HOUSE JOURNAL
EIGHTY-FIFTH LEGISLATURE, REGULAR SESSION
SUPPLEMENT
SIXTY-FOURTH DAY — FRIDAY, MAY 5, 2017
HB 25 DEBATE - SECOND READING
(by Simmons, Larson, Laubenberg, S. Davis, et al.)
HBi25, A bill to be entitled An Act relating to the elimination of
straight-party voting.
REPRESENTATIVE SIMMONS: HB 25 is a bill that will help all of Texas by
ending the blind one-punch voting where you r’e not even thinking about it. It will
make Texas better by everybody voting down the ballot, and I m
’ excited about
that.
REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: That was a quick layout. I was trying to get to
the mic to ask the bill author some questions if he d’ be available to answer some
questions on the bill before we lay out any amendments.
SIMMONS: Mr. Turner, I actually got into my Arkansas voice waiting on you,
and nobody showed up. I m
’ happy to take questions.
TURNER: Thought you had a simple, simple bill here, right?
SIMMONS: Well, it s’ pretty simple.
TURNER: So this bill would eliminate the straight-ticket voting option for all
ballots in Texas, is that correct?
SIMMONS: Well, that s’ not really correct. It would eliminate the one-punch
voting option. People can still vote straight ticket down the ballot. You
understand what I m
’ saying?
TURNER: So you eliminate the option that s’ at the top of every ballot right now
where it says "Straight Party" and you have a choice of democratic, republican,
libertarian. You would eliminate that option that s’ at the top.
SIMMONS: Yes, eliminate that one box up there––in the general election only, of
course.
TURNER: That s’ the only election a straight-ticket option appears, is it not?
SIMMONS: Correct. As far as I know, that s’ correct, yes.
TURNER: It s’ the general election, yes. It s’ not an option in nonpartisan
municipal elections. It s’ not an option, obviously, in primary elections. So yes, we
are talking about general elections only, which are the highest turnout elections,
are they not?
SIMMONS: Yes.
S182
85th LEGISLATURE — REGULAR SESSION
TURNER: Do you know roughly how many different offices are on the ballot in
various counties throughout the state? Just in Denton County, in your county, do
you know?
SIMMONS: I did not count them, so I would be speculating.
TURNER: Did you know in Dallas County––would you know how many were
on the 2014iballot in Dallas County?
SIMMONS: No, sir.
TURNER: There were 65. You didn t’ know that?
SIMMONS: No, sir.
TURNER: Would it surprise you to know that in counties such as Harris County,
where you have a number of offices on the ballot at countywide level, it s’ not
unusual to have more than 100ioffices on the ballot in a general election. Were
you aware of that?
SIMMONS: No, sir.
TURNER: So in light of those facts, if we pass this bill and eliminate the
straight-ticket option, a voter, in order to vote the full ballot, if they wanted to
exercise their franchise in every race on the ballot, would be compelled to go
down 100, in some cases more than 100ioffices and cast votes in each individual
race. Is that not correct?
SIMMONS: Yes, if that s’ how many places are on the ballot, assuming they want
to vote in every race, that s’ what they would do. Of course, it s’ obviously their
choice as to how they want to handle that.
TURNER: Right, so they could choose not to vote. But is your bill designed to
encourage people not to participate in those down-ballot races?
SIMMONS: Absolutely not.
TURNER: So we want to encourage people to participate in each ballot, each
race on the ballot.
SIMMONS: We want educated voters yielding quality candidates, which yields
good officials, which yields good government, Mr. Turner.
TURNER: Do we have a concern that the voters who are voting now are not
educated?
SIMMONS: No, it s’ not a matter of their own personal education. It s’ a matter of
how well we as candidates are educating them on our qualities and the race itself.
Absolutely not. In fact, I m
’ glad you brought that up, because I believe that voters
are very capable of voting all the way down the ballot just like they do in the
primary. I see no issue with this whatsoever. In fact, in North Carolina, where
they had straight ticket in 2012iand they don t’ have it in 2016, the roll off––you
understand what I mean by roll off, Mr. Turner, from the top to the bottom––did
not change at all. In fact, it went up as far as the turnout.
TURNER: The undervote?
Friday, May 5, 2017
HOUSE JOURNAL — 64th Day
S183
SIMMONS: Yes, that s’ probably right. It didn t’ change from having it or not
having it.
TURNER: So do you know in 2014iin Denton County who the candidates were
for judge in the 211th District Court?
SIMMONS: I do not know that off the top of my head. No, sir. But if you called
their names, I could probably tell you if I know who they are.
TURNER: There was a republican candidate named Brody Shanklin.
SIMMONS: Yes, I know Brody very well, a very quality judge. He serves the
great county of Denton well.
TURNER: Do you know about the Second Court of Appeals, place seven?
SIMMONS: Not without knowing the names, no, sir. I don t’ know them just off
the top of my head.
TURNER: It was Lee Gabriel, also a republican––didn t’ have an opponent. And I
think the point––and if you asked me the same questions in Tarrant County, I
wouldn t’ be able to give you the answer. I think the point is that there are––
SIMMONS: I wouldn t’ have done that to you, Mr. Turner, but that s’ fine. No
problem.
TURNER: There are a lot of races on the ballot, a lot of offices on the ballot in
these general elections, and voting individually in each race takes extra time. It
also is something that, if you r’e an elderly voter, one of my concerns is, are you
able to go through on a machine where we have those rotary dial machines in
Tarrant County? I don t’ know what you use in Denton County, but those can be
hard to operate. So instead of one click and one punch, you r’e asking people to
make dozens, perhaps even over a hundred, so for an elderly voter or someone
with arthritis or perhaps Parkinson s’ or another disability, this could be a real
impediment to their being able to cast their ballot. Do you see that concern?
SIMMONS: I respectfully disagree, I don t’ think it would be an impediment at
all. I think it s’ something that they will be glad to do. It s’ proven to be happening
in other states. We are one of only nine states that has the one-punch option
remaining. So I believe it s’ worked out. As far as I can tell, it s’ worked out in
democrat states and republican-led states, so I just don t’ think it s’ a partisan issue.
It s’ helping the voters get down––you know they r’e going to vote for the best
candidates.
REPRESENTATIVE REYNOLDS: Representative Simmons, you laid this bill
out before the elections committee, correct?
SIMMONS: Yes, sir, seems like forever ago now, doesn t’ it?
REYNOLDS: And I was on that committee when you laid that bill out, right?
SIMMONS: Yes, sir.
REYNOLDS: Do you recall some of the testimony that was presented that
evening in favor of your bill?
S184
85th LEGISLATURE — REGULAR SESSION
SIMMONS: Well, I probably couldn t’ recall it specifically. It s’ been awhile, but I
do recall there was testimony in favor of the bill, yes.
REYNOLDS: Do you recall a former judge in Harris County, Erin Lunceford?
She testified in favor of your bill.
SIMMONS: Yes, I did not remember her name, but there was a Harris County
judge. Yes, sir.
REYNOLDS: And do you recall that she believed that straight-ticket voting was
the reason why she lost? Do you recall her testifying to that?
SIMMONS: I do not recall that specifically.
REYNOLDS: Okay. Do you know whether or not she is a republican or a
democrat?
SIMMONS: I do not know personally, but whatever you say, because I don t’
remember.
REYNOLDS: Do you recall that she testified that she lost her election to a very
unqualified person? Do you recall hearing that?
SIMMONS: I recall that she said that the person––she didn t’ feel like that person
had as much experience as she did.
REYNOLDS: Correct. And do you know, if I told you that that person who won
the seat was a democrat, would you have any reason to dispute that?
SIMMONS: I have no reason to dispute that one way or another.
REYNOLDS: In fact, the person who defeated her is named Fredericka Phillips.
Did you know that?
SIMMONS: No, sir.
REYNOLDS: Okay, and Fredericka Phillips is an African American. Are you
aware of that?
SIMMONS: No, sir.
REYNOLDS: And Fredericka Phillips happens to be the vice chair of the Texas
Democratic Party. Were you aware of that?
SIMMONS: No, sir.
REYNOLDS: Okay, and are you aware that Fredericka Phillips is an
accomplished lawyer?
SIMMONS: As I said, I m
’ not familiar with Fredericka Phillips, so any questions
you ask me about her, I will not know.
REYNOLDS: So isn t’ it likely that if Fredericka Phillips was elected that maybe
it s’ because the electorate in Harris County felt like she was the more qualified
judge?
SIMMONS: I can t’ comment on that.
REYNOLDS: You don t’ have any reason to dispute that one way or another,
correct?
Friday, May 5, 2017
HOUSE JOURNAL — 64th Day
S185
SIMMONS: I just can t’ comment on it.
REYNOLDS: Are you aware, Representative Simmons, that African Americans
rely heavily upon straight-party voting?
SIMMONS: I m
’ not aware of that one way or the other.
REYNOLDS: But are you aware of what happened in the Michigan district court
when the Michigan State Legislature adopted a measure to eliminate
straight-party voting in Michigan, are you not?
SIMMONS: I m
’ not a lawyer, so I m
’ not really familiar with exactly what
happened. No, sir.
REYNOLDS: Do you recall hearing testimony in the Elections Committee that a
district judge struck down Michigan s’ bill to eliminate straight-ticket voting
because it disproportionately disenfranchised African Americans?
SIMMONS: I just don t’ recall. I remember the Michigan case coming up, but I
don t’ recall the details of the testimony, no, sir.
REYNOLDS: Are you aware that, in fact, in the Michigan case the judge did
strike down the legislature s’ enactment of the elimination of straight-ticket
voting?
SIMMONS: I was aware there d’ been one ruling, and I believe it s’ on appeal, but
Im
’ not sure which way the ruling went, so I l’l go on your word.
REYNOLDS: Are you aware that, in fact, that the Michigan Supreme Court
declined to hear the case?
SIMMONS: I m
’ not aware of that one way or the other, no, sir.
REYNOLDS: Okay. Are you aware that recently, as recently as two weeks ago, a
district judge stated that Texas had intentionally discriminated against African
Americans in its redistricting case?
SIMMONS: I m
’ not aware. No, sir.
REYNOLDS: Are you aware that a federal district judge has ruled that Texas
intentionally discriminated against African Americans and Hispanics in its
implementation of the voter ID law?
SIMMONS: I m
’ not aware of that.
REYNOLDS: You r’e not aware of that?
SIMMONS: No, I v’ e been busy down here.
REYNOLDS: Okay. Now the purpose of your bill, if I remember your layout
correctly, was because you thought that it would allow for a more informed voter,
correct? Wasn t’ that part of your rationale for elimination of straight-party voting?
SIMMONS: That s’ a fair assumption, yes, sir.
REYNOLDS: Have you done any studies to validate your suggestion?
S186
85th LEGISLATURE — REGULAR SESSION
SIMMONS: The data that I looked at relative to North Carolina and a couple of
other states was data that showed how people voted when straight ticket was
being voted. You know, the number of people––I don t’ know how they voted,
obviously––the number of people voting down the ballot in the same races
without straight ticket. And the analysis proved that it did not reduce turnout,
which is the number one thing that I hear from people, that they r’e afraid it will
just suppress turnout. Let me finish, if you just don t’ mind, okay? It just didn t’
show up in the data that I reviewed.
REYNOLDS: My specific question wasn t’ about turnout. It was about a
more-informed voter. Is there any empirical data that shows that the elimination
of straight-party voting will make for a more-informed voter? I haven t’ seen any.
Im
’ asking, have you seen any?
SIMMONS: I m
’ not aware of one way or the other. There could be, and there
may not be. I m
’ not aware.
