots.
Like I said, this is depressingly familiar, even in the weird details of the election’s alleged “wrongness.” There’s the allegation of ballot farming and signature forgery. There’s the partisan factionalism, a feature of Valley politics that we don’t generally see in more settled and sleepy school board elections in other parts of the state. There’s the fight over the legitimacy of the commonplace but fundamentally icky practice of campaign workers “offering assistance” to voters in the polling place.
And the weirdest element of the story for someone not living in the Valley may be the intensity and scorched-earth rhetoric of the criminal allegations in an election where by law (per Section 11.061(d), Texas Education Code) the winners earn no salary or other emolument and have what in most communities is perceived as the largely invisible, dull, and thankless job of running a school district (as an illustrative example of this observation, note the summary descriptions of cancelled unopposed trustee elections and elections with unfilled seats in this October 2016 Waco Tribune story about independent school district elections in and around the Waco area).
As is so often the case, the story “behind the story” is left untold. Again, it’s about money, and not just whatever income the school district can derive from the admittedly limited local property tax base, but also the money redistributed to Rio Grande City CISD by the Texas Education Agency. In a community of limited resources, control of that money is a matter of intense, all-consuming importance, to the point where elections become epic no-holds battles.
Our presumptive President-Elect chose to take time out from his Sunday (November 27) to inform us via Twitter (with no evidence) that millions of people voted illegally, and that but for those illegal votes, he would have won the popular vote nationally. (As of this writing Hillary Clinton is more than 2,200,000 ballots ahead of Trump in the popular vote).
Not to mention that he has in the space of a couple of inflammatory Tweets managed to insult the professionalism and intelligence of every county and state voter registrar, election worker, poll watcher, precinct judge, county elections board member, and state election officer in the country, not to mention every—or at least 3 million—of us voters.
If this is what we have to look forward to for the next four years, the ratings for Trump’s reality TV version of the federal government should be through the roof, right? So at least we have that going for us. It’s obscene—if understandable; this is the PEOTUS, after all— that this story got any traction at all.
But first, given that in my last post I opined that the Clinton campaign would be unlikely to seek recounts in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, and given that events have proven my opinion to be wrong, let’s address the decision by the Clinton campaign to piggyback on the Jill Stein campaign’s recount requests.
General counsel to Hillary for America Marc Elias (via a statement posted on Medium, and as quoted extensively in Rick Hasen’s blog) makes it clear that Hillary Clinton is wholly realistic about the likelihood that the recounts will not change the outcome of the election, but that such recounts should prove useful as audits of the accuracy and integrity of the election process and to settle fears regarding the risks of result-changing “hacks.”
Briefly, the Clinton campaign would not have pursued recounts but for the fact that
(1) The Stein campaign raised the money and filed the paperwork to get the ball rolling, and
(2) Voters were collectively so disturbed and agitated by evidence of foreign meddling and interference in the election that it made sense for the Clinton campaign to join in the recount effort in order to bring closure to the election.
So why did Stein’s campaign ask for recounts in the first place?
I don’t know—I guess it’s possible that the Stein campaign coordinated with the Clinton campaign, but that seems unlikely, given that neither campaign will benefit in any direct political way from behind-the-scenes cooperation.
I suspect that the Stein recount was motivated by no more than what it seems to be on its face—a grassroots-driven gift propelled by very real and understandable anxiety on the part of committed Stein supporters who could not have been happy with the idea of a Trump victory, especially if it was the result of some sort of direct interference or manipulation of the vote totals in key precincts.
Finally, Paul Musgrave, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, has written a nice summary explanation as to why Russia benefits—at least in the short term—from all this anxiety.
I. PRAISE WHERE PRAISE IS DUE
Great in-depth political reportage is not easy — and it is a hard thing for any journalist to write compellingly about the quotidian mechanisms of democracy, as opposed to the comparatively simpler narrative about candidates winning and losing.
And when election experts assert that (Donald Trump’s tweets notwithstanding), there is no way for the presidential election to be rigged with fake votes, voter impersonation, people voting as dead voters, illegal voters, etc., the technical reasons for those assertions are sometimes glossed (or glazed, as in glazed eyes) over.
Discussions of ballot security protocols, chain-of-custody documents, seal registers, and other voting safeguards are usually not what one would think of as making for compelling television journalism topics, which is a shame.
