Texas lawmakers are working hard to make it harder to vote

Make no mistake: they aren't making it harder to cheat—they are cheating

Maybe you’ve heard the catch phrase being trotted out by Texas lawmakers in defense of their voter suppression. They say they’re making it “easier to vote, and harder to cheat.” The truth is neither of those things is true. They aren’t making it easier to vote—they’re working overtime to make it as hard as possible. And they are cheating. Cheating you out of the democratic process. Cheating you out of your right to govern yourself.

Earlier today, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed into law one of the most aggressive anti-voter laws in the nation. It scraps much of the progress Texas had made in terms of voting rights. Under the new law, there’s no more 24-hour voting, no more drive-thru voting, and no more universal mail ballot applications. And it doesn’t stop there. There are also strict new rules on how you cast mail ballots—rules which will almost surely cost eligible voters their votes. That’s not even to mention the expanded powers granted to poll watchers and the new burdens imposed on people who assist voters with disabilities.

As should be pretty clear, these rules were not made to make voting easier. Quite the opposite. These rules were put in place precisely because they’d make voting harder. The proof is that, despite what their backers say, these laws do nothing to combat any known type of fraud. There’s no good reason for any of these rules.

The ban on 24-hour voting

Start with the ban on 24-hour voting. What fraud is that meant to stop? Surely there’s an answer to that question. Right?

As it turns out, there isn’t. At least not a good one. When asked, the new rule’s backers mostly demur. They just don’t have an answer. Their go-to is to talk about how important it is to prevent fraud. About how voters have to be able to trust that their elections are fair. Texas State Sen. Bryan Hughes, one of the bill’s backers, even pointed to an example: a former county commissioner in his district on trial for fraud in the 2018 election. According to him, that justifies the steps the new Texas law takes.

But that case involved just 38 ballots and had nothing to do with 24-hour voting. So what gives? Some other backers of the law say it’s about standardizing election rules. State Rep. Briscoe Cain, for one, said it’s about “voter enhancement”—keeping the voting process uniform statewide.

That isn’t, of course, a terrible point. Voting access should be equal. The difficulty of voting shouldn’t depend on where you live or who you are. We all agree there. But Rep. Cain’s solve misses the mark. The logical way to equalize voting access isn’t to look for the lowest common denominator. It’s to make voting as easy as possible everywhere.

If 24-hour voting doesn’t exist statewide, the way to fix that isn’t to ban it where it’s already found a home. It’s to make 24-hour voting the standard.

The ban on drive-thru voting

The drive-thru voting ban is just as bad. In the 2020 election, there were no recorded cases of fraud linked to drive-thru voting. Not one. In fact, you’d be hard pressed to find any example of that in any election in U.S. history. So how did a form of voting that safe get the Texas legislature’s attention?

A good person to ask is the governor of Texas. He defended the new rule by talking about bumper stickers and nosey passengers. As he put it, there’s a risk of cars in a voting drive-thru sporting bumper stickers that sway other voters. And some voters might worry about their passengers seeing who they vote for, leading them to vote differently.

Both points call for a response. But, before that, two quick points of my own.

First, an observation. Although the law’s backers tend to cite an interest in stopping fraud, this law candidly has nothing to do with fraud. The governor even admits it’s about keeping voters from being influenced—not making it harder to cheat. And, if that’s the case, can that really justify making it harder for eligible voters to cast their ballots? Should we have to jump through hoops because elite officials don’t trust us to make our own choices?

Second, a concern. If the bill’s backers are truly just worried about bumper stickers and nosey passengers, why ban drive-thru voting? Why not just ban cars with bumper stickers from voting drive-thrus? Or ban cars with multiple passengers from the drive-thrus? Why target the whole system? It’s hard to trust that officials are being honest when there’s such a clear mismatch between what they’re saying and what they’re doing.

Now, for the governor’s actual points. Are bumper stickers really a problem that need a legislative solution? Common sense says probably not. The Constitution says no way.

A couple of years back, the Supreme Court took up a case called Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky. The exact history of that case is unimportant but it’s bottom line sure is. The Court struck down a Minnesota law that banned political apparel in voting areas, holding it was a First Amendment violation. The risk of influencing other voters couldn’t justify restricting a voter’s freedom of speech, even at the polls. So when Texas officials talk about voters influencing other voters with bumper stickers, they’re really invoking a dead end. Whether a t-shirt or a bumper sticker, it isn’t the state’s call.

As for passengers, the law’s backers overlook the fact that a driver isn’t required to have people in their car. That’s a choice they make. If a voter is worried about what potential passengers may think of their vote, they have the choice not to bring passengers with them. Or they may choose to use a different voting method entirely. The point is: when you leave the choice to voters, they can figure out what works best for them and act accordingly. When elite officials take choices away, all they’re saying is they think they know better—they usually don’t.

The bottom line

The new law in Texas makes it harder to vote. That’s a fact. And if you believe in democracy, that should concern you. Let’s be frank: sometimes making it harder to cheat does require you to make it harder to vote. But when the measures you’re adopting have nothing to do with stopping fraud, then all you’re doing is making it harder to vote. And if you’re making it harder to vote to gain an advantage, then here’s a news flash: you’re cheating.

Americans of all political stripes are against anti-voter legislation. It isn’t a partisan fight. The only ones who benefit when voters lose are politicians who’d rather not be held to account.

We can still save our democracy. But Congress must act. Fast.