REYNOLDS: In fact, there s’ been no––you know how we do a lot of studies in
this chamber or in this body––have we had any study done with respect to the
empirical data regarding straight-party voting?
SIMMONS: I m
’ not advised.
REYNOLDS: Okay, I did some research, and I didn t’ see any. Okay, now,
you––Representative Turner talked about Denton County. Are you aware that
Harris County has some of the longest ballots in the entire United States of
America?
SIMMONS: I think we v’ e already discussed that question.
REYNOLDS: Now are you aware of the type of delays that it would take if we
eliminate straight-party voting in a county the size of Harris County?
SIMMONS: I believe the testimony in the committee by the––I don t’ know if it
was the elections administrator––the gentleman that stood up said that he felt like
because of the additional number of machines that are out there on election day,
that it would not have an affect. The only real long lines, as he testified, were on
the first two or three days of early voting. And then it got better, but I m
’ only
going on his testimony. I m
’ not a resident of Harris County, so I m
’ not aware
exactly of how that scenario works.
REPRESENTATIVE RAYMOND: Mr. Simmons, if you wouldn t’ mind, would
you share with us if you have ever exercised your right to vote straight ticket?
SIMMONS: I have not.
RAYMOND: You have not.
SIMMONS: I do not vote one punch. I go down the ballot, and I vote for all the
republicans, but I do it one by one by one.
RAYMOND: And how old are you?
SIMMONS: I am 56.
Friday, May 5, 2017
HOUSE JOURNAL — 64th Day
S187
RAYMOND: Okay, so since you began voting, you have never voted straight
ticket?
SIMMONS: Not that I recall. Of course, I could be forgetting, but as my memory
serves me, I like going down seeing the names.
RAYMOND: Do you know anybody who has ever voted straight ticket?
SIMMONS: I have not asked that question, so I m
’ not advised.
RAYMOND: My guess is you do. And really, I want to ask you, because I want
to make sure we know what your bill is doing. If your bill passes, you r’e taking
away the right of people in the State of Texas to vote straight ticket with one
punch if they want. Is that right?
SIMMONS: I m
’ not taking away their right to vote straight ticket. I m
’ taking
away their right to do––
RAYMOND: With one punch? Well, what right are you taking away, then?
SIMMONS: One-punch voting.
RAYMOND: So you are taking away their right to one-punch straight-ticket
voting. Is that correct?
SIMMONS: That s’ what this bill does, yes.
RAYMOND: It s’ not clear to me why you would want to take away the rights of
people in Plano or people in Denton or people in Fort Worth or people in
Lubbock or people in Amarillo or people in Mr.iRinaldi s’ district. Why you
would want to take away their right to vote straight ticket one punch if they want
to? Why would you want to take away that right?
SIMMONS: Chairman Raymond, I m
’ not taking away a right. I m
’ taking away
an option. There s’ a difference. They have the right to vote, and we hope they do.
The option of how they do it, like write-in ballots or straight punch, that s’ what
you have so far.
RAYMOND: Under current law, do Texans have the right to vote straight ticket
one punch if they want to? In Denton? In Plano? Do they have that right?
SIMMONS: They have the option to do that, sir.
RAYMOND: Do they have the right to do it?
SIMMONS: They have the option to do that, sir.
RAYMOND: Is that a right that the law gives them?
SIMMONS: It s’ an option that it gives them.
RAYMOND: It is a right. In fact––
SIMMONS: It s’ not a fundamental––
RAYMOND: It is a fundamental right. You r’e trying to pass a bill to take away
that option. Therefore, you r’ e trying to take away their right. And I m
’
saying––Ron, you r’e my friend. We r’e going to disagree sometimes. I cannot for
the life of me understand why you would want to take away the right of your
S188
85th LEGISLATURE — REGULAR SESSION
constituents to vote straight ticket if they want to. Why would you want to do
that? Why would you want to do that? It doesn t’ make sense to me that you or
Mr. Rinaldi or anyone here would want to take away a right that your voters, that
the people of Texas have today, that the people of your district, Ron, have today.
They know––the people that vote straight ticket. If somebody in your district
goes in to vote, and they have the right under current law in the State of Texas to
punch one and to punch because they want to vote republican, because they know
they r’e republican, and they believe in the republican party––you are taking away
that right. Why would you want to do that? I m
’ trying to understand it.
SIMMONS: I m
’ sorry that you don t’ understand it, but then, that s’ okay.
Reasonable men can disagree on it.
RAYMOND: But just tell me why you want to take away that right?
SIMMONS: I laid that out in my opening, Mr. Raymond.
RAYMOND: Please, tell me one more time. I honestly did not hear it. You started
very brief––a very, very brief opening. And I think members in here, democrats
and republicans alike, we take very seriously whenever a bill comes in front of
us. Even though we sometimes differ philosophically as a party––democrats,
republicans––but there are some things that we are wholly united on. Please, I m
’
not asking you to say it 100itimes, but say it clearly to this chamber. Why would
you want to take away the right of the people in your district to go vote straight
ticket in the way they can do under current law? Please tell us.
SIMMONS: Okay, first of all, I disagree that it s’ a right. I believe it s’ an option.
And the reason that I v’ e filed this bill is because I believe that this will provide
better candidates, better elected officials, and I do not believe it will do harm as
far as people voting down the ballot.
RAYMOND: We l’l talk some more with more amendments coming up.
[Amendment No. 1 by Dutton was laid before the house]
REPRESENTATIVE DUTTON: Members, this amendment is for all the people
who got here because people were able to vote the way this bill would prevent
them from doing. So if you got here because people voted straight-ticket voting,
you ought to vote for this amendment. Because what this amendment simply
does––it strikes everything below the enacting clause of this bill and allows us to
move on to the next bill on the calendar.
SIMMONS: Members, I m
’ going to leave this to the will of the house. The author
will be voting two. The author will be voting two. I encourage you to follow me.
Vote two.
DUTTON: You know, I believe something different than the author of this bill
believes, and that is that I believe voters are smart enough to know when they
want to vote for all of the candidates by doing one vote or they want to go down
the line and vote for them. I trust voters who do that. I recognize that there are
some people who may not like that, and I didn t’ check, I couldn t’ figure out, but I
think the author got here on the basis of straight-ticket voting. And so my whole
point to you, members, is we shouldn t’ take this away from voters. If voters don t’
Friday, May 5, 2017
HOUSE JOURNAL — 64th Day
S189
want to do this, guess what? They don t’ have to. They have a choice. And what
this bill does, though, MadamiT, is it takes away their choice. We ought to give
voters more choices rather than fewer choices, and so that s’ the reason that I
propose this amendment. And if you have any questions, I l’l be more than happy
to answer them, because I think we ought to make sure that voters have the same
option that got us here. And so with that, Mr.iSpeaker, I would ask you to vote
aye on this amendment and that we recognize that voters are smart because they
sent us here. And if you don t’ think so, you vote against your voters.
[Amendment No. 1 failed of adoption by Record No. 873.]
[Amendment No. 2 by Dutton was laid before the house.]
DUTTON: Perhaps some of you in counties would like to do this. What this
amendment simply does is it exempts counties with more than 25itotal offices on
the ballot. So if your county has more than 25ioffices on a ballot, then they can
have straight voting. If they don t’ have, then they r’e fine to do it the way this bill
suggests. But I think that voters are smart enough to figure this out, and so that s’
the reason again for this amendment. I would ask you to vote no on any motion to
table, but vote for this amendment.
Again, I hope the voters who are watching this recognize that some of you
all don t’ believe they r’e very smart, and those are the same voters that sent you
here. And I hope at some point they will tell you and explain to you that whether
they have straight-ticket voting or they have to vote one at a time, they l’l
remember what you did tonight in terms of your vote.
REPRESENTATIVE DUKES: Chairman Dutton, do you think that it is beneficial
to the voters to have options, multiple options to choose from, from which to
select a nominee, select an elected official?
DUTTON: Yes, I think that s’ what voters would like. I hope voters are watching
this, and I hope the news media tomorrow prints all the names of the people who
didn t’ want this to happen, who wanted this bill to pass, because I think voters
ought to know that. I think voters ought to be well aware of the people who said
to them, we want to eliminate your options as a voter; we want to take away
something from you as a voter. That same something that got most of the people
here in this house––they r’e willing now to eliminate that. I don t’ understand that
at all, and I hope voters don t’ understand that either. And I hope voters decide
that well, we know how to deal with that from now on.
DUKES: Did you have ancestors who were very proud that in 1964 they were
finally able to cast their vote without the poll tax? Without a literacy test?
DUTTON: Absolutely. The first time I voted, I had a poll tax.
DUKES: Many of those ancestors that I assume that you had like me were very
proud to say––and still to this day, those who are, I want to say elderly, but I m
’
not going to say an age because I might hit your range––are very proud to say
that they went in and they cast their ballot straight ticket.
S190
85th LEGISLATURE — REGULAR SESSION
DUTTON: Yes, I remember Miss Christia Adair. Miss Christia Adair was a lady
who––there s’ a huge county park named after her––she fought for women to get
the right to vote. And she told me, she said that when she went to vote, they said,
oh, yeah, but we don t’ let black women vote. And so she fought to get black
women the right to vote and black people the right to vote. One of the options she
had was she could vote by mail, and I tried to suggest that to her because she was
in a wheelchair. You know what she told me? She said, "Mr.iDutton, I didn t’ go
fight for people to have the right to vote to vote by mail. I voted so I could go
over there, and I m
’ going over there. If you don t’ take me, I l’l call somebody
else." And so I picked her up, literally, and took her to my car, and we drove her
to vote. That s’ voters having an option. That s’ what this bill tries to prevent, is
voters from having that option––an option to vote and to vote the way they
choose. I don t’ understand that.
DUKES: And that option tends to be one in which they have been educated,
constitutionalized, and are comfortable in casting their vote.
DUTTON: Well, this bill would presuppose that these voters are not smart
enough, because while they can t’ vote a straight ticket, there s’ nothing to prevent
them from going down every one of them and pushing it. If that s’ the only
difference, why is that being prohibited? Why is straight voting being prohibited
if they can still do that?
DUKES: So it s’ the flip side of the literacy/poll tax concept. Where before one
had to take a test and pass an arbitrary test just to vote, in this instance it s’
assumed that one is illiterate. Therefore, they are voting a straight ticket and did
not make a conscious decision to do so. Is that not correct?
DUTTON: Well, every voter who goes to the polls, I think, knows whether they
want to vote for a democrat or a republican. They already know that. They don t’
go there and just decide all of a sudden that I m
’ going to make a decision now.
And so if they r’e able to go to the polls and vote and go down each race and read
and say, well, this is a democrat, I m
’ voting for that one. Well, do you know
them? Well, that s’ not one of the qualifications we have, that you have to
absolutely know the candidate. Now, I think you should, and I think the candidate
should make sure that the people know who they are, but to the extent that they
don t’, there are people who decide––
DUKES: Do you remember, though, the 1994 South African ballot?
DUTTON: Absolutely.
DUKES: The ballot, as long as it was, every single party was listed. By that party
was the picture of the candidate.
DUTTON: Of every candidate, that s’ correct.
DUKES: And it so happened that when those people went to vote and stood in
line for tens of hours, they went in to vote for the ANC, which ultimately
provided Nelson Mandela through their straight-ticket vote.
DUTTON: What I think this bill presupposes is that people won t’ know who
they r’e voting for.
Friday, May 5, 2017
HOUSE JOURNAL — 64th Day
S191
DUKES: Correct.
DUTTON: And I don t’ believe that for one minute. I think people will know.
People always know who they r’e voting for.
DUKES: Well, you r’e for school choice, right?
DUTTON: For what?
