Skip to content

The Texas mail ballot law probably isn’t a big deal

As I'm sure you all know by now, Texas is under fire for rejecting a large number of mail-in ballots in its primary election a few weeks ago:

According to an Associated Press analysis, the news isn’t great. For the March 1 primary, the state rejected almost 23,000 mail-in ballots, or close to 13 percent of all mail-in ballots returned — far higher than the 2 percent rate that would usually raise the concern of election experts, per the AP.

The votes were rejected thanks to a new Texas law that requires a form of identification on each ballot. You have to either write in your driver license number or the last four digits of your Social Security Number. A lot of people were confused by this and failed to follow the rules.

This was completely unnecessary. The ID requirement is allegedly in place to fight fraud, but fraud doesn't really exist.

On the other hand, it doesn't seem to be aimed at suppressing the Black vote either. It's true that the rejection rate was higher in blue counties than in red counties, but only by a bit. And there's no reason to think that Black voters are any less capable of writing in their Social Security Number than anyone else. What's more, Texas allows only those over age 65 to vote by mail, and that's Republican territory. Why suppress that vote?

And one more thing: Although the number of rejected ballots was higher than normal, it still amounted to only 0.6% of the total vote. That's not earth shattering.

Here's my take: Texas Republicans drank their own Kool-Aid and ended up passing a provision that probably hurts them as much or more than Democrats. The actual number of votes it affected was small. And since it was piloted during a primary election, it didn't have any big partisan effect.

As usual with these things, it produced a huge backlash that in turn produced a huge PR campaign about how to vote properly. In November, I'll bet the rate of rejected ballots will be very low.

In other words, this provision should never have been passed, but in the end it probably won't have much effect. That's how most of these voter ID laws seem to go.

UPDATE: I missed something here. It turns out the real problem is that you don't get a choice of which ID to use. You have to use the same one you used to register, which might have been decades ago. Lots of people just didn't remember and used the wrong one.

This means that the ID requirement is even more phenomenally stupid than I thought. At the same time, it's also easier to fix. If the issue isn't general confusion, but merely knowing which ID to use, that's not so hard to figure out. In fact, if Texas Republicans want to show a little good faith, all they have to do is agree to a mass mailing to all registered voters telling them which ID they need to use.

AND ONE MORE THING: At the risk of stating the obvious, the reason these Republican voter ID measures don't work very well is because Democrats fight back against them. So I'm not saying Texas Democrats should calm down about all this. They should fight like hell.

In the end, after the fighting is over, Republicans don't end up changing the electorate much with these bills. However, they do waste the Democrats' time for a couple of election cycles. That may be the real benefit for the GOP.

40 thoughts on “The Texas mail ballot law probably isn’t a big deal

  1. aldoushickman

    Anything that raises the cost--in either time, money, or aggravation--of the mechanics of correctly submitting a vote is probably in one form or another a big deal.

    That's the case even if it isn't likely to change the outcome of an election, for two reasons. First, morally, in a democracy, the process itself has value.

    Second, it's easy to gloss over _why_ outcomes are they way they are: one could readily dismiss perennial Republican efforts in Texas to monkey around with accepting/counting/soliciting votes on the grounds that Republicans *always* win in Texas so what's the difference with this or that instant bit of monkey business, without pondering too deeply about why exactly it is that Republicans always seem to win in Texas. Because at least some of it is a bit like how casinos make money--all you have to do is tip the odds a little in your favor, and overall you come out ahead.

    1. Rattus Norvegicus

      +1. In a democracy voting should be as easy as possible. There is no other question here, making voting harder, especially when it is for specious reasons, is just wrong; no matter who it impacts.

