A down-ballot debate
Straight-ticket voting lets voters pick by philosophy
“Partisan affiliation — regardless of your preference — gives voters a chance to make a choice based on philosophy.”
T he ability to vote and exercise your right to select your representative is a cornerstone of our democracy. Here in Harris County, we’ve taken it a step further electing everything from U.S. senators and county clerks to governors and local judges. With more than 92 races on this year’s ballot — including 78 judges — voters are faced with a very long process that gives them a choice in more races than at anytime in history. This election cycle will also be the last time voters will be able to push a single button and select all candidates from one party, marking the end of straightticket voting.
While it has been popular to criticize the practice of straight-ticket voting for candidates by political party, partisan affiliation remains the best way to understand and evaluate the underlying philosophy and perspective of candidates. It serves as a valuable shorthand to help voters make quick determinations about a candidate. While it might not matter in high-profile local and state races, the lack of exposure for many administrative and judicial candidates makes partisan affiliation critical. Nowhere is that more true than with judicial elections, where candidates are limited in what they can and can not say, leaving voters with little information to make an evaluation.
Compounding the problem, the very length of the ballot serves as an endurance test for voters getting through the process, with most judicial and local offices relegated to the last pages. Straight-ticket voting allows voters the opportunity to have their voices heard throughout the ballot.
You might be thinking: Why should a judge’s partisan affiliation matter? While the independence and objectivity of the judiciary should remain our highest priority, we have to acknowledge that the partisan affiliation of judges has had real impacts on our lives. It is simply naive and misguided to not view judicial candidates as partisan — whether or not that partisanship is overt.
While we can certainly recognize and applaud the good works of a specific judge, regardless of their partisan affiliation, we should also recognize that judges remain affiliated with a party by their own choice. These judges support and reflect the positions of their party and platform, and judging them based on that affiliation is entirely appropriate.
However, during the last legislative session, the Texas Legislature eliminated straight-ticket voting, making it difficult to vote out down-ballot officeholders.
The issue of straight-ticket voting isn’t confined to Texas. The Republicancontrolled Legislature in the state of Michigan eliminated straight-ticket voting in 2015. That issue has been heavily litigated in large part because of concerns that increased voting times, lack of information and the lack of time to implement changes will disenfranchise thousands of voters. This will be the first time in 127 years voters in Michigan will not have an option to vote straight ticket. Many believe this will cause great confusion at the ballot box and will make voting even harder because of the time spent in line to vote. Lawmakers in Michigan are concerned they will not be able to inform voters effectively about the elimination of straight-ticket voting and argue this will disproportionately affect African-Americans. A recent petition to halt implementation was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The reality of our system is that many people will not know who everyone is on the ballot because of the length and complexity of it. Partisan affiliation — regardless of your preference — gives voters a chance to make a choice based on philosophy. Trust your party. I would encourage all voters to look at the positions and platforms of both parties and make an informed choice