DUKES: School choice.
DUTTON: No, I m
’ not for school choice.
DUKES: You r’e for vouchers and things like that.
DUTTON: No, I m
’ not.
DUKES: And for making sure that all can go to schools of quality––why
shouldn t’ you have a choice? A choice in whether or not you vote straight ticket
or whether or not you vote for the individuals?
DUTTON: I m
’ sorry, I––again, I think the point here is that voters know what
they r’e doing. They r’e smart enough. They sent most of these people here. I think
what these people who are for this bill would suggest that somehow or another
they got here on the basis of a straight ticket, and they don t’ want that to happen
again.
DUKES: Do you think that when there are 65 places on the ballot, like in Dallas
County, that people would want to rush in to vote with that many on the ballot?
DUTTON: Well, I think people that go to vote are smart enough to know who
they r’e voting for.
DUKES: And it could be a deterrent if they didn t’ have a means to facilitate a
quicker way to vote when they v’ e already studied before getting there.
DUTTON: Well, I don t’ think it l’l prevent them from voting for democrats, nor
do I think the people who went to vote for republicans, that it s’ going to prevent
them from voting for republicans. I think it l’l just take more time at the polling
place. And with that, if you don t’ mind, let me ask people to go ahead––
DUKES: And cost more money locally to keep the doors open.
DUTTON: Yes. Let me ask you to go ahead and vote for this amendment so that
the people that sent you here will recognize that you trust them and you value
their opinion.
[Amendment No. 2 failed of adoption by Record No. 874.]
[Amendment No. 3 by Walle was laid before the house.]
REPRESENTATIVE WALLE: This amendment would ensure that counties not
participating in the countywide polling place program under Sectioni43.007iof
the Texas Election Code will continue to offer straight-ticket voting. If we r’e
going to eliminate straight-ticket voting, we need to make sure counties are able
to alleviate the long lines that are created. Allowing voters to vote anywhere in
the county will accomplish this goal.
S192
85th LEGISLATURE — REGULAR SESSION
TURNER: Is the author of the bill going to address the body or make a motion on
Representative Walle s’ amendment?
SPEAKER STRAUS: The author hasn t’ indicated that he would. Mr. Walle?
TURNER: The author of the bill not the author of the amendment.
SPEAKER: He doesn t’ appear to want to discuss the amendment with you.
TURNER: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. I know that s’ his right to not
speak on the amendment. Representative Simmons, would you be available? I
think, Mr.iSpeaker––
REPRESENTATIVE E. RODRIGUEZ: It appears the author of the bill, just so
y a’ ll know, was not going to be answering any questions about any amendments.
So I just want to talk about this specifically. It s’ unfortunate, members. I m
’ trying
to be really as truthful and as honest with you guys as possible. It s’ unfortunate
that we don t’ see that many republicans on the back mic, because this bill, in fact,
really does impact all Texans. This is about a convenience for our voters. That s’
what this is about. And what this amendment is about, specifically, because what
we have is, is just two fingers being raised here by the author of the bill, but this
is worth talking about. We have the ability in this state to provide for, basically,
these super precincts. Essentially, you don t’ have to vote necessarily in your
precinct if it s’ more convenient to go to a more central place, and different cities
around the state have that. It s’ even more convenience for our voters.
So what this amendment is simply saying is that if we r’e going to do away
with straight-ticket voting, then we need to have these kinds of centers. Because
if it s’ going to take longer for our voters, our constituents, to vote, then we should
encourage and try to have as many of these centers in our larger communities as
possible so that it s’ convenient for them. We r’e going to have longer lines. It s’
going to be a lot more inconvenient for out constituents. So this is just a
way––Representative Walle s’ amendment simply is trying to encourage these
super precincts, these centers where anybody in the larger cities or any city that
has these can have a place to go so they don t’ have to necessarily wait in a longer
line. If it s’ more convenient for them because they r’e at work and there s’ a super
precinct close to their work, they can go there. This is a way just to make it more
convenient for the voters. That s’ all this does, members. This is one of those
things where I wish that the author of this bill wouldn t’ just throw up two fingers,
because this is actually an amendment that is trying to help our voters vote in a
more convenient way. This isn t’ going after the premise of the bill in terms of he
wants to do away with straight-ticket voting. I don t’, but at least if we r’e going to
do away with it if this bill passes, then we r’e at least doing something for our
constituents to make it easier for them.
TURNER: Representative Rodriguez, I appreciate you taking the microphone,
and I didn t’ quite catch all that earlier before you came up. Am I correct that the
bill author will not take the microphone on his own bill?
Friday, May 5, 2017
HOUSE JOURNAL — 64th Day
S193
E. RODRIGUEZ: What I heard from the author just a few moments ago is that he
is not going to answer any questions about any of the amendments that are being
filed. He will answer questions once the amendments are all either voted down or
up, and he is closing on his bill. Then he will answer questions.
TURNER: Representative Rodriguez, you v’ e served in this body longer than I
have. Is it not tradition and rules and inherent in the house that members of the
house have the ability to bring floor amendments to the floor on any piece of
legislation, and an author is traditionally expected to either accept that
amendment or oppose that amendment? But nonetheless, if they r’e going to
oppose the amendment, speak on the amendment and explain their reasons for
opposing it?
E. RODRIGUEZ: Usually that s’ generally what we do here, at least come before
this body on the front mic and say, you know what, I m
’ opposing this
amendment, and here s’ why. And if you want to ask a question, and he decides he
doesn t’ want to answer it or she doesn t’ want to answer it, then perhaps that
member can step aside and just not answer any questions. But to not even come
to the mic to say "I oppose it," so that you and other members don t’ have the
opportunity to ask him a question, I don t’ think is something that this body is
about.
TURNER: Well, I agree it s’ rather extraordinary, and I think it s’ even more
extraordinary in light of the fact that this is a bill that affects the voting rights of
millions of Texans. That s’ what we r’e talking about here today, that we r’e taking
away their right that they v’ e had to cast a straight-ticket vote if they choose to do
so.
E. RODRIGUEZ: And if someone has a different opinion than I do, I respect that,
but we still have to have this dialogue. Listen, it s’ 9:15ip.m. I know we v’ e been
here a long time, but this is a very serious bill, and we should discuss it. It s’
certainly within his right, but I don t’ think that––certainly, if I were him, I would
certainly answer questions. I l’l say that.
TURNER: Let me ask you this, Representative Rodriguez. You serve, as I recall,
as the policy chair of the Mexican American Legislative Caucus. You r’e in the
leadership of the largest and oldest Latino elected official organization in the
country. Has Representative Simmons come to you or others in the leadership of
MALC, to your knowledge, to brief you on this bill and understand your
perspective from the voting rights of Latino voters in Texas?
E. RODRIGUEZ: He has not spoken to me about it. I can t’ speak for the other
members of the caucus or certainly of the executive board, but no, he has not
talked to me about this.
WALLE: This is just a simple amendment to prevent, if we r’e going to eliminate
straight-ticket voting, we have to have the ability to eliminate the long lines that
will ensue once this program is implemented. So all this amendment says is that
you would allow for the elimination of these long lines. At the core, that s’ what it
S194
85th LEGISLATURE — REGULAR SESSION
does, is allow for our constituents to have the ability not to wait in these long
lines, not to be sitting there waiting hours on end just to exercise the franchise,
just to have the ability to go vote. That s’ all the amendment does.
E. RODRIGUEZ: Would you agree with me that this bill, if it passes in its current
form, would take away a convenience for our constituents, all of our constituents,
our voters in Texas, correct?
WALLE: That would be all voters in Texas––all the voters in Texas not just
democratic voters––all voters in Texas.
E. RODRIGUEZ: Right, so the straight-party voting is done as a convenience.
That s’ my belief; I don t’ know if it s’ yours.
WALLE: I certainly agree with that notion, particularly for Harris County, the
largest county in the State of Texas. You have over 4,000,000ipeople that live in
this county. The ballot is long. Because what you have, particularly in a
presidential election, obviously you l’l have at the top of the ticket your federal
offices and your members of Congress. You could have some federal judicial
appellate courts. You could have, obviously, all your state legislative races, your
senatorial races. Then you get down to your local JP, your sheriff, all the state
district judges that we have, and so it s’ a long ballot.
E. RODRIGUEZ: It s’ a long ballot. I think Travis County ballots are long but not
like Harris County and Houston ballots.
WALLE: That s’ right.
E. RODRIGUEZ: So what we want to do here then is, if we r’e taking away that
convenience for our voters, what your amendment does simply––and I m
’ not sure
if the author s’ listening––but simply what it s’ doing is allowing for these super
precincts, as we call them, super precincts where you don t’ have to necessarily
vote in your precinct. If that is a more convenient place for you to vote, you can
vote at any of these designated areas.
WALLE: That s’ exactly right. Now, Harris County––so you have the early voting
process where those kind of function in the early voting process as super
precincts. But on election day, you have to go vote in your precinct, and
sometimes those change. You have to wait in the morning for the Chronicle for
where to go vote. So if you would just do the super precincts like they do in early
voting on election day, that makes it easier for our people to vote. And in saying
our people, I mean Texas residents, our constituents, whether they r’e democrat,
republican, or independent.
[Amendment No. 3 failed of adoption by Record No. 875.]
[Amendment No. 4 by Martinez was laid before the house.]
REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ: Members, my amendment will ensure that
senior citizens and those will disabilities are not impacted by this bill by allowing
mail-in ballots to include the option for straight-ticket voting. As you know,
ballots are very long. Some come with 50, 60, 70, or more offices and
propositions and local measures listed. So having to individually mark each and
Friday, May 5, 2017
HOUSE JOURNAL — 64th Day
S195
every single one could be extremely difficult for our seniors and those with
disabilities. So this mainly leaves the option on the mail-in ballots. That way you
don t’ have this big, ol i’thick piece of paper, and people having to mail that,
because also, they r’e going to charge you for the weight of that. So I don t’ know
what Mr.iSimmons thinks about this, but this keeps it on mail-in ballots only. It
allows them to have the straight-ticket voting on mail-in ballots because you
could have so many different candidates on those ballots. You don t’ want to have
a big, ol i’thick piece of paper coming out and the elderly having to vote on each
and every one of those.
SIMMONS: Members, I ’m going to vote against this. I appreciate what
Representative Martinez is trying to do, and there s’ 41iother states that have
figured this out without that option.
REPRESENTATIVE BERNAL: First, on the amendment, can you tell us exactly
why you oppose this amendment?
SIMMONS: Well, I think I just did.
BERNAL: And the reason being as what?
SIMMONS: The reason being is I just don t’ believe it s’ necessary. I believe
they l’l be able to vote down the ballot and just like everybody else make good
informed decisions. And 41iothers states are handling that way as far as I know.
BERNAL: You mentioned informed decisions––what do you mean by that?
SIMMONS: On each candidate, you know, I think it s’ good for them to know
Ron Simmons or Diego Bernal or whoever it happens to be.
BERNAL: And how do you suppose that any given voter knows who a candidate
is?
SIMMONS: I don t’ suppose anything. There s’ a variety of options, and I will
not––
BERNAL: Well, for yourself, in your own voting capacity as you r’e going race
by race picking individuals and not voting straight ticket as you said, how do you
know who to vote for?
SIMMONS: I v’ e either done my research on them or I v’ e got literature from
them. Maybe even spoken with them, they v’ e knocked on my door––those types
of things.
BERNAL: Do you believe that in any way eliminating straight-ticket voting
favors the wealthier, more-resourced candidate?
SIMMONS: I do not.
BERNAL: You don t’ think that there s’ any money involved in getting your name
out to a voter to make sure that they know who you are?
