SCOTx allows provisional votes to be counted

Good.

The Texas Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that Harris County can include about 2,100 ballots cast during an extra hour of Election Day voting when officials certify the midterm results. But the state’s highest civil court also ordered Harris County to determine whether those late-cast ballots would affect the outcome of any races — and kept alive Attorney General Ken Paxton’s challenge to counting them.

It’s a win, at least temporarily, for Harris County officials in a fight against Paxton’s attempt to discard thousands of midterm ballots as election results are set to be certified Tuesday.

In an interview Tuesday, Harris County Attorney Christian D. Menefee said that about 2,100 provisional ballots cast after 7 p.m. Election Day should be counted. Those ballots were cast after a district court judge ordered Harris County polling places to remain open an extra hour because many locations had opened late that morning.

“The votes that were cast during that time period pursuant to a court order are still perfectly legal. And there’s nothing in the law that prohibits them from being counted,” Menefee said. “So our perspective is that those provisional ballots are no different than any other provisional ballots — they are to be counted.”

Harris County officials argued as much in a filing to the Texas Supreme Court on Tuesday. That came one day after Paxton petitioned the Supreme Court to toss the late-cast ballots.

[…]

In at least one race, the provisional ballots could impact the outcome. After provisional and mail-in ballots were counted, the incumbent for Harris County’s 180th Criminal State District Court, DaSean Jones, went from trailing Republican Tami Pierce to leading by less than 500 votes, the Houston Chronicle reported.

See here for the background and here for the court’s order. It’s just one page long, and the gist of it is this:

In this mandamus proceeding, which challenges Harris County election officials’ processing of the “later cast votes,” we grant the following temporary relief under Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.10(b):

  • Respondents are directed to conduct the canvass of the November 2022 election as required by the Election Code.
  • As part of the canvass, respondents are ordered to separately identify in the vote tabulations the number of “later cast votes” for each candidate in each race and for or against each proposition, so that candidates, the parties, and this Court may ascertain whether the “later cast votes” would be outcome-determinative and so that the parties can assess the extent to which further litigation is warranted.
  • Respondents are ordered to provide the Court with a copy of the canvass results, including the separately tabulated “later cast votes,” as soon as they are available.

The petition for writ of mandamus remains pending before this Court.

I presume that last line is there in the event the provisional ballots have an effect on the 180th Criminal District Court race, in which event (again, I presume) the merits of the arguments will have to be addressed. Lawyers, please feel free to correct me as needed. The only other race that is close enough to be even theoretically affected by the provisional ballots is the County Criminal Court #3 race, where Porsha Brown trails by the even smaller margin of 267 votes. However, given that the provisional votes cast on Election Day favored Democrats, it’s even less likely for that race to be affected, and it would be impossible for both of them to be in a position to change.

I maintain as I said yesterday that it is highly unlikely that the 180th Court will be affected. If you throw out all of the Election Day provisional ballots, DaSean Jones still leads by 89 votes. There are apparently 2,100 provisional Election Day ballots in question, out of 2,555 total E-Day provisionals and 2,420 that included a vote in this race. The odds that Jones could lose the entire 360 vote net he got from the E-Day provisionals plus another 90 votes in this subset of the total ballots just strike me as extremely remote. I wish the stories that have been published about this would go into more detail about this as I have done – yes, I know, math is hard, but you could at least use “highly unlikely” language to offer some context. By the time this runs in the morning we’ll know what the official canvass says, and from there we’ll see if an election challenge will follow.

The Chron story, from a bit later in the day, has more details.

While the provisional ballots are included in the official count certified by Commissioners Court, the Supreme Court also is ordering the county to include in the final canvassed results a separate report that details the votes of the “later cast votes for each candidate in each race.” That way, candidates can determine whether this group of ballots would change the outcome of their race and “assess the extent to which further litigation is warranted.”

Given that Harris County voters cast more than 1.1 million ballots overall, the 2,000 provisional ballots have little chance of changing most election outcomes. However, a handful of candidates in tight races may consider legal challenges over election results.

“At this point, we do not anticipate that it impacts the outcome of any races,” Harris County First Assistant County Attorney Jonathan Fombonne said. “Of course the [Texas Supreme Court] proceedings remain pending and the court could rule on something. And of course there can always be election contests. Many of those races were close, and it wouldn’t surprise us to see candidates filing election contests.”

