In revising Texas’ voter ID law, put greater focus on educating public
More than 14 million Texans were registered to vote in 2014. That November, 4.7 million cast a ballot, and in one Texas congressional district, a pivotal number could have voted but did not because they did not believe they had one of the seven state-mandated forms of identification required when voting in person. Had the state intervened to clarify the new voter ID rules via a robust education campaign, rather than the very minimal effort put forth, voter participation statewide could have been higher. And at least in that one congressional race, increased participation could have changed the outcome.
This is the essence of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on Wednesday that Texas’ voter ID law violates the federal Voting Rights Act. The court’s ruling also parallels our independent findings that, while the law may in fact be necessary to protect the integrity of the electoral system, the way it was implemented failed to protect the integrity of the right to vote. For this reason, we believe an intervention is needed.
The University of Houston Hobby Center for Public Policy, in collaboration with Rice University’s James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy, examined whether the voter ID law impacted the decision by registered voters to not participate in the 23rd Congressional District in 2014. In that district, which spans from San Antonio to the outskirts of El Paso and whose population is two-thirds Latino, Democratic incumbent Pete Gallego lost to Republican challenger Will Hurd by a thin margin of 2,422 votes out of 115,429 votes cast. While the study does not conclude Gallego would have been re-elected if there had been no voter ID law, it does conclude the law depressed voter turnout.
We surveyed registered voters in the 23rd District who did not cast a ballot in 2014 to learn why they did not participate. Thirteen percent indicated they didn’t cast a ballot either in whole or part because they believed they didn’t possess an approved form of photo ID needed to vote in person. What is striking is that subsequent survey questions revealed that more than 9 out of 10 of them actually did possess an approved form of photo ID.
This means that in Texas’ only congressional “swing” district where both Democrats and Republicans have a realistic chance of victory, a lack of information potentially kept thousands of registered voters from exercising their right of suffrage. It is also more likely than not that most of those voters would have supported the incumbent. While our study is a snapshot of the respondents’ attitudes and behaviors, it offers a critical view and essential advice: New rules require new interventions to ensure voters are aware of changes in our electoral process and of the ways they can still participate.
This fall, we will be conducting additional research to determine the effect of awareness and educational campaigns on voter participation in Harris County, particularly among Latinos. At the same time, we will comprehensively examine the basis for why the voter ID law was first introduced: the potential for fraud. Voters and candidates alike must be assured that our electoral system is secure.
The Texas attorney general called the voter ID rule “common sense.” So, too, is the notion that an intervention is needed to ensure the application of the law balances our constitutional freedoms with security.
As the District Court considers a remedy for this fall, attention should be paid to educating voters and the possibility of expanding eligible forms of identification without compromising the integrity of the voting process.
Re: July 22 letter to the editor, “Gun-free zones do not make citizens safer.”
“Guns everywhere” is a concept that revolts many people, especially faculty. The questions raised by this author are irrelevant; faculty do not want guns in campus buildings. It is an artificial, unnecessary and politically motivated issue.
According to the Texas Tribune, as of May, 33 private universities in Texas prohibit guns on campus, four have not yet decided and one allows faculty, not students, to carry
Re: July 23 commentary, “Rumsey: What does Donald Trump Jr. know about public schools?”
I’ve been a camp counselor, print shop worker, social worker and secretary. But the hardest job I ever had was that of a public high school teacher. Jennifer Rumsey’s article on the work and extra care teachers give to students was right on.
We so need to treat teachers as the professionals they are (and weed out the ones who aren’t) with livable wages and respect. The Trumpster is sadly lacking in real-world experience at the most basic level. Well said, Rumsey!