Bastrop County GOP

There has been a unique amount of reaction after the Special Election to the polling-selection process in Bastrop County. Some of that reaction is due to misinformation about the selection process itself, and some is the usual constructive feedback that comes when people see a weakness in the system. Because I am one player in the polling-selection process, this e-mail is sent from my perspective in an effort to help clear the air a bit. Please excuse its length, but I am attempting to address a series of concerns already in the public domain.

How did polling locations get selected this special election?

When the Governor called the special election, both party chairs met jointly with the County’s Elections Administrator in December to discuss consolidation of polls and other related administrative issues for the special election and any resulting runoff. The initial proposal approved by both party chairs was to have a single early vote location, and four election-day locations. The basis for consolidating polls at all was that turnout county-wide was expected to be low (compared to a general election), and having one location per voting precinct would not be cost-effective. Additionally, the Elections Administrator was understandably concerned that she would not be able to recruit the election staff she needed for more locations because of the holidays and short time frame to recruit. Historically, anytime we consolidate polls in a runoff or Constitutional Amendment election, we consolidate to four locations – one per commissioner’s precinct, and have not had any significant feedback that such an arrangement disserves the voters. I left the meeting and sent out a general email on this list that included all the known election details, including the fact that we had one early vote location and four election day locations under consideration. No one replied to ask for more locations.

After our meeting, the Elections Administrator then began discussing the proposal with elected officials, and she received the input that one early vote location was insufficient. Judge Paul Pape particularly encouraged her to expand early voting to four locations. Concerned she wouldn’t be able to meet that staffing demand, she contacted me for my feedback on Judge Pape’s (and perhaps others’) proposal to expand. I gave her the feedback that, from a candidate’s point of view (of any stripe), they are concerned that too much consolidation will limit participation and further hamper their ability to turn out their supporters. If we were to limit early voting to a single location, we would need to do so only with unanimity of opinion, and since we were already getting pushback, we needed to try to accomplish expanding the early vote locations notwithstanding the holidays. It was my view that at the end of a high-tension election, we wouldn’t want the issue to be about administration. The Elections Administrator apparently took that advice, and found she was able to raise the election staff.

Judge Pape then formalized the polling location designations in a proclamation. By our Republican Party Christmas social on Dec 18, we were able to announce the number and locations of our polls. Both Republican candidates were present and seemed visibly approving, as I made the announcement, of the arrangements, particularly that early voting had expanded to four locations. Again, after the announcement, no candidate or voter expressed to me the view that we had selected too few locations.

Can notice of polling locations be improved?

Yes. The county publishes the locations in several forms both electronic and in print, and are available by phone to help direct any voter. No matter what you do, there is always going to be a level of frustration among voters who do not find out in advance where they need to go, or have difficulty locating an information source. But given that, discussions are already under way to evaluate the information publication process and see how it can be improved. The county has given much attention to this issue in the development of their bastropvotes.org website, but this election is giving valuable feedback as to its weaknesses, and other non-internet sources that might be needed.

It has been asked why our usual voting locations didn’t all have signs directing voters to where they need to vote. First, the question belies a misconception: that we have 20 guaranteed election locations across the county. Every election we must contract with facilities for elections, those facilities must meet certain requirements, and most of the facilities we use are private properties. There is therefore always the potential every election that facilities will shift, and we don’t necessarily have the right to paper up their facilities with signage in elections where they have not agreed to host (but few, if any, would actually raise an objection because they are just gracious that way). So, you the voter don’t necessarily have a right to a sign on a location that you assumed would be in service, but for whatever reason, isn’t (and even when law requires it, you shouldn't rely upon that).

Having said that, because none of our hosts are balking right now, it makes sense to me to try to get such signage up where we can. The Elections Administrator determined that she did not have the staff resources to send them all across the county to post signage at every location. She instead prioritized the seven locations that represent the higher traffic/population, leaving nine locations without signs. Often in primary/general elections, because the party apparatus is more centrally involved than in a special election, the party volunteers of both parties get involved in helping cover issues like these to lighten the load of the county staff. Our Republican precinct chairs often help with signage issues. In the compression of this election, that base didn’t get covered as well as we have in the past. Curiously, much of the consternation appears to be that Paige Community Center was one of the nine locations without a sign. But I am informed by Shari Wyatt, the Republican Precinct Chair for that location, that she of her own initiative went and hung a sign at the Community Center herself, so it should not have ever been without one.

