As Williamson County gears up for the Nov. 5 election, it’s trading in its digital gadgets for a throwback: paper ballots, but with a modern twist — sequential numbering.
This retro upgrade aims to secure voter secrecy amid ongoing legal skirmishes over ballot tracking and privacy, proponents said.
However, critics wonder if this change truly tackles an underlying problem or just slaps a temporary bandage on it.
The move showcases the balancing act between safeguarding integrity, enhancing security and keeping pace with evershifting standards and public demands.
“Ballot secrecy and ballot security have always been top priorities, and that will not change,” said Bridgette Escobedo, Williamson County election administrator.
THE LEGAL CHALLENGE
The shift to consecutively numbered ballots is driven in part by ongoing legal disputes over election integrity.
Laura Pressley, a Williamson County resident and activist, has raised concerns about electronic voting systems. She argues that unique numbers assigned to ballots by these systems could be reverse engineered to link votes back to individuals, thus compromising ballot secrecy. Pressley has filed a lawsuit against the state, including the secretary of state and Williamson County’s election administrator.
In court documents, Pressley provided examples of ballots she claims demonstrate this risk and asserts she has also identified a repetitive algorithm that could link ballots to voters, with witnesses prepared to testify on the issue.
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
In response, Texas Secretary of State Jane Nelson issued an emergency advisory in June instructing counties to update the certification standards for electronic pollbook systems, prohibiting these systems and their peripherals from generating ballot numbers.
Electronic pollbooks are used to check in voters, verify registration and prevent double voting. Texas counties use electronic voting systems from one of two manufacturers: Hart or Election Systems & Software, or ES&S.
For Hart systems, voters receive a code upon signing in. This code, when entered, directs the machine to provide an appropriate ballot style. The machine then assigns a number to the ballot, which is not connected to the internet or the electronic pollbook.
In contrast, with ES&S systems, which Williamson County uses, voters receive a ballot with a number printed by software connected to the electronic pollbook. Pressley argues this random number is a weak link that could potentially link a ballot to its voter.
Williamson County adopted the use of e-pollbooks and voting centers in 2013, a shift that allowed voters to cast their ballots at any location within the county rather than being limited to specific precincts. This change significantly reduced reliance on paper ballots.
At the time, County Elections Administrator Rick Barron argued voting centers were more efficient and accurate, minimizing issues such as provisional ballots and reducing the need for poll workers.
However, critics voiced concerns about the absence of a paper trail, which they feared could heighten the risk of fraud.
RETURN TO PAPER BALLOTS
With these concerns still fresh, the county is returning to paper. Here’s how the new system will work: Upon entering a voting location, an election worker will present a voter with five ballots, all face down. The voter will select one, and only he or she will know the number on it. Essentially, the ballot-caster is choosing a ballot rather than being handed one.
“It’s a baby step in the right direction,” said Marcia Strickler-Watson, a representative of Citizens Defending Freedom, a group focused on holding local governments accountable. CDF has chapters in seven Texas counties and played a key role in advocating for consecutively numbered ballots.
Strickler-Watson, who has a background as a computer programmer at Dell and has been involved in various Texas election roles since the 1980s, recalls the challenges with e-pollbooks during the 2020 election. It was the first time touch screens were used in Williamson County, and issues arose when delays in the e-pollbook system caused two ballots to be printed instead of one. This error often resulted in the second ballot being handed to the next voter, leading to instances of voters casting their ballots incorrectly.
There was also a glitch with the barcode on some ballots that didn’t read the precincts correctly, leading to a manual recount of 234,800 ballots. Her group was instrumental in holding leaders accountable.
“For us, it was never about trying to have another election. It was always about, ‘Hey, let’s fix this so we don’t have this happen again,” Strickler-Watson said.
She believes that consecutively numbered ballots allow the county to audit better, quicker and cleaner, but to really secure the vote, she thinks the county needs to return to precinct-based voting rather than countywide voting. However, she acknowledges that it’s a fight for another day.
ELECTION ADMINISTRATOR’S PERSPECTIVE
Escobedo said the transition to consecutively numbered ballots is designed to be minimally disruptive to the voter experience.
She noted that comprehensive training for election workers starts Oct. 1 to ensure a smooth transition. In addition, a social-media campaign will launch closer to the election to inform voters about the updates.
She also emphasizes that procedures for chain of custody remain unchanged.
About costs, Escobedo said the ballots will incur an added cost of 3 cents per card. The final cost will vary based on the length of the ballot, with options available in three different sizes.