SIMMONS: Every candidate that gets in a race knows what goes along with it
from the city council race all the way up to the governor or even beyond.
S196
85th LEGISLATURE — REGULAR SESSION
BERNAL: And so as you go down the ballot, you recognize that some may not
be as good fundraisers as others, but they may have the better idea. Do you
agree?
SIMMONS: Would you repeat that, please?
BERNAL: Do you agree that some people may have good ideas but aren t’ good
fundraisers?
SIMMONS: You know, I don t’ know. I wouldn t’ know.
BERNAL: So you talked about the informed voter because I m
’ assuming that you
believe that whenever someone takes a vote in anything that they should be
informed and well-versed on what they r’e voting on. Is that right?
SIMMONS: I would hope that voters that go to the ballot box are informed on the
people they r’e voting on.
BERNAL: I didn t’ hear you, sir.
SIMMONS: I said, I would hope that people who go to the ballot box are
informed about the people they r’e voting.
BERNAL: Right, and do you believe that it s’ important that when you r’e taking a
vote per item, per person, you r’e aware of what that vote is and stands for?
SIMMONS: I believe when people go to the ballot box they should be informed
on who they r’e voting for and hopefully what that person stands for.
BERNAL: And, sir, do you remember the SBi4 debate last week?
SIMMONS: I remember parts of it. It was a long night for us.
BERNAL: Do you remember how that conversation––how that debate ended last
week?
SIMMONS: I don t’.
BERNAL: You don t’?
SIMMONS: Refresh my memory.
BERNAL: So you don t’ remember how that debate ended last week? You don t’
recall?
SIMMONS: I mean, we went through a lot of amendments, and the amendments
stopped.
BERNAL: Yes, we went through a lot of amendments, and those amendments
stopped. Do you remember how those amendments stopped?
SIMMONS: Some––you know what, Mr.iBernal, I ’m not––some type of
parliamentary procedure, I suppose. I m
’ not an expert on that.
BERNAL: Well, it s’ not really a parliamentary maneuver. What I d’ like to remind
you of is at the end of debate on SBi4 last week, do you know what we did? We
took all the remaining––you took all of the remaining amendments, you wrapped
them all together, and you voted for all of them with one vote. Do you recall that?
Friday, May 5, 2017
HOUSE JOURNAL — 64th Day
S197
SIMMONS: I didn t’. When you say I did, I was at my desk, maybe like you were.
Im
’ not sure what you r’e referring to.
BERNAL: Let me go back then. Do you remember that happening?
SIMMONS: I remember us voting on a group of amendments. I remember us
voting on a group of amendments, yes.
BERNAL: Do you remember taking the vast majority of remaining amendments
and grouping them together––not you––do you remember that happening?
SIMMONS: I don t’ know how many there were. I don t’ think there was a
number, but there was––
BERNAL: Do you––let s’ settle on the word "remaining." Do you remember this
body or folks in this body taking the remaining amendments––
SPEAKER: Members, let s’ keep the questions to the amendment before us,
please.
BERNAL: All right, I withdraw the parliamentary inquiry I was about to ask. To
Mr.iWalle s’ point, do you believe that this body has abided by the same principle
that Mr.iWalle s’ amendment is asking us to abide by?
SIMMONS: We r’e on Mr.iMartinez s’ amendment.
BERNAL: Oh, we are on Mr.iMartinez s’ amendment. All right. Well, substitute
Walle for Martinez.
SIMMONS: So would you ask the question, again, please?
BERNAL: You know what, I m
’ going to let someone else ask.
REPRESENTATIVE ORTEGA: Representative, you are against this amendment,
is that correct?
SIMMONS: Yes, I l’l be voting two on this amendment. Yes, ma a’ m.
ORTEGA: Now, this amendment is only asking that this be permitted on ballots
that are mailed. Is that correct?
SIMMONS: That s’ my quick reading of it, yes, and I believe that was the
author s’ layout.
ORTEGA: And the fact that you are removing a straight-party vote on stuff that s’
getting mailed to the voters, is that going to increase the cost because of what
needs to be placed inside that envelope?
SIMMONS: I m
’ not an elections administrator. I don t’ really know what goes in
the envelope, so I couldn t’ answer that question.
ORTEGA: Well, do you have a reasonable belief that it will?
SIMMONS: No, ma a’ m I do not. I do not have a reasonable belief.
ORTEGA: And who s’ going to pay for the cost if it does increase it?
SIMMONS: I m
’ not advised.
S198
85th LEGISLATURE — REGULAR SESSION
ORTEGA: Is that something that we need to consider as a body as to who is
going to pay for it?
SIMMONS: I m
’ not advised.
ORTEGA: Well, isn t’ that something that you would be concerned about as a
lawmaker as to who is going to be incurring that extra cost?
SIMMONS: I don t’ think it l’l be significant, but I m
’ not advised as to what that
would be or wouldn t’ be, so I don t’ know one way or another.
ORTEGA: So you don t’ think that s’ important?
SIMMONS: I don t’ know one way or the other, ma a’ m.
MARTINEZ: This is just a simple amendment. All it does is to keep the mail-in
ballots, allow them to have that option. We r’e talking options. We want our voters
to continue to have options. There should not be a reason why we r’e removing
options for voting. It should be easier to vote. We should be making those options
available for our voters especially in the ballot box or when they r’e receiving a
mail-in ballot. You don t’ want to have a thick piece of paper. You don t’ want our
elderly to have to read over dozens and dozens and dozens of names when all
they have to do is mark one party. It doesn t’ matter which party. Of course, I wish
it was the Democratic Party 100ipercent of the time, but members, I ask for you
to support this amendment.
[Amendment No. 4 failed of adoption by Record No. 876.]
[Amendment No. 5 by Giddings was laid before the house.]
REPRESENTATIVE GIDDINGS: I v’ e been in touch with our county judge, or
let me say that he has been in touch with me, along with members of the
Commissioners Court. And what they are saying to me is that we would like to
opt out of this because it requires a great deal of money. According to the
Commissioners Court in Dallas County, this mandate would demand
$835,000ifor 200iadditional voting machines. It would require $225,000ifor
additional personnel during early voting. It would require $180,000ifor additional
personnel during election day and $65,000iin additional site assistance. This is an
unfunded mandate for Dallas County of $885,000, and this amendment would
simply end the unfunded mandate on our county and would make sure that the
voters in our districts don t’ face even longer lines.
REPRESENTATIVE GUERRA: Representative, I want to talk to you very briefly
about the many times of long lines at the polling places on election day and
people trying to get to work. You r’e familiar with that.
GIDDINGS: Absolutely, Representative. It s’ so much easier for somebody on
their lunch hour to be able to leave work and go in and vote and do it in a very
short period of time.
GUERRA: And in many polling places in the morning, voting starts at 7ia.m.,
correct?
GIDDINGS: That s’ exactly right.
Friday, May 5, 2017
HOUSE JOURNAL — 64th Day
S199
GUERRA: And many people have to drop their kids off at school, get to the
polling place, stand in a long line, and then get to work on time––or what?
They r’e going to get docked at work or possibly, maybe even lose their jobs. Is
that not right, if they don t’ show up on time?
GIDDINGS: That could happen.
GUERRA: And of course, I think we need to be sensitive to the working mother
who s’ trying to get to her class that she s’ going to teach or to her law office. She
may have clients waiting for her. Is that not right?
GIDDINGS: That s’ exactly right.
GUERRA: And indeed, she could lose those clients if she doesn t’ show up on
time to their appointment or, more importantly, to court on time.
GIDDINGS: Exactly, yes.
GUERRA: And I think that you know that very well.
GIDDINGS: I do indeed.
GUERRA: And many of the judges are not tolerant with lawyers being tardy to
their hearings. But I think, more importantly, folks that are trying to get to work
on time need to get to work on time so they can keep their jobs and the livelihood
of keeping the family going and making sure that they sustain those jobs by doing
what their employers want them to do. Of course, many employers want their
employees to exercise their right to vote, their constitutional right, but they want
to make sure that they continue to operate their various businesses.
GIDDINGS: You r’e exactly right, and this could certainly interfere and interrupt
with people being able to get to work on time. Because in 2014, in Dallas, for
instance, there were 65ioffices up for election with 125icandidates. And if voters
are forced to view and mark each race individually, that s’ going to slow down the
voting process. It s’ going to cause longer wait times, and it s’ going to even
increase the chance of voter error or administrative error.
GUERRA: And it s’ also going to discourage those voters wanting to go to the
polls early in the morning or at lunchtime or even in the afternoon because
they v’ e got to pick up their kids and get them back home. So they want to vote in
the morning before work starts, or they want to vote at lunchtime, and they r’e not
going to have time. So we r’e going to lose a lot of voters, are we not?
GIDDINGS: At a time when we should be doing everything within our power to
make sure that every Texan who is of age and eligible to vote actually votes.
GUERRA: And Representative, I can represent to you, then, that in Hidalgo
County, many times the lines become very, very long, and folks really appreciate
the fact that they can straight-ticket vote and get to work on time.
GIDDINGS: Same thing in Dallas County.
REYNOLDS: Representative Giddings, you currently are the chair of the Texas
Legislative Black Caucus. Is that correct?
GIDDINGS: Yes, I am.
S200
85th LEGISLATURE — REGULAR SESSION
REYNOLDS: Did the author of this bill or anybody else consult you regarding
the impact among African Americans if this bill was enacted?
GIDDINGS: No, no one spoke to me about this bill.
REYNOLDS: And you quoted the letter from Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins.
You read some of the provisions regarding the unfunded mandate, correct?
GIDDINGS: Yes, I did.
REYNOLDS: And it s’ going to cost an estimated almost nearly $1imillion to the
citizens and taxpayers of Dallas in 2018, correct?
GIDDINGS: That would be true.
REYNOLDS: Are you also aware that Judge Jenkins raised additional concerns
regarding the impact that this legislation could have upon African Americans,
Hispanics, and violation of the Voting Rights Act?
GIDDINGS: I have not had that conversation with––oh yes, he did write me a
letter, and he has indicated that there would be some concerns as to whether or
not we r’e in compliance with the Voting Rights Act, were this legislation to pass.
REYNOLDS: I have a copy of the letter. And in fact, he did state that he is not
aware of any analysis that was done on HBi25 to ensure that it complies with the
U.S.iVoting Rights Act and does not undermine the voting strength of African
American or Hispanic voters in violation of state and federal laws. Is that correct?
GIDDINGS: That s’ exactly what he said.
REYNOLDS: And is this partly true, because are you aware of the recent rulings
from federal courts regarding Texas violating the Voting Rights Act?
GIDDINGS: Are you talking about the one that the judges ruled had intentional
discrimination?
REYNOLDS: Yes, intentional discrimination among what class of individuals?
GIDDINGS: Minorities.
REYNOLDS: Specifically African Americans and Hispanics. And are you aware
that that was precisely why the district judge in Michigan struck down
Michigan s’ attempt to eliminate straight-party voting? He stated, "Because
African American majority districts in Michigan such as Detroit have also
historically faced some of the longest wait times in the state, the increase in long
lines occasioned by the elimination of straight-party voting will impact these
voters to an even more significant degree." And he struck down that provision
because it violated Sectioni2iof the Voting Rights Act?
GIDDINGS: Yes, I was not aware of that originally, but my staff legislative
personnel did bring that to my attention as a concern.
REYNOLDS: Ms. Giddings, you v’ e served as a legislator for some years,
correct?
GIDDINGS: That s’ right.
REYNOLDS: And is your district majority African American?
Friday, May 5, 2017
HOUSE JOURNAL — 64th Day
S201
GIDDINGS: It is.