To the extent that the media fails to educate voters about how and why elections are secure, voter ignorance about election security can make voters vulnerable to fear-mongering.
Inasmuch as television news reporting is often negatively (and sometimes unfairly!) perceived as “shallow” and insubstantial, I think it’s important to call television news stations out for praise when they do a great job.
On October 20, 2016 (well before the beginning of the early voting period), KTRE TV (the ABC affiliate in Nacogdoches, Texas) ran a story by Thomas Hoce that effectively rebutted the “rigged election” falsehood with specific technical information supplied by interviews with Connie Brown, the Angelina County Elections Administrator, and Todd Stallings of the Nacogdoches County Elections office. My only editorial suggestion would be that titling the story as “East Texas election officials talk possibility of election rigging” was a little misleading and unfair.
I would have gone with something more like, “East Texas election officials debunk possibility of election rigging.”
Among other things, Mr. Stallings mentioned that in his county [and, I, the Texas Election Law Blogger, will add, and as is standard practice across Texas and the nation],
- the voting systems are not networked or connected to the internet, that
- the ballot tabulators are audited for accuracy before and after the ballot tabulations are run,
- that the State demands a “test” partial manual recount of ballots to test against the possibility of error,
- that the voting systems and tabulating equipment are secured with tamper-resistant seals, and
- that audit logs are maintained for each instance in which the election records are accessed.
On the one hand, nothing that Mr. Stallings said was particularly stunning or noteworthy —elections always produce a prodigious amount of redundant public security records and proof of veracity as part of the statutorily required audit trail.
But (outside of election workers and a few interested officials and academics) journalists rarely include a description of this audit trail as part of a routine dinnertime local television news story about the election. So kudos to KTRE and Thomas Hoce for having aired some of the procedural reasons why the election won’t be—in fact, can’t be—”rigged.”
II. PLAYING ON VOTER FEARS
And now for some criticism. Whereas one TV station in a comparatively small East Texas market did an admirable brief story quelling election fears, TV stations in the much larger Austin market (FOX7 News Austin , KEYE, and KVUE) ran stories on October 19th that might have exacerbated voter anxieties unnecessarily.
Two years ago, a woman named Laura Pressley lost a hard-fought bid to be elected to a seat on the Austin city council; she subsequently filed an election contest asserting that the way in which electronic votes were preserved and tabulated after the election materially affected the outcome of the election.
Her argument was that because early votes cast on electronic machines were not reproduced in hard copy prior to Election Day, they could not be manually recounted and compared against a pre-Election Day partial tally. (The candidate made this assertion because she had done relatively well in early voting, but lost based on Election Day turnout, and believed that the divergent trends suggested irregularity.)
Given that Pressley’s contesting of the 2014 election results had been dismissed by the trial court for lack of evidence, one might wonder what change of circumstance made her story newsworthy on October 19 of this year, when her allegations were run under the headline, “Texas election integrity questioned.”
The implication from the story is that the State of Texas is doing something suspicious by granting waivers to some counties that release those counties from the obligation to do mandatory partial manual counts of optical scan ballots.
It’s an odd irrelevancy, given that
- (1) Laura Pressley’s 2014 election didn’t have any optical-scan ballots, and so the State waiver she describes is unconnected to her election contest; and
- (2) the State’s waiver is a specific response to the way in which certain brands of optical scanners of marked paper ballots (mechanically similar to the scanners used to tabulate multiple-choice tests) accumulate and preserve precinct-by-precinct early voting and Election Day vote totals.
A better headline for this story could have been, “Two years later, losing candidate still thinks she shouldn’t have lost.”
Of the three versions of Ms. Pressley’s “Election Integrity Story” that ran in the Austin market, the KVUE version contained the most explanatory context, including a rebuttal and criticism of alarmist talk about election fraud, and a reminder that widespread fears of election “rigging” are unfounded. The FOX7 version of the story was the shortest and least critical of its source, and omitted key information that would have placed Ms. Pressley’s complaints in context.
III. ARE ELECTION PROCEDURES TOO BORING TO MAKE GOOD NEWS?
Eh … I’m biased against saying that election procedures are “boring.” TV news producers face tremendous time limitations when trying to explain a complicated story, and election law is complicated; there’s no getting around that.
But elections are exciting, and election security should (or could) be described in a compelling way. And I think there’s a public benefit to be gained from airing news stories that give election administration a wider audience.