The longest ballot expected is 19 inches, potentially resulting in a two-page format, which Escobedo noted will be a significant increase. A final decision on the ballot’s length and format is expected in the coming weeks.
Looking ahead, Escobedo acknowledged that potential legislative developments could affect the long-term outlook of these changes. She was unable to give a definitive answer on whether this new system will be permanent.
DEBATE CONTINUES
While CDF views the new ballots as a step toward increased secrecy, other groups stay skeptical about their effectiveness.
“I think this is just a way to dupe low I.Q. voters into thinking something substantial has been done to restore security and secrecy,” said Lori Gallagher of Tally Texas and Cause of America Texas, a group advocating for hand-counts in the Lone Star State.
Gallagher argues that if a voter casts a ballot at a location other than his or her designated precinct, the ballot’s secrecy could still be compromised.
She agreed with Strickler-Watson the only way to truly preserve secrecy is to assign voters to predetermined polling locations, or precincts.
“Every voter has the exact same ballot style, presiding judges sign every ballot and you can’t pick one ballot out amongst the others,” Gallagher said.
MANONTHESTREET
Local voters offered mixed reactions to the switch. David Mucha, owner of Ed’s Place in Taylor, shared his view: “I’ve been around way too long to worry about that kind of stuff.”
Tow-truck operator Randy Tschoerner had this to say: “As long as they get it right, that’s all I care about.”
Eddie Chavez, owner of the Taylor Bike Shop, displays voter registration cards prominently for his customers.
“It seems like another way to make voting more difficult, almost intentionally under the guise of better secrecy and transparency,” he said.
BALANCINGBALLOTSECRECY ANDTRANSPARENCY
Dr. Walter C. Daugherity, lecturer emeritus in computer science at Texas A&M University and a key witness in Pressley’s lawsuit, sheds light on how Williamson County’s switch to consecutively numbered ballots fits into the broader context of balancing transparency with voter privacy.
He emphasized that while the new system aims to improve the integrity of the election process, it must be implemented with stringent safeguards to ensure that voter anonymity is preserved.
Daugherity highlighted that historically, ballot secrecy has been fundamental to protecting voters from coercion and intimidation, a principle embedded in modern voting systems since the introduction of the Australian ballot in the 19th century.
The Texas Election Code mandates this secrecy, ensuring no personally identifiable information is connected to ballots.
Conversely, transparency in counting processes is crucial for keeping public trust in election results. This involves multiple checks and audits to detect and prevent fraud, in compliance with federal and state laws.
“Ballot secrecy is the most important thing, unless it prevents audit-ability and getting an accurate result. So, you make sure it is auditable, transparent, accurate and then when you’ve done that, you do everything you can to keep the ballot a secret,” Daugherity said.
He said Williamson County’s shift to the new ballots aims to enhance secrecy, but it also makes elections easier to audit.
“Let’s say there are 100 people who voted at a precinct and there are 150 ballots, then you know there’s a problem,” Daugherity said.
Balancing ballot secrecy with public transparency is a central issue under H.B. 5180, which went into effect on Sept. 1, 2023. The law permits public access to ballot images, cast-vote records and even original ballots just 61 days after an election, with all personal identifiers removed. Conservative activists argue that H.B. 5180 is essential for preventing voter fraud and safeguarding the integrity of elections.
However, critics argue that the law increases the risk of intimidation against both officeholders and individual voters. A case in point is Texas Republican Party Chairman Matt Rinaldi. The right-wing website Current Revolt used the law to gain access to his primary ballot, which may have influenced his decision not to seek reelection. Rinaldi’s ballot revealed that he voted for Ron DeSantis instead of Donald Trump, despite publicly stating he would support Trump.
According to Strickler-Watson, the ballot was uncovered because Rinaldi did not vote in his designated precinct, making it relatively easy to identify and isolate his vote from the rest. This incident has fueled concerns about the potential consequences of increased transparency, particularly regarding preserving voter anonymity and preventing targeted harassment.
As this story went to press, a significant development emerged: Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton ordered raids on several South Texas Democrats, including the nation’s oldest Latino civil rights organization, the League of United Latin American Citizens. The raids are part of an investigation into alleged voter fraud, with LULAC accusing Paxton’s office of conducting illegal searches and voter intimidation. This action sparked allegations of voter suppression from Latino civil rights activists and has drawn criticism for potentially targeting political opponents.
Comment
Comments