[…]

On Election Night, the Texas Organizing Project, Texas Civil Rights Project and ACLU of Texas obtained a court order from a judge requiring all Harris County polling locations to extend voting hours until 8 p.m. after the groups argued in a lawsuit that late openings at some polling locations prevented some residents from voting.

Voters who were in line by 7 p.m. were able to vote normally, while those who arrived between 7 and 8 p.m. were allowed to cast provisional ballots.

That evening, in quick succession, Paxton’s office filed its writ of mandamus asking the Texas Supreme Court to vacate or reverse the court order, and the Supreme Court responded by staying that order, saying votes cast after 7 p.m. “should be segregated,” without specifying whether they must be excluded from the final count.

Because the proceedings are still ongoing, it is too soon to know whether the ability to extend voting hours in the future could be impacted.

“The court hasn’t specified whether or not that’s legal,” Fombonne said. “The proceedings are pending. There may be an opinion in the future that addresses that question.”

Hani Mirza, legal director of the Texas Civil Rights Project’s voting rights program, was part of the team that sought the court order extending voting hours this year. The group also filed a lawsuit in 2018 obtaining a similar court order in Harris County. Mirza said in the case four years ago, Paxton’s office did not ask the Texas Supreme Court to intervene.

Nor did Paxton’s office intervene this year when voting hours were also extended by one hour in Bell County because of early morning glitches with check-in systems. The Bell County attorney confirmed last week that a court order there had not been challenged by the Attorney General’s Office or another party.

“It doesn’t make any sense outside of, obviously, cynical partisanship and these targeted actions against Harris County, the most diverse county in the state” Mirza said.

That sort of addresses my question above about the last line in the SCOTx order. We’ll just have to keep an eye on that. The election has been certified by Commissioners Court, which if nothing else avoids the drama of any further delays. As to who might file a contest, again we’ll have to see. Seems like a lot of fuss for something that is unlikely to go anywhere, but who knows.

Related Posts:

This entry was posted in Election 2022, Legal matters and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to SCOTx allows provisional votes to be counted

  1. David Fagan says:

    6 days and counting…………

  2. Mainstream says:

    If my math is correct, Tami Pierce would still lose in her contest by 128 votes, even if the segregated late ballots are subtracted. I doubt, however, that all the presiding judges bothered to segregate the late ballots and require those late arriving voters to fill out the paperwork for a provisional ballot after working a 15 hour day. Over the years I have had to argue with a presiding judge repeatedly to insist on requiring use of the provisional ballot forms, who would reply that it probably would not affect the outcome of any contest, took too long, was too complicated a process, and slowed down the voting line. I noticed that the precinct level results on Harrisvotes.com shows several precincts reported no election day provisional ballots at all, which seems odd.

  3. Joel says:

    So, Mainstream, you are concerned that polling places experienced problems during the election that might have impeded voting, AND you are concerned that voters might have been given extra time to vote to make up for it without having their ballots counted separately?

    That’s a lot of … concern.

  4. voter_worker says:

    Is there any data on the rejection rate of provisional ballots? The number of accepted provisional ballots is always less than the number submitted.

  5. Sue says:

    Mainstream is right. You would be surprised at how many Presiding Judges have absolutely no prior experience working an election. Ditto Alternate Judges. I also wondered how many of these people were actually keeping the pre-7:00 pm ballots separate from the post-7:00 pm ballots. We only had 3 after 7:00 pm provisionals. I’m surprised the TX Supreme Court allowed these to be counted given that the EA illegally released the Early Voting numbers before the polls closed. Seems to me this could have effected those tight races.

  6. Manny says:

    Low pay, long hours, just the part-time job everyone is looking for.

    You used to be paid for training, but now you ain’t.

    You can thank the Republicans who controlled the county for about 40 years.

    Plus, right-wing crazies are probably watching and just waiting to threaten.

  7. Mainstream says:

    Voter_worker: the reconciliation report shows 6302 provisionals submitted of which 1764 were rejected for the recent general election. In the March primaries 66 of 899 Republican provisionals were rejected and 96 of 1036 Democrat provisionals.

  8. Mainstream says:

    Joel, no, my concern is the uneven administration of the election laws. One of the features of the new system allowing voters to vote in any of the 800 voting sites countywide is to soften the impact of a voting place which opens late, loses electricity, runs of out ballot paper, because the harmed voter can be directed to other open, functioning, nearby sites and quickly cure the harm well prior to 7 p.m.

  9. voter_worker says:

    Thank you, Mainstream!

  10. Pingback: Texas blog roundup for the week of November 28 – Off the Kuff

Comments are closed.