REYNOLDS: Do your constituents heavily rely upon straight-ticket voting?
GIDDINGS: They do.
REYNOLDS: Do you believe that your constituents will be adversely impacted
would this bill be enacted into law?
GIDDINGS: I absolutely do. And I happen to represent a very active
constituency, well-educated people, and in terms of Dallas County, they have the
highest voter turnout of any district in Dallas County.
REYNOLDS: Are you aware that, in fact, Texas has the most number of
straight-ticket voters in the country?
GIDDINGS: I was not. I was not aware of that, but I m
’ not surprised.
REYNOLDS: Are you aware that in 2016 in the general election, Texas cast
5.6imillion ballots via straight ticket? Are you aware of that?
GIDDINGS: No, I was not.
REYNOLDS: And that was a 13ipercent increase from the previous record that
was set in 2012. Wouldn t’ you agree that there are millions and millions of
Texans––not just democrats but republicans, independents, and all––that will be
impacted by this legislation today?
GIDDINGS: I think this impacts everybody, and I think people are smart enough
to make choices. If they want to go down and choose a candidate in each race
individually and they have that kind of time in their schedule, they r’e free to do
that. But the other option that many people choose to exercise and should
continue to be able to exercise is the straight ticket.
[Amendment No. 5 failed of adoption by Record No. 877.]
[Amendment No. 6 by Dutton was laid before the house.]
DUTTON: I figured this out. I figured it out based on the 89-53ivote. What we
will do is we l’l let the republicans on their side never have straight voting, and
this amendment allows them to have it on the democratic side. No, that s’ not
what it does, but that s’ what I was thinking. What this amendment does is it
simply says that it allows straight-party voting in counties with more than
1imillion people in population. That includes the counties of Harris, Dallas,
Tarrant, Bexar, and Travis. And so the smaller counties can simply do without it.
I assume that s’ what this is really about. And so I would suggest that you vote for
this amendment, because it seems to me that in the larger counties where we have
the larger populations, it would obviously make more sense for us to continue to
do it the way we v’ e been doing it. And so I would move adoption of the
amendment.
Well, I know everybody s’ tired and wants to go home, but you know, this
bothers me. And it bothers me because just by its very nature it takes away an
option that we have given to our voters, and I haven t’ heard a good reason for
why. I mean, why do we want to do this? What s’ the prevailing reason? Has there
been some violence created by virtue of this? Republicans certainly have been the
S202
85th LEGISLATURE — REGULAR SESSION
beneficiaries of straight voting. I think democrats have been the beneficiaries of
straight voting. And so I don t’ understand. And sometimes democrats haven t’,
and sometimes republicans haven t’––but that s’ the nature of elections, isn t’ it? I
mean, that s’ the nature of elections.
REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: You v’ e been talking about choices and
whether those choices are good or bad or who it has an impact on. Are you
familiar with the lawsuit in North Carolina on the days of early voting?
DUTTON: Yes.
COLEMAN: And that the Fourth Circuit ruled that by eliminating days of early
voting, that violated the Constitution?
DUTTON: Yes, and that was one of the choices that voters had.
COLEMAN: People had a choice of when to vote, and by taking away those
days, it limited their access to the ballot box. Would you be surprised to know
that that is still in effect?
DUTTON: Actually, it is, and I understand that it is. And I think one of the things
that this poses a danger to is that someone will file a lawsuit challenging our
elections.
COLEMAN: That s’ correct, and the Supreme Court sent the case back to the
Fourth Circuit and said this ruling stands.
DUTTON: Yes.
COLEMAN: Do you think by taking away straight-ticket voting, which has an
impact on how people cast their vote in the general election, it would have a
similar impact of that choice as you v’ e laid out earlier today?
DUTTON: Well, to be honest with you, Chairman Coleman, I think voters are
smarter than some of these people give them credit for. I don t’ think if you
eliminate straight-party voting, you r’e going to have any greater numbers of
republicans being elected nor are you going to have any greater numbers of
democrats being elected. I don t’ think that you can attribute that to straight-party
voting or not having straight-party voting, because I think voters––you and I both
know voters are pretty smart voters. And I can tell you that, you know, although
there are some of the members here––so I don t’ know about the voters being
smart, but that s’ okay. You know, that s’ my opinion.
COLEMAN: I agree with you, and I think voters are very smart as well, just as
you have laid out.
DUTTON: Right, well, I think for the counties in this amendment, I think the
counties in this amendment ought to stay where they are. And if the smaller
counties want not to do this––they don t’ want to have straight-ticket voting––they
certainly ought to be entitled to that. And so that s’ what this amendment does. It
provides an opportunity for smaller counties. The smaller counties in this state
can go on and not have straight-party voting. But I think for the larger counties,
we certainly ought to have that option, given the number of things on our ballot.
Friday, May 5, 2017
HOUSE JOURNAL — 64th Day
S203
COLEMAN: Just one last question. It s’ about the amendment and on the bill as
well. Do you think this is a voter suppression bill?
DUTTON: Well, I think that s’ certainly the way it will be challenged. Any time
you eliminate options from voters, I think it has the ability to be challenged on
the basis that it is somehow or another offensive to voters. And therefore, it
violates certain standards that we already have in the statutes regarding voter
access and voter choices.
COLEMAN: So the same way North Carolina eliminated seven days of early
voting?
DUTTON: Yes.
COLEMAN: It took away that option.
DUTTON: I think when you start taking away things from voters, I think therein
lies the difficulty that this kind of bill is going to face. Because I can almost
guarantee you it will be challenged in court. And Texas will be back in court
again, because they have chosen to do something that I think voters really haven t’
asked for. I have not had one person in my district ask me about eliminating
straight-party voting, and I don t’ know that anybody in here has, for that matter. It
may have been part of a platform, but I don t’ remember it. And it certainly wasn t’
part of the democratic platform.
COLEMAN: No, I think you r’e right. I think this is the first time anybody has
truly asked for it since democrats won almost every seat in Harris County in
2016.
DUTTON: And that pendulum swings back and forth.
COLEMAN: It does. It always does.
DUTTON: Nobody asked for it when the republicans did the sweep.
COLEMAN: Right. So again, I think, though, that the courts are ruling a lot
differently than people expect on voter changes. I appreciate your amendment.
DUTTON: Well, I l’l tell you what I thought about last night, Chairman Coleman.
I thought about all of these people who v’ e been following the sort of TLR
movement, and I figured out one of these days that s’ going to mean Too Late
Republicans.
[Amendment No. 6 failed of adoption by Record No. 878.]
[Amendment No. 7 by Blanco was laid before the house.]
REPRESENTATIVE BLANCO: This is about making the voting process easier,
not harder, for our active duty military serving overseas. Members, we should not
force our servicemen and women to spend a lot of time filling out the ballot if
they don t’ want to. This is an option for them. We want to go ahead and give
them the option to go down the ballot if they want or vote straight ticket if they
want. We have to make sure that we r’e making it easier for them when they r’e
S204
85th LEGISLATURE — REGULAR SESSION
defending our right to vote on the frontline. This amendment would enable
straight-ticket voting for military members overseas ballots under Chapteri101iof
the Election Code.
Members, I m
’ disappointed that––at least the author of the bill could have
had the courtesy to explain why he doesn t’ support this amendment for our active
duty military. Makes you wonder whether he believes in this bill or not, or if he
believes in it at all. But I think it s’ disrespectful that we decide not to have this
debate and decide why he s’ against this amendment. It s’ disappointing.
REPRESENTATIVE NEVÁREZ: Mr. Blanco, you know, sometimes we have
some late nights here, and people get a little rowdy and get a little loopy, for lack
of a better word, because we r’e tired. But would you agree with me that this is a
serious business, a serious bill?
BLANCO: Absolutely, it s’ serious. And you know, if we r’e not going to take
those who are serving active duty seriously, and the author of the bill doesn t’
have the decency or the respect for these military members that are deployed to
talk about why he s’ against this, then, you know, it s’ ––
NEVÁREZ: And past that, I mean, one of the things that we r’e trying to flesh out
here is, insofar as the author of the bill and those who support it––you know what
we r’e trying to get at and whether the difference of opinion is along party lines or
it s’ not. I tend to think it falls more along urban and rural, and there s’ more urban
representatives than there are rural ones. But that being said, wouldn t’ you agree
that we deserve a little bit of courtesy to each other on a night like tonight?
BLANCO: I think so, too. I think so, absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE D. BONNEN: So are you literally suggesting to this body
that the men and women who put their lives on the line for us for our democratic
right to vote, free speech, and other great opportunities they provide us aren t’
capable of pressing more than one button? When they get the privilege and honor
that they defend––
BLANCO: Not at all. What I m
’ suggesting––
D. BONNEN: Let me finish the question––when they are fighting to defend and
honor our country for the greatest right of all, and that s’ the right to vote? You r’e
saying these people don t’ have the ability to press more than one button?
BLANCO: I m
’ not saying that.
D. BONNEN: That s’ exactly what you said.
BLANCO: No, that is not. Let me finish the question; let me answer your
question.
D. BONNEN: That s’ exactly what you said.
BLANCO: Let me answer the question. What I m
’ saying is, I want them to have
the option to do both.
D. BONNEN: You stood up here a moment ago and said that they do not––
BLANCO: Have you ever been deported overseas?
Friday, May 5, 2017
HOUSE JOURNAL — 64th Day
S205
D. BONNEN: You stood up there a moment ago and said that they do not have
the opportunity or the time to do that. I think that s’ disrespectful, because you
stand up here and lecture us all day and every day about the military.
BLANCO: What I think is disrespectful is when someone that has never served in
uniform can be on that back mic.
D. BONNEN: Mr. Speaker, I am tired of this gentleman disrespecting this body
and our members––
BLANCO: I m
’ tired of you disrespecting––
COLEMAN: I was going to ask the person with the amendment a question, but
he s’ walked away. And I think now there s’ a problem, because there are many
people who others have disrespected in this body, and I m
’ tired of it.
[The house stands at ease.]
COLEMAN: I know this is about the military ballots and the things
that––because it s’ hard to study that long ballot, right?
BLANCO: You know, it can be, but my argument is that I want to allow active
duties to have the option to do whatever they want.
COLEMAN: And I agree with you. But would you know how long straight-ticket
voting has been in place in Texas?
BLANCO: It s’ been around for a while.
COLEMAN: A while, it s’ not like five years or 10iyears. It s’ more like more than
30iyears. And so would you agree that a change in a common practice is more
significant than a change in something that has been around a short period of
time?
BLANCO: I d’ agree.
COLEMAN: And the courts found that when we make major changes in
something, even for people who have the opportunity to do it on a military ballot,
that that change is scrutinized differently than other election laws. Isn t’ that
correct?
BLANCO: I agree.
COLEMAN: Thank you. You have a good amendment.
BLANCO: Members, I didn t’ want it to get to this point, but unfortunately, it did.
All I m
’ saying is that I want to give active duty members the option to do both. If
they want to vote straight ticket, give them the option to vote straight ticket. If
they want to vote one person at a time, they l’l have that option. Members, I m
’
asking you––I have not disrespected anyone on this house floor. I m
’ just fighting
for our active duty members and our veterans. That s’ all I m
’ doing.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSE: Representative Blanco, you were just accused of
being disrespectful, but wouldn t’ you say it s’ disrespectful to say that you want to
eliminate straight ticket-voting because you feel that people can make a more
S206
85th LEGISLATURE — REGULAR SESSION
educated decision? As if the current voters do not have enough sense or do not
have enough knowledge to make a decision on who they want to vote for when
they actually have two options?
BLANCO: Right, for someone to make that assumption or put words in my
mouth, I think is unfair. I think that the men and women that serve active duty are
smart enough to do either one of those options.