  2. sturestahle

    Even if you are correct Mr Drum and this attempt to bend the rules proved to be ineffective has the Republicans still been busy at coming up with new inventive ways of “winning” elections the Republican way meaning not getting most votes but finding out ways to sabotage the democratic process.
    Not allowing all voters the right of pre-time/ mail in voting is in itself a flaw in the voting process that probably is unfavorable for democratic voters.
    Your outdated Constitution is favorable for this kind of creative initiatives.
    I guess we who are living outside of the United States of America must be prepared for some more years of the insane farce we had to endure during your 45th presidency. If it will be the same clown or a clone in the Oval Office in the future won’t make any difference.
    ….and Senate will still be a joke and the Supreme Court will continue to be run by religious fundamentalists
    Greetings from your favorite Swedish troll and a good night to you all

  3. golack

    Short answer: Backlash will be way bigger then then effect that law has on votes.
    Rebuttal: The law's effect on the primaries will be smaller than its effect during the general election. The people voting in the primaries are more motivated and many tried, and did, fix their ballots. Not sure how that will break down along party lines.

      1. Spadesofgrey

        Lol, they only make up 3% of voters in Texas. Who cares if they are Democratic dip shit. If you pay attention, West Texas Republicans and white/brown suburbanites who were the most effected. Blacks are a joke.

        1. Crissa

          Because their votes were suppressed, their votes don't count?

          When they only hold statewide elections by about one percent, like Ted Cruz, it kinda matters.

          Pointing out the obvious to those coming next, not the racist troll, obviously.

  4. KenSchulz

    It is a big deal. All jurisdictions should be doing all they can to make voting easier, given that the US consistently has lower election participation than many other democracies. States that have expanded voter access have had orderly elections and no more fraud than restrictive states.

  5. rwforce

    Here's what tripped many:
    "And the ID number they provide has to match what's on their voter registration record, which could be from decades ago."
    And, this probably wasn't by design:
    "Besides issues with matching ID numbers, there was also a big issue with voters flat out missing the ID portion of their ballot's return envelope. The ID field was located under the envelope flap, which Davis said is easy to miss.

    "The design of the envelope is problematic, in my opinion," he said, "given that there are a lot people that don't give a second thought to something that is obscured upon sealing and mailing."

    https://www.npr.org/2022/03/16/1086908593/texas-mail-ballot-rejection-final-rates-harris-williamson-counties

    1. azayd9

      Thanks for posting this - You beat me to it. I registered to vote in Texas in the late 80's. I have no idea what I put on my form. I'm not 65 yet, but if I had some other reason (like traveling) to request a mail-in ballot, Kevin seems to think it's no big deal that I might have to physically mail multiple requests in an attempt to guess what I filled in 40 years earlier. And I sure as hell would not be voting for any republiQans.

      This is a clear case of Kevin justifying his own impression based on nothing. He usually uses facts and data. Why not this time?

      1. Solar

        "He usually uses facts and data. Why not this time?"

        Kevin has a blind spot the size of Mount Everest when it comes to dismissing or downplaying things that don't affect him directly or which he thinks won't affect him directly. No matter the issue, if it is unlikely to affect him personally, like clockwork he'll say the issue is being exaggerated and people should just let it go for reasons.

          1. Solar

            Why wouldn't I? I don't need to agree 100% with someone to be interested in what they say, or to say what I think. What would be the point of that?

            More precisely, while I disagree with a lot of Kevin's takes, I do appreciate that he tends to be data driven in his opinions, which I value even in cases when his interpretation of said data may be different than mine.

            I also appreciate that he seems like a nice person. I have zero fondness or interest reading the opinions of people that are just throwing red meat to the fans, or who appear to be complete jerks, even if their politics are aligned with mine.

            I also appreciate that he is one of the few writers that doesn't focus on the one or two hot topics everyone else does at any point in time, and instead brings up articles about topics few are talking about. I like that diversity of topics.

            I also appreciate that the majority of the people commenting here are smart (or at least appear smart), even if I don't agree with all of them or every single one of their comments, and that aside from Spadey and Justin, his site is basically troll free (unlike most other sites with countless trolls).

            Finally, I've followed him for a while now, so there is some force of habit into it.

            Are those motives enough for you?