During the course of election day, a candidate discovered a need to get signs at the remaining locations and committed volunteers to help get that done, and it was done (albeit not until about 3pm in some locations). As stated before, it is normal for the party organizations to step up and help fill needs like that, so I think it is only the candidate’s newness to operations at this level that caused the candidate to feel that something was extremely amiss that volunteers would need to help out. The candidate felt on election day, that the Elections Administrator should have dispatched staff immediately to get that job done. I disagree. There are only three staff at the elections office, and every hand is needed on deck to answer the calls of voters and election judges administering elections at the polling locations.

I think a county take away is that we in the administration process can improve our communication mediums. Hopefully, a take away for the voter is that they are better served taking some initiative in advance to confirm their polling location before trekking to an assumed poll. I understand some tried some methods only to not find what they needed. But operators are always standing by when the polls are open. A telephone call is a great method to get a quick answer if all else fails.

The power of miscommunication

An element that has made the reaction to polling locations this election particularly unusual was a very unfortunate miscommunication on the eve of election day from the Bastrop Democrat Party. Their chairman apparently forgot that we had discussed in December that only four locations would be used on election day, and he informed his party there would be 20 locations. When they discovered the number was only four, the chairman, still not remembering the prior discussion, suggested that the Elections Administrator had unilaterally decided to close 16 of the locations the day before the election. An urgent e-mail went out to their party advising them of the sudden change and encouraging them to contact the Elections Administrator and elected officials if the voters were unhappy about that sudden change. Predictably, outrage side-swiped the Election Administrator on election day in the middle of her trying to administer her election day duties. She reminded the Democrat Chairman of the substance of our discussion, and he apologetically acknowledged his error. But by then, perception that something was amiss was already seeded among many voters. (I’m throwing no rocks here, just reporting what happened, and am humbly aware of my own e-mailed mis-statements during the course of this very election that fortunately had far fewer consequences.)

Rest assured that elections administration is a thoughtful and deliberative process. No one is vested with authority or power to unilaterally close 16 locations the day before an election. What was alleged wasn’t even possible. And after every election is a review to determine how we can improve.

Were election locations intentionally manipulated to the advantage of some candidate?

No. Another element that has made the reaction to polling locations unusually large is the accusation by a non-Republican candidate that Judge Pape unilaterally closed 16 locations so as to benefit the candidate of his choice. That theory is remarkably short on analysis of how limiting locations helps anyone in particular. The locations proposal originated with the Elections Administrator and party chairmen, not Judge Pape. To my knowledge, Judge Pape’s only input was to increase locations, not decrease them. Also, I do not believe the Democrat Chair would support an administrative plan that patently and disproportionately benefited a Republican candidate. Instead, in choosing four locations, we used the same predictable consolidated locations we usually use in low-turnout elections. We have used that plan for years, which plan had always also been supported by prior Democrat County Judge Ronnie McDonald, so there is no nefarious Republican plot afoot. From my perspective, there was nothing surprising, alarming, or unusual in what we chose to do.

Now, as to moving forward:

Should locations increase for the special election runoff?

I think not. Communication proved difficult during the special election, and changing locations now will only increase, rather than decrease, voter confusion. A candidate has suggested we open an additional polling location in Paige for the runoff. But to what extent are we able to communicate with all those Paige voters who just voted at Smithville City Hall that, this time, they are now all supposed to vote closer to home? I think if we flinch at this point, we do more damage to voters than good. I think allowing an early-voting day to stay open until 7pm would be a better service to voters than moving the ball once more.

Our county had the highest number of early vote locations (most other counties in the House district having 1 or 2), and the fewest number of election day locations (the max being 10 in this district). Nevertheless, we achieved just over 10% voter participation. That was a higher percentage of turnout than any other participating county. I do not therefore see a correlation that our consolidation plan resulted in voter suppression that needs to be cured for the runoff.

I am open to a review of our polling-location consolidation plan, but not to location changes in the middle of this particular election.

How should we consolidate in the future?

Consolidation only occurs in low-turnout elections. It is never even considered for Primaries or General Elections. When we expect the public to engage an election, we don’t even do a financial review, we just seek to get a location in every voting precinct where feasible.

Never before has the electorate expressed that they were disserved by consolidated voting at four precincts in a low-turnout election. And we have done this for years. Nevertheless, if there is a growing sentiment that it does not serve, I would appreciate input on what measuring stick we should use instead. What would suggest a need for a location above our standard four?