ROSE: And wouldn t’ you say, and I understand that you r’e talking about the
military, but wouldn t’ you say that sometimes when you have straight voting, you
may not know everybody on the ballot, but you know that you r’e a democrat, and
you know that you r’e a republican, and you know that you believe in that
ideology. And although you may not know that individual, you will support that
individual because you know that they will fight for the issues that you believe in.
BLANCO: That s’ correct. Members, I m
’ going to ask you to drop the democrat
and republican from your name and support our troops. Give them the option to
do what they want to do in how they vote.
[Amendment No. 7 failed of adoption by Record No. 879.]
[Amendment No. 8 by Alonzo was laid before the house.]
REPRESENTATIVE ALONZO: Members, I m
’ going to lightly touch on this
amendment. I m
’ going to call this the cucuy amendment. No, seriously, members,
this amendment would say that the form laws continue in effect until the date the
United States Supreme Court has issued an opinion holding that each change to
the law made by this act is consistent with the United States Constitution.
Members, I know it s’ getting late. I m
’ going to pull my amendment, and I l’l bring
it back on third reading.
[Amendment No. 8 was withdrawn.]
[Amendment No. 9 by Alonzo was laid before the house.]
ALONZO: Members, this is another different amendment. It has to do with the
Voting Rights Act. I m
’ going to pull it and present it on third reading.
[Amendment No. 9 was withdrawn.]
[Amendment No. 10 by J. Rodriguez was laid before the house.]
REPRESENTATIVE J.iRODRIGUEZ: Members, I know it s’ a long evening, but
if I could get your attention for a minute, I v’ e got an amendment that really has to
do with transparency. We know that any changes to elections, much like back in
2011 when the voter ID law was passed, there has to be voter outreach and voter
education. So all my amendment does is ask for a reporting of those expenditures
from the Secretary of State s’ office, a full accounting of how that money is
utilized in voter education programs. I think it s’ a bipartisan issue. We r’e talking
about eliminating straight ticket, but it seems like tonight we v’ e done a lot of
straight-ticket voting ourselves. So I would just ask for my republican friends to
consider if you want our constituents, our fellow Texans, to know about how
their tax money is used. That s’ what this amendment s’ about.
Friday, May 5, 2017
HOUSE JOURNAL — 64th Day
S207
REPRESENTATIVE CORTEZ: Representative Rodriguez, what would be some
good examples of outreach in terms of communicating this to the voters?
J.iRODRIGUEZ: So, for example, over the last few election cycles,
Representative, there have been media campaigns. The money s’ all used through
the Secretary of State s’ office for voter outreach, social media, commercials,
radio––so all I m
’ asking for is that that money be accounted for. You know,
perhaps it s’ not being utilized to the best it can be. So my amendment would
basically say it has to be itemized––the spending––showing how it s’ utilized, and
perhaps we can improve upon that.
CORTEZ: Are these types of outreach programs bilingual, also, to your
knowledge?
J.iRODRIGUEZ: They are. They have been in the past. I think we v’ e heard
anecdotally from folks in different parts of Texas where there s’ been confusion
about polling locations and the right ID. This attempts to try to clarify that
confusion in the community through voter outreach.
REPRESENTATIVE URESTI: Mr.iSimmons, you know, I got all the respect for
you in the world, sir. You know that.
SIMMONS: Yes, sir.
URESTI: We have a lot in common. I got your old office. I m
’ not as good
looking as you, but we have a lot in common.
SIMMONS: Oh, I wouldn t’ say that.
URESTI: We r’e even the same age.
SIMMONS: All right.
URESTI: I m
’ just going to ask you for one favor, and everybody else in this room
to do just one thing. If we were sitting behind closed doors right
now––everybody in this room––if we were sitting behind closed doors and I laid
out HBi1899 and HBi4361 and there were no party lines to go by, nobody could
see who was voting how, the votes would be totally different. If this bill was like
that, it would be different. And again, I have all the respect in the world for you,
but I m
’ asking you and everybody else in this delegation if they would be voting
differently if it wasn t’ a party vote. That s’ what it s’ turned into. And that s’ what
Im
’ asking you. What do you think would happen?
SIMMONS: I can t’ speak for anybody else. I know that I brought this bill
because I thought it was the right thing to do, without party. It s’ truly the reason I
did it. I can t’ speak for anybody else, but I appreciate your question.
[Amendment No. 10 failed of adoption by Record No. 880.]
[Amendment No. 11 by Israel was laid before the house.]
REPRESENTATIVE ISRAEL: Thank you for your patience on another night in
Texas. This amendment is acceptable to the author. After long hours in the
Elections Committee, Mr. iSchofield and I know how important it is to make sure
that if we r’e going to do something this significant, we should make sure that the
S208
85th LEGISLATURE — REGULAR SESSION
Secretary of State s’ office is engaged and involved and working with these
counties who are doing the best they can with the limited resources that they
have. So this is simply saying we will engage with the Secretary of State s’ office
in every county that needs them. It s’ totally up to the Secretary of State s’ office
on how they do this, but there are some counties that have limited resources and
long lines. And I would think that in the interest of voting and outreach and
education, per Mr.iSchofield, that this would be the best thing as we move
forward if this ultimately becomes law.
[Amendment No. 11 was adopted.]
REYNOLDS: Members, I knew we were going to hear this bill today, and I wore
my purple tie, because this bill should not be about whether you r’e a republican
or whether you r’e a democrat. It should be about what s’ in the best interest of
Texans. You know, Texas had over 64ipercent of our population that voted
straight ticket in 2016. Now, if you think about the rules of engagement, there s’
an old saying that says, you don t’ change the rules because you don t’ like the
results.
In 2016, there were some counties that hadn t’ gone democrat in a long time
that went democrat. But there s’ been a whole lot of counties that used to be
democrat that are republican. This pendulum swings both ways, but we shouldn t’
make wholesale fundamental changes to something that is convenient for voters
just because you don t’ like the results. And I believe that this bill has not been
vetted. If you look at the LBB report, it says that there s’ no significant fiscal
impact. Well, we heard the letter from Representative Giddings from the county
judge from Dallas County that says it s’ going to cost Dallas County alone almost
$1imillion. So this bill hasn t’ been vetted. We don t’ know whether or not this bill
is going to be a violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1964. We know that recent
rulings from the courts show that Texas has passed some discriminatory laws that
had a disproportionate effect on African Americans and Hispanics. That
happened recently with the voter ID and with the redistricting case. And if we
continue along that trend, Texas is going to be thrown back into preclearance, and
we don t’ want that to happen.
So what I m
’ suggesting is that we vote this bill down and do an interim
study. Change this bill into a study to look at whether or not the majority of
Texans will benefit from the elimination of straight-ticket voting. Right now, I v’ e
never had one single constituent––they know I sit on the Elections
Committee––not one single constituent talk to me about the elimination of
straight-ticket voting in Texas. I go a lot of places all over, and not one voter has
ever said, you know what, we need to get rid of straight-ticket voting. Because
guess what, if people don t’ want to vote straight ticket, they don t’ have to. They
can go down the ballot candidate by candidate to cast the vote for the person of
their choice.
So what are we doing here today? It really makes no sense. I v’ e sat on the
Elections Committee for the past two sessions, and I don t’ recall hearing a bill
that would fundamentally change our elections without any kind of due diligence.
We are making a hasty decision based upon election results that we don t’ like
from 2016. Not to mention that straight-ticket voting has been in Texas for
Friday, May 5, 2017
HOUSE JOURNAL — 64th Day
S209
decades––I mean decades. Why are we all of a sudden changing it now? I think
we need to step back and take a deep breath. If we want to change this law that
affects millions and millions of people, think about the elderly people that don t’
have the eyesight, that don t’ have the patience to go down––in counties like
Harris County or Bexar or Dallas County––to go down and read pages and pages
to select the candidate of their choice. We should not be taking away that right
from them.
This bill, it hasn t’ been vetted. There s’ been no analysis done. There s’ going
to be significant fiscal impacts. The elections administrators are going to have to
hire more people if we don t’ want more lines, especially in presidential elections.
So I ask the members to step back, take off your R or your D label, and do what s’
in the best interest of Texans. Sometimes, we have to take away partisan politics
and be statesmen and do what s’ in the best interest of the majority of Texans and
not what benefits a small few. I ask you to vote no on HBi25.
SIMMONS: Again I appreciate everybody being here tonight, sticking through
this. I think we v’ e said––
REPRESENTATIVE VO: Mr. Simmons, do you know that I represent a very
diverse district?
SIMMONS: I m
’ not familiar with your district, but I l’l take your word for it.
VO: Okay. We have over 80 different spoken languages and most of the voters
are first-generation immigrants coming to this country and first-generation
Americans who are eager to do the right things for this country, who want to
participate in the elections process also. And they r’e very excited to be able to go
to the polls. Do you think with your bill that it will make it harder for them to
participate in the process?
SIMMONS: I do not.
VO: Why is that?
SIMMONS: I do not believe it. I believe they v’ e been voting in the past. I believe
they vote in primaries. I believe they l’l continue to vote, Mr.iVo.
VO: Well, most of the immigrants, I mean first-generation Americans, when they
go to the polls, they don t’ recognize all the names. And especially in Harris
County, we have a long ballot. And those people they understand about the
principle of each party and some of them vote democratic; some of them vote
republican. And with your bill, I believe, it s’ going to discourage them from
going to the polls. You agree or not?
SIMMONS: I believe that they will continue to vote, and they l’l continue like
they have in the past. That s’ what s’ been shown in other states, Mr.iVo.
VO: Well, right now, they have the option to either vote by the individuals or vote
straight ticket. So if you r’e taking the straight ticket away, people will feel
discouraged and won t’ participate in the process anymore. And you know that
also in my district, with the Voting Rights Act, the ballot is in four different
S210
85th LEGISLATURE — REGULAR SESSION
languages: English, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Chinese. That will encourage
people to come to the polls. And I m
’ afraid that with your bill people will be shy
to go out and vote.
SIMMONS: I don t’ believe that. Forty-one other states don t’ do this. California,
which has a huge immigrant population, as well as New York, do not do this. I
believe they will vote, but I appreciate your question.
VO: What turnout has always been––we always encourage people to go and
participate. Turnout is very low here in South Texas especially in Harris County,
also. I believe what your bill does is lessen the number of people going out to the
polls, and just like I say, right now, they have the option to either vote straight
ticket or to vote by the individuals.
SIMMONS: Mr.iVo, respectfully, we have a difference of opinion and
understanding of what will happen, but I do respect your opinion.
TURNER: Mr.iSimmons, has there been any impact study conducted to
determine whether or not eliminating straight-party ticket in Texas will have a
disproportionate, negative impact on minority citizens?
SIMMONS: I m
’ not advised.
TURNER: You r’e not aware of any study?
SIMMONS: I m
’ not advised one way or the other, sir.
TURNER: Okay. So you don t’ know if there s’ a study? Okay. I think you heard
Representative Rodriguez and, I believe, Representative Giddings earlier say that
they had not been consulted as you wrote this bill. Is that correct? You didn t’
work with the leadership of the Mexican American Legislative Caucus,
Representative Rodriguez, Representative Anchia, or the leadership of the Black
Caucus, Representative Giddings, as you wrote this?
SIMMONS: I filed the bill for all of Texas, wherever they were, and they had the
opportunity to come see me for the last three months, and I v’ e not heard from
them. I would have been happy to meet them.
TURNER: Okay. So Representative Giddings, Representative Anchia, didn t’
come see you? Is that right?
SIMMONS: I did not visit with them, no, sir.