    2. HokieAnnie

      Do you really think it was an accident that the form's design was so bad? Nope, if they wanted to make more folks be able to vote they would have taken the time and care to practice good design. But nope the form was meant to weed out as many voters a possible.

  6. skeptonomist

    The claim of voter fraud is another dog whistle to stir up the Republican racist base. Of course it is assumed that it is non-whites who are committing the fraud, and it is often explicitly claimed that it is illegal immigrants who are voting illegally. The vote suppression measures don't have to actually reduce any kind of vote to fulfill their main purpose, which is to make Republican voters think that their politicians are doing something to maintain white supremacy.

  7. HokieAnnie

    Geez this is a dreadfully bad take on Kevin's part. The NPR story linked to by rwforce cites data that more ballots were rejected in urban counties than rural areas. Of course it has a disparate impact on minority voters, that was always the game plan. If we had a functioning court system Texas would have been prevented from doing this.

    1. Spadesofgrey

      Dude, most of those ballets rejected, we're in suburban areas, some that "still" lean Republican. The biggest percentage of rejected ballets per person were in the heavily Republican, low population West Texas.

  8. ddoubleday

    The margin in 3 battleground states (not TX, though) was smaller than 0.6%. It doesn't take a lot of suppression to make a difference.

  9. dmsilev

    "In fact, if Texas Republicans want to show a little good faith,"

    Uh, yeah, let's just see how well that goes.

    I mean, you're talking about a group of people who taking being performative assholes _seriously_.

    1. golack

      If I recall correctly, the law also forbids local election officials from promoting vote by mail--and that seems to include helping people "fix" their ballots. So they tell people their ballot was rejected and needs to be fixed--but are not allowed to tell them what they need to do to fix it.

  10. akapneogy

    "So I'm not saying Texas Democrats should calm down about all this. They should fight like hell."

    Yep. As Trump told the MAGA horde, without a trace of irony, "Fight like hell or you won't have a country to fight for!"

    1. zaphod

      This makes about as much sense as Trump saying McConnell is a RINO.

      I'd like to put in a kind word for Kevin here. He is not saying Texas voter suppression is good. He is saying that we can do nothing about it, and is observing that it is not an unalloyed tragedy. There are factors which mitigate the desired bad intentions of Texas Republicans. It's bad and anti-democratic, but not as bad as it appears if when we take unintended consequences into account.

      Geez, posters here seem to tolerate no deviation from party-line conformism. No exploration of subtle analysis. Don't get me wrong, I detest the racism of Spadey's opinions. But Kevin is no Spadey, and not even a DINO.

      1. Solar

        I actually agree with Special Newb. In McConnell's case it is laughable to call him a RINO because he actually agrees 100% with pretty much everything Republicans stand for. The only difference between him and Trump or someone like Marjorie Trolling Green is that McConnell is not bombastic, and likes to pretend he is a reasonable human being.

        In Kevin's case, the problem isn't just one of presentation (which is the case with McConnell) but actual substance. On several issues he is a lot closer if not fully aligned with the Republican point of view or policy rather than the Democratic one. He is also incredibly quick to nitpick every single Democratic issue he disagrees with, often parroting typical Republican talking points even if it has been shown they are without merit. On the flip side, on a lot of stuff he gives R's the benefit of the doubt no matter how nonsensical or obviously deceptive their policies or ideas are.

          1. KenSchulz

            Agree with cld.
            KD: “… the [Republican] ID requirement is even more phenomenally stupid than I thought…. I'm not saying Texas Democrats should calm down about all this. They should fight like hell.”
            ‘fully aligns’?

            1. Solar

              I'm not talking about this post specifically or exclusively, but about his opinions across multiple ones on multiple topics for the past couple of years.

  11. VaLiberal

    The late Molly Ivins (god, I miss her wit) considered Texas to be the laboratory for bad government. That fact just doesn't seem to change although a number of states seem eager to compete for the top spot.
    I'd love to see Beto as the new governor.

Comments are closed.