Texas quiet on voter ID ad campaign
State must inform citizens of change, but records sealed
AUSTIN — Texas is spending $2.5 million to spread the word about changes to its voter ID law before the November election but will not release details about how the money is being used.
More than half of that taxpayer money will go toward an advertising campaign, according to court filings. Yet state officials will not say which markets they intend to target with television and radio spots.
As part of its outreach effort, the state will send “digital tool kits” to an estimated 1,800 organizations across Texas to engage local communities on voter education. State officials will not identify those groups.
And documents related to both have recently been sealed by a federal judge at the request of Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office
The sealed filings are part of the strategy guiding an education campaign Texas is rolling out at the direction of U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos in Corpus Christi. A federal appeals court last month ruled that Texas’ voter ID law discriminates against minorities and ordered Ramos to soften the measure for November.
Ramos has since expanded the types of identification that can be presented at the polls to cast a ballot and required Texas to inform voters and election officials across the state about the changes.
The judge also has
granted a request from Paxton’s office to keep some details of the outreach plan under court seal, preventing public scrutiny of such things as which regions state officials could target with ads and which groups have been identified to receive education materials. Watergate precedent
Paxton’s office declined comment Friday but argued in court filings that those documents include “proprietary” or “confidential” information provided by public relations giant Burson-Marsteller, which is designing Texas’ education campaign. Paxton’s legal team cited a 1978 case involving President Richard Nixon, in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that media outlets could not have access to tapes from a Watergate obstruction trial.
A mo n g the documents sealed at the attorney general’s request is a chart listing local markets and dates that Burson-Marsteller has recommended for purchasing advertisements to educate the public about changes to the voter photo ID requirements.
Another document names the 1,800 groups recommended to help spread the state’s voter messaging at the local level, a list compiled by the public relations firm over the last few months.
A Texas Democratic Party official criticized the secrecy, saying Texas voters have a right to see what kind of guidance the state is receiving from a company being compensated with taxpayer dollars.
“What are Texas Republicans hiding?” asked Manny Garcia, deputy executive director of the Texas Democratic Party. “Either the state is making a real effort to inform Texas voters about how easy it is to vote, or they are using our taxpayer dollars for statesponsored voter intimidation.”
“Either the state is making a real effort to inform Texas voters about how easy it is to vote, or they are using our taxpayer dollars for state-sponsored voter intimidation.” Manny Garcia, deputy executive director, Texas Democratic Party
State’s focus is key
Texas’ voter ID law has been thrust into the national limelight as one of several passed by Republican-led legislatures that have gotten held up in federal courts recently.
Paxton has said he will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court a July 20 ruling from the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals finding Texas’ law discriminates against minorities, but he has yet to do that.
A watered-down version of what was once considered the strictest voter ID law in the country will be implemented in Texas for November’s election after Ramos ordered that people lacking one of the seven acceptable forms of photo identification will be allowed to cast a ballot by showing an alternate ID and signing an affidavit.
Getting information to the masses about how the law has changed is vital, experts say.
Key to understanding the state’s strategy is where and how it plans to distribute voter education materials, including what parts of the state will be the focus, said Brandon Rottinghaus, an associate professor of political science at the University of Houston who specializes in media and public opinion.
Without detailed information showing where the state plans to buy ads, he said, it becomes difficult to knowwhether regions with a higher density of people likely to be confused by the voter ID requirements are being targeted.
“Blanketing the state with ads about how easy it is to vote and how several new forms of ID can be used at the polls is not helpful,” he said, adding that areas such as the Rio Grande Valley and El Paso will require large amounts of advertising. “The real value is the targeted selection of significant markets that are affected.” ‘Held accountable’
The state, in a court filing, has provided a broad outline of how it plans to spend $2.5 million on voter education efforts, but the document lacks important details.
Alicia Pierce, a spokeswoman for the Texas secretary of state, said her office will disclose information about ad buys once air time has been purchased. The state has set aside $1.3 million for ads, along with roughly $250,000 in contingency funds that could be used for television, radio, digital and print spots.
Whether the secretary of state’s office will reveal which groups received digital tool kits once they are distributed next week remained unknown, Pierce said.
What was clear, however, is that state officials Friday would not disclose the proposed ad markets or organizations listed in documents currently protected by the court.
“Being under seal, we can’t release that information,” Pierce said, noting that they are planning documents provided to officials by a private firm.
“We know we will be held accountable for how we execute this campaign,” Pierce added. ‘Secret sauce’
Texas’ open records law long has allowed the state to shield details about dealings with corporations on the basis that trade secrets or confidential corporate information could be disclosed.
Burson-Marsteller was one of four firms that bid for a state contract to consult and design voter education efforts for the current year, according to the secretary of state’s office.
Bill Cobb, an Austin lawyer who handles open records issues for corporations, said it is possible that some of Burson-Marsteller’s “secret sauce” could be at risk of being exposed if other PR firms competing for a state contract on voter education could benefit from the release of information.
“Everyone agrees that open government is a good thing,” Cobb said. “But everyone agrees if Coke has to give its recipe to the government that its competitors aren’t allowed to get it.”
Cobb noted that a recent ruling from the Texas Supreme Court in a case involving Boeing has made it easier for the state and corporations to keep information secret.
“Companies have to make a business decision: Could this information harm my future business prospects?” said Cobb, a former deputy attorney general under Greg Abbott. “But now corporations don’t have to prove it’s a trade secret, just that a competitor could gain an advantage from acquiring the information.”