There is the issue of distance. Some argue, “I shouldn’t have to drive 15 miles to a poll.” So how far is too far, particularly for outlying communities where they must drive a distance for any other aspect of life? The fact that we have a location in every quadrant of the county limits everyone’s maximum exposure to travel. This election we had everyone from each Commissioner’s Precinct vote at their Precinct’s designated location, with two exceptions: Voting Precincts 2011 and 2009 were designated to vote at the Precinct 1 location due to their closer proximity to it than to Smithville City Hall. But even where we made that distance concession to voters, we still, this election cycle, received the complaint that the exception was confusing to some.

There is also the issue of cost. What cost is too much to expend on a low-turnout location? Paige Community Center was offered as an example of where we needed to expand. Because of boundary lines, it would only benefit those who live south of Paige, so I’m assuming not all those frustrated would benefit from such a plan. It would cost at least $1,248 in election staff salary to open it (3 workers x 52 hours x $8 per hour). If that voting precinct turned out at a rate of 10% in a low-turnout election (such as this one), you would have around 110 voters. We would have spent $11.35 per voter to collect those ballots locally rather than require them to drive to Smithville. Is that a good use of taxpayer money?

So if our four Commissioners Precincts and major municipalities are not a natural division that makes sense to the voters for consolidation, in the end, there needs to be some means of measuring when and whether it is appropriate to have an additional consolidated location.

Expanding consolidated precincts is not a new consideration. In 2006, under our prior Elections Administrator Nora Cano, we experimented for several election cycles with increasing consolidated locations to 10 in low-turnout elections (which included a Paige location when its territorial boundary benefitted those both north and south of Paige). What we found is that we dramatically increased the cost of elections without impacting participation much at all. I’m sure we improved some voter convenience, but the final conclusion was that with little increase in participation to speak of, it wasn’t worth the cost.

Voter frustration is not voter disenfranchisement

There appears to be a sentiment among some that if a voter is frustrated or inconvenienced, the election was administered poorly, and voters were suppressed or disenfranchised. There isn’t necessarily a correlation. Every election, when all precincts have a polling location, I always hear from angry voters who had to pass one voting location to cast a ballot at their own location. So having full election locations open is not a magic cure to voter dissatisfaction. Inconvenience is not disenfranchisement. Disenfranchisement is the denial of your right to vote, or its substantial equivalent. Having to drive further than you want, needing a ride, or being uncertain of where to go is nothing new, and does not deny a voter their right. Ballot by mail is a great tool designed specifically to allow someone to vote in their home. Early voting is a tool designed to open locations and times for voting, and allows you to vote at any open location. Opportunities to vote abound, and it usually requires some pro-activity on the part of the voter to effectively engage the process.

Election administration is a lot of work. As an election concludes, there is a noticeable sense of satisfaction from everyone involved from all political stripes when voters participate. For all that work, we want people to vote, and don’t engage in intentionally hiding the ball for our own twisted ends. We listen each election cycle to people’s frustrations, and try to pro-actively plan to diminish those frustrations as much as feasibly possible. If something has frustrated you about elections, let us know, and we’ll see what we can do.

Synopsis

Our election staff worked diligently in a compressed time frame, servicing more locations than was their original inclination, with a good attitude throughout. They worked through their holiday time, and did a phenomenal job managing in weeks what they usually have months to accomplish. The election was planned according to our County’s historical norms, and was executed very well under the circumstances. This Special Election process is new to all of us and requires an added measure of patience as we work together to administer it properly.

Misinformation and newness to the process heightened tensions right at the end, but our ears are open to hear any input that helps us better balance the service to the voters, the needs of the candidates, the money of the taxpayers, and the resources of our Elections Administration office.

Albert L. Ellison, Chairman
Bastrop County Republican Party

Thursday, December 17, 2015

Notice of Ballot Draw

Friday, December 11, 2015

Candidate Filing

Friday, January 23, 2015

Runoff Election Info

Thursday, January 22, 2015

Meeting Jan 26 in Elgin

Polling Location Selection

Thursday, December 4, 2014

GREAT CHRISTMAS GIFT!!! 3 CHANCES TO WIN!

Monday, November 3, 2014

Where do I vote on election day?

BCRP Links

MP3 Clips

Blog Archive