TURNER: Okay. You wrote the bill and talked about how the whole state had
opportunity to see it––were there any field hearings conducted around the state to
determine the impact of eliminating straight-ticket voting in different
communities around the state?
SIMMONS: There was a hearing here at the Capitol. That s’ the only one I
participated in.
TURNER: Okay. Are you aware that precincts with a higher percentage of
African American and Hispanic voters have more straight-party ballots than
precincts with lower percentages of African American and Hispanic voters?
SIMMONS: I m
’ not advised.
Friday, May 5, 2017
HOUSE JOURNAL — 64th Day
S211
TURNER: You are aware, because I think it was discussed earlier, what the legal
result has been over the state congressional, state house, and voter ID decisions
recently out of federal court?
SIMMONS: Somebody mentioned that from the back mic. I was not aware
before what they said. I hadn t’ followed that closely.
TURNER: Okay. So you r’e not aware that just since we v’ e been in session,
federal courts have ruled three times that this legislature has been found to engage
in intentional discrimination with the respect to the voting rights of African
Americans and Hispanics?
SIMMONS: This bill is about one-punch voting, Mr.iTurner.
TURNER: Well, it is, and my concern is that, in light of findings that this
legislature has been found to have intentionally discriminated in six different
federal rulings, in fact, since 2011––that before we resolve those issues, we r’e
passing yet another bill that affects people s’ voting rights. You v’ e heard concerns
today about the time it takes to vote and the convenience that the current option
provides that you would take away. So I v’ e just wondered, in light of those facts,
if you r’e not concerned that this bill may be headed to a seventh such finding of
discriminatory impact or intent?
SIMMONS: There s’ 41 states, Mr.iTurner, that don t’ have straight-ticket voting.
Those are both red states and blue states, so I m
’ not concerned.
TURNER: And Mr.iSimmons, you and I are represented to just deal with one
state and that s’ Texas; that s’ what we r’e here for. And those other 41istates to my
knowledge have not been found to have intentionally violated voting rights the
way Texas has. In fact, I will stipulate to you, Texas has been found to violate
voting rights more than any other state in this country in this decade. And that s’
why this bill is a particular concern to a lot of us who represent districts with a
majority of minority populations. Let me ask it this way. If you knew that this bill
would disenfranchise African Americans and Hispanic voters, would you still be
offering it?
SIMMONS: Mr.iTurner, I do not believe this bill disenfranchises any voter.
TURNER: I know that you don t’ believe it, but if you knew that it did?
SIMMONS: I m
’ not going to enter into speculation, so I don t’ believe this bill
disenfranchises any voter.
TURNER: Okay, so you r’e not able to answer that question. Did you––and I
think you v’ e already stipulated that there was no impact study done to determine
what the effect would be.
SIMMONS: I stipulated that I wasn t’ aware of one.
TURNER: You r’e not aware of one, but you did not commission one. When you
wrote the bill, you didn t’ ask for a study to be done or ask if there was research
available? Is that right?
SIMMONS: On the effect of––
S212
85th LEGISLATURE — REGULAR SESSION
TURNER: The effect of eliminating straight-ticket voting on African Americans
and Hispanic voters in the State of Texas?
SIMMONS: I did not commission a study, any study, related to this bill.
BLANCO: Do you know who Bill Fairbrother is?
SIMMONS: No, sir.
BLANCO: Okay. Bill Fairbrother is the legislative chair of the Texas Republican
County Chairmen s’ Association, and he s’ been the chairman of the Williamson
County Republican Party for the past 17 years. He testified last interim in the
senate State Affairs Committee in support of straight-ticket voting. Last interim,
the Texas State Republican Executive Committee passed a resolution to preserve
straight-ticket voting. Did you know that that resolution was passed by the
Republican Executive Committee?
SIMMONS: I m
’ not advised.
BLANCO: Okay. Are you aware that 70ipercent of republican county chairs say
that straight-ticket voting helps local republicans down ballot races, according to
Mr.iFairbrother?
SIMMONS: I did not file this bill for republicans. I filed this bill as I explained
earlier. So I m
’ not sure where your question is going.
[HB 25, as amended, passed to engrossment by Record No. 881.]
SIXTY-FIFTH DAY — SATURDAY, MAY 6, 2017
HB 25 DEBATE - THIRD READING
(by Simmons, Larson, Laubenberg, S. Davis, et al.)
HBi25, A bill to be entitled An Act relating to the elimination of
straight-party voting.
REPRESENTATIVE SIMMONS: It s’ one-punch voting, members. I move
passage.
[Amendment No. 1 by Alonzo was laid before the house.]
REPRESENTATIVE ALONZO: As you recall, yesterday when we were
discussing this bill, we got to a certain point that it came time to have a calmer
discussion. So now that we r’e calm, this amendment comes up. Let me tell you
why I bring this amendment. You recall when we were discussing sanctuary
cities, there s’ two big issues here in Texas that will ultimately end up in the
courts. One is immigration, and one is voting rights. What we v’ e had to do,
members, through the years, through the decades, year after year, decade after
decade, is end up in court. Yesterday we discussed the reasons for ending up in
court, whether this legislation will discriminate against minorities. And the
question will become, why did we discuss this topic? The reason we discuss it is
because we v’ e had to deal with it in the courts.
As you will recall, the Voting Rights Act passed in 1964 and got
implemented in the counties of the South to allow minorities to be able to
participate in the political process. Then was the wisdom of folks from
Friday, May 5, 2017
HOUSE JOURNAL — 64th Day
S213
Texas––that law came into Texas. And because of that law, we are able to go to
court, because we live, members, in a democracy. The democracy says we have
an executive, we have a legislative, and then we have the courts. And more
recently, in general, members, you v’ e seen when President Trump did the Muslim
ban, and the court stopped him. The court stopped him because the court said that
the rights of individuals is stronger, members––stronger than the president even
in the time of war. So knowing that we are going to end up in court, why don t’ we
wait? We wait for it to go through the court process before we implement this
legislation.
[Amendment No. 1 failed of adoption by Record No. 975.]
[Amendment No. 2 by Alonzo was laid before the house.]
ALONZO: Members, this is round two. What is round two? Part of the process in
the Voting Rights Act is a section in the Voting Rights Act that s’ called Sectioni5.
This Sectioni5ilegislation affects Texas. It has been a discussion of a court case
called Shelby. Now, why do we have a Sectioni5? The reason they have a
Sectioni5iis to slow down the court process. What this amendment says is that
instead of going through the courts, we l’l submit it to the Justice Department to
review this legislation. Why wait for the courts? Why wait for the courts to
review it when we have an opportunity where we can submit it the Justice
Department to review? In many occasions, the Justice Department says, "No
problem." In many occasions, the Justice Department through the years has said,
"There is a problem." So if there is a problem, we go fix it instead of having to go
through the courts. Members, let me tell you why I bring this legislation. We v’ e
got to debate this issue. We bring it before us to make sure we fix the problem
before it gets bigger.
Im
’ going to tell you something, members. I m
’ going to tell you something.
There is part of the Constitution that says, "You have the right to remain silent."
You have a right to remain silent, but in the interpretation of the Constitution
when you remain silent, there s’ a saying in Spanish that goes like this, "El que
calla otorga." He or she that does not answer says yes. So I bring this legislation
before you. I bring this legislation before you to say let s’ leave it to the voting
section of the Department of Justice to review. I bring it before you because I
believe there s’ a problem with this legislation. And you heard all the arguments
yesterday, and you r’e going to hear the exchange between Representative Dutton
and Representative Simmons in a minute about how this legislation has problems.
And in summary, what is the problem? Right now, straight-party voting
allows minorities an opportunity to vote, and it s’ working for minorities. This
legislation before you says––in my opinion, it s’ going to violate the rights of
minorities. Now, remember what I said, "El que calla otorga." He or she who
remains silent agrees with what I m
’ saying. So if Mr.iSimmons just asked for a
vote and doesn t’ counter my argument, guess what? He agrees with my argument.
Remember, "El que calla otorga." He or she who does not answer agrees. So as
we vote and Mr. Simmons does not respond, even though he might vote the way
he wants to vote, he means that he agrees with me.
S214
85th LEGISLATURE — REGULAR SESSION
REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: I think you have an important amendment here.
In the discussion yesterday on second reading of this bill, do you recall we heard
a lot from the bill author about how several other states don t’ have straight-ticket
voting, and that s’ one reason that Texas should join their ranks? I think California
was an example that was offered a lot. Was California subject to Sectioni5iof the
Voting Rights Act over the years as Texas was––where we, Texas, unfortunately,
shamefully, had been found to have intentionally discriminated against minority
voters going back to the 1970s? And those other states, if I m
’ correct, don t’ have
that history and shameful legacy. Are you aware of that?
ALONZO: Yes, sir, and what I did before coming here was I looked it up under
the Department of Justice website. And real briefly I l’l tell you, under the law,
states covered as a whole––in answer to your question––states covered as a
whole are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South
Carolina, Virginia, and Texas. And nowhere covered as a whole is California.
TURNER: That s’ what I thought, Representative Alonzo. So I think that when
the bill author or others who support this bill say, "Well, Texas should do it just
because all these other states have done it"––those other states, lucky for their
voters, haven ’t had Texas ’ihistory of passing laws that are designed to
discriminate and to disenfranchise the voters. We have been found, unfortunately,
to have done that in every decade since the 1970s, since the Voting Rights Act
passed.
ALONZO: And it begs the question, Representative. It s’ not us members of the
house or us members that are bringing legislation. It s’ the courts. In the last few
weeks, at least three courts have talked about how in the voting process, Texas
has wronged minorities. It s’ not us.
TURNER: That s’ right.
ALONZO: It s’ not Roberto Alonzo. It s’ not Chris Turner. It s’ the courts––the
courts in Washington D.C., the courts in San Antonio that have said this. And
that s’ why we are bringing this legislation, because the courts have said, "You
come and tell us what s’ wrong." Well, how do we do it, members? We v’ e got to
present legislation. We debate it. We argue it. We discuss it. We bring it forward,
win or lose, and then we do what we do in the United States of America, which is
a democracy. We go to courts to interpret what we do, which is the right thing to
do.
TURNER: That s’ right, Representative Alonzo, and I believe you r’e aware also
that those courts that you mentioned––D.C., San Antonio, and also Corpus
Christi on the voter ID case––those include judges who have been appointed by
democratic presidents and also judges that have been appointed by republican
presidents. Those are who have found that Texas has been responsible for
intentional discrimination, in effect, in these laws. Is that not correct?
ALONZO: That s’ correct, and that s’ why I bring this legislation forward. Let the
Justice Department review it. It s’ a good process that allows––we have a history
of having done that, and this is great, great legislation.
Friday, May 5, 2017
HOUSE JOURNAL — 64th Day
S215
[Amendment No. 2 failed of adoption by Record No. 976.]
[Amendment No. 3 by Neave was laid before the house.]
REPRESENTATIVE NEAVE: I have an amendment that deals with the issue of
individuals with disabilities in our state. As we are here on our floor talking about
the option or removing an option for voters, I d’ like for us to think about these
individuals in our community who are disabled. We r’e talking about seniors,
we r’e talking about our grandparents or even parents, about individuals who are
in wheelchairs. Individuals who have severe arthritis for whom making a
selection in every single race where sometimes there are hundreds of
candidates––this is going to be physically challenging for these individuals. They
are individuals with vision impairments and individuals with disabilities like
dyslexia for whom moving through the entire ballot would be time consuming
and difficult. And we have elected officials who are making decisions every
single day in our community that affect their lives. Having their voices heard in
the democratic process is very important, and we r’e going to be depriving them
of this opportunity to be able to vote straight-party ballot. Some of them may
choose to just stay home and not participate in this process. And as a result, we
will have stifled their voices. And let s’ talk about the law, because under TitleiII
of the Americans with Disabilities Act––
REPRESENTATIVE SPRINGER: Representative Neave, I was walking in, and I
heard something that concerned me greatly. Did you say that people in
wheelchairs are less able to think and do things with their hands? Because
somebody who is married to one finds that a little bit insulting.
NEAVE: No, sir.
SPRINGER: Would you not understand why I would?
NEAVE: I absolutely understand that, and that is not what I ’m saying,
Representative. I completely––
SPRINGER: But that was your comment.
NEAVE: No, sir. I completely respect that, and that is not my intention at all.
That s’ not what I m
’ saying at all. My concern is for limiting an option.
SPRINGER: At the voting booths, isn t’ it true that we have people there that if
you physically can t’ do it, they will help you with it?
NEAVE: No, sir. That s’ not––what I m
’ saying is, we know that we have
individuals that are there, and the laws have those protections, and I m
’ precisely
trying to do something to make sure that we don ’t violate the ADA,
Representative. Under TitleiII specifically, under the Americans with Disabilities
Act, removing this option could subject us to litigation for failure to provide a
reasonable accommodation, and that s’ the concern. So what this amendment
would do is, it would help avoid potential exposure to litigation by allowing
individuals who are, as defined under Sectioni61.012iof the Texas Election Code,
dealing with access by persons with disabilities and protections under the ADA.
It would allow them the opportunity to specifically choose, if they want, the
option of doing straight-party voting instead of going line by line. And so, I
S216
85th LEGISLATURE — REGULAR SESSION
believe that this amendment will help us avoid exposure, and I would hope that
you would join us in supporting this amendment to provide protections for
individuals so we don t’ violate Title II of the ADA.
[Amendment No. 3 failed of adoption by Record No. 977.]
REPRESENTATIVE DUTTON: If this bill passes, and it goes to the senate, the
senate passes it––do you think it will help republicans at the polls?
SIMMONS: That s’ not why I filed this bill. I don t’ have an opinion on that.
DUTTON: Well, it may not be, but my question has to do with do you think it
will––
SIMMONS: I don t’ have an opinion on that.
DUTTON: Well, do you think it will help democrats?
SIMMONS: I have no opinion on that.
DUTTON: Okay, well, what made you introduce this bill?
SIMMONS: As I said last night, I think this produces better government because
it requires people to go down the ballot and look and evaluate each particular
candidate, just like we do with city council races today and just like we do in
primaries.
DUTTON: Well, I m
’ glad you mentioned that, because that s’ what I wanted to
talk to you about. Because in the primary, isn t’ that what the people did? Didn t’
they go down each ballot? You don ’t have straight––well, it will be
counterintuitive––but we don t’ have straight-ticket voting in the primary, do we?
SIMMONS: That s’ a question––of course not.
DUTTON: But you said you wanted them to go down each race, correct?
SIMMONS: That s’ right.
DUTTON: That s’ why you passed this. But didn t’ people do that when they went
to the polls for the primary?
SIMMONS: To vote for a candidate they did, yes, sir.
DUTTON: They did. They went down each and every ballot on there if they
wanted to, because they didn t’ have a choice to do it another way, did they?
SIMMONS: And they can do it just that way in the general. They r’e obviously
fully capable of doing that.
DUTTON: I understand, but follow me. Follow me, if you will. Your argument
about introducing this bill is you wanted people to go down each race, as I
understood you. And what I m
’ trying to get you to understand is that is exactly
what people did in the primary. They went down, and they chose each race
because you can t’ do it any other way. Is that correct?
SIMMONS: That s’ correct.
Friday, May 5, 2017
HOUSE JOURNAL — 64th Day
S217
DUTTON: All right, and so once they v’ e done that and they said, these are my
choices––what s’ wrong with straight voting and saying, "Hey, those are the
choices I made in the primary. I m
’ fine with them today, and so I don t’ need to go
back down each race"?
SIMMONS: They l’l be able to vote for that same candidate in the general.
There s’ new candidates on the ballot that weren t’ in the primary, as you know,
because we only vote in one primary election.
DUTTON: There wouldn t’ be any new candidates in the––
SIMMONS: Well, new candidates for the ballot. If I vote in the democrat
primary, I wouldn t’ know about the republican candidate until he got to the
general election, and I v’ e got another choice to make or maybe even an
independent candidate.
DUTTON: But you just said you weren t’ aware of whether or not it would help
republicans.
SIMMONS: I don t’ have any idea. I m
’ just saying I v’ e got choices. It gives
somebody choices, gives a voter choices.
DUTTON: But they have that choice during the primary. They could vote in the
republican primary or in the democratic primary, correct? And when they did the
primary voting, they went down every single race if they wanted to. And what
you r’e saying is that s’ the reason you introduced this bill, but what I m
’ trying to
get you to understand is people have already done that. People have gone down
every race. And so I don t’ understand how that s’ ––I mean, I don t’ understand the
reason for the bill or the necessity.
SIMMONS: I m
’ sorry. I hate to be redundant. I can t’ explain it any differently
than I have, Mr.iDutton. I apologize.
DUTTON: Well, I hate to be redundant in my questions, too, but if you don t’
answer it, I guess I have to ask it over and over again. But the question I m
’ trying
to get you to say is you don t’ see any difference––or I guess what you do is, you
see a major difference between the primary and the general election. Is that right,
in terms of people making choices?
SIMMONS: I think there are different choices on different ballots. I don t’ see any
difference. I think they should vote the same. That s’ what this bill does. They
vote down the ballot on each of those.
DUTTON: But if they v’ e already done that, why are you wanting to penalize
them later on for having done that already?
SIMMONS: There are new choices on the general election ballot that were not on
the primary ballot.
DUTTON: But even if there are new choices, even if you vote one of those races,
you could still vote and have a choice where you could do the whole ballot, can t’
you?
SIMMONS: Yes, and they can do that. The other party s’ candidates weren t’ on
your or my primary ballot.
S218
85th LEGISLATURE — REGULAR SESSION
DUTTON: So there ’s nothing preventing them from doing what you ’re
suggesting today.
SIMMONS: They can vote down the ballot just like they did in the primary,
Mr.iDutton.
DUTTON: Well, I understand that. I understand that s’ what your bill would do.
What I m
’ trying to figure out is, if they v’ e already done that in the primary, your
bill would prohibit them from doing that in the general election. That s’ all it does,
correct?
SIMMONS: HBi25 requires people to vote down in each race if they choose to
do so.
DUTTON: Right, and you agree with me they v’ e already done that once in the
primary, correct?
SIMMONS: Not in that particular race. They v’ e voted in a primary race against
two primary candidates not against general election candidates. No, sir.
DUTTON: Well, yes, but those are the same candidates aren t’ they?
SIMMONS: Yes, it s’ only half the candidates or maybe a third of the candidates
depending on if there are other parties and all that. In our presidential race, there
were 16icandidates.
DUTTON: Well, I guess what I m
’ trying to point out is, it seems nonsensical.
HBi25 seems nonsensical to me, because the people already made a choice. And
when they made that choice, what you r’e saying is now you want them to go and
do exactly the same thing all over again when straight-party voting means that
they could just hit one lever and be done with it because they v’ e already made
that selection. That selection has already been done, and so I don t’ understand.
When you say you want them to do it again––I m
’ still not able to quite get there.
And perhaps it s’ unexplainable, except in the sense that the republicans are for
this and the democrats are against it. Because I think the democrats must think
that straight-party ticket is beneficial to democrats. And you must think it s’
beneficial to democrats, too, because that s’ why you r’e sponsoring it. Is that
right?
SIMMONS: No, sir. You asked that question about five minutes ago, and I
answered it then. That answer has not changed in the last five minutes.
DUTTON: Well, I m
’ not trying to change––I don t’ think I m
’ trying to change
your mind. I m
’ just trying to get you to open your eyes. Because I think if you
look at it from the standpoint that the people have already made a choice, the
people have already made a choice individually in the primary races. And once
they v’ e made those choices, it doesn t’ make sense to me to say, well, now we r’e
going to have to go back and do this, exactly the same thing, over again. But
anyway, I thank you for trying to answer my questions, even though you didn t’
quite get there.
Friday, May 5, 2017
HOUSE JOURNAL — 64th Day
S219
REPRESENTATIVE STICKLAND: Representative Simmons, we v’ e heard a lot
of talk today and a lot of accusations that this bill is specifically about race or a
lot of different things. That s’ not your intention on this bill, is it?
SIMMONS: No, sir.
STICKLAND: No, it s’ not. You are aware that I plan on voting against the bill
but not because of any of those accusations whatsoever, correct?
SIMMONS: Yes, sir.
STICKLAND: And you understand that I m
’ voting against this bill because
specifically my district and the people that I v’ e heard from enjoy straight-ticket
voting. It s’ very successful there. Did you know I m
’ disappointed that some of
the talk on this bill––those who are against it have gone off the rails on a bunch
of other things?
SIMMONS: Right.
STICKLAND: So I will be opposing the bill today, and it s’ because I v’ e heard
from my constituents who want it and the fact that the delegates at the republican
convention did not pass it but not because of some of the other accusations.
REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: Do you know how long we ’v e had
straight-ticket voting in Texas?
SIMMONS: I am not advised.
COLEMAN: The record shows at least since 1911.
REPRESENTATIVE MOODY: I m
’ just trying to summarize. We v’ e had a
lengthy debate on this, but is it your position that this is a neutral provision? That
it is non-discriminatory, and that it impacts all voters regardless of their race?
SIMMONS: It has nothing to do with race. This is a neutral bill, in my opinion,
for elections.
MOODY: And people on this floor brought concerns to you from minority
communities, African American and Latino. Were those concerns brought to you
along the way as well? People testifying against this bill in committee? Were
those concerns brought to you prior to us hearing the debate on the floor
yesterday?
SIMMONS: We had a committee hearing. I don t’ remember exactly who testified
in favor of or against. There was a variety on both sides.
MOODY: But you are aware there are concerns that have been raised about the
disproportionate impact on minority communities. You r’e aware that s’ being
raised. I m
’ not saying you agree with it or not, but you know that s’ being raised?
SIMMONS: I m
’ aware of the discussions we had yesterday along those lines,
yes.
MOODY: Well, if you don t’ think they r’e being raised, let me be very clear. They
are being raised not just in this debate, but I believe they were in committee as
well. So what have you done to alleviate those concerns?
S220
85th LEGISLATURE — REGULAR SESSION
SIMMONS: The bill has not changed. I don t’ believe those concerns are valid.
MOODY: So you reject those concerns. Did you look at any data? Did you look
at any potential statewide impact to alleviate those concerns?
SIMMONS: We did not do any particular studies. I know that this, again, is in
41iother states where they do not have straight-ticket voting, and those states
have population diversions as well.
MOODY: So let s’ talk about one of those states that s’ going through this
conversation, the State of Michigan. Are you aware that the same arguments you
just made about neutrality and nondiscrimination are the same arguments that the
State of Michigan made in defending their strikeout of straight-party voting?
SIMMONS: I m
’ not advised about their arguments, no, sir.
MOODY: Okay, well, you were talking about other states so I m
’ bringing one of
those to the table, because the district court in Michigan said––they rejected the
state s’ argument, the same argument you r’e making. The Sixth Circuit rejected
that argument, and the Supreme Court rejected that argument. Are you aware of
that case at all?
SIMMONS: I v’ e heard of the case. I m
’ not aware of it.
[HB 25 was passed by Record No. 978.]