From the President's Desk
By Hollis V. Rutledge

I would like to thank Ann Peden and Loyce McCarter for all the teaching they've done in recent months holding election seminars across the state. Be sure to read their report in this newsletter as to where they've gone and the wonderful welcome they've received from you all. I would also like to thank Skipper Wallace for ably representing the TRCCA as an unpaid volunteer when giving election law testimony before legislative committees. Other members of the TRCCA leadership were also active this session visiting with House and Senate members to let them know your concerns. You may not have gotten everything you wanted to insure smooth elections, but I believe the Legislature did pass some good bills.

Now the session is behind us and we're rapidly approaching the Secretary of State's Election Law Seminar scheduled for Friday, October 12 at the Sheraton Hotel in downtown Austin. I'll be there on Friday (accompanied by our officers and instructors) for the benefit of those arriving early. In fact, our team will be holding a class on “Growing the Party through County and Precinct Organization, Conventions, and Ballot Security” from 3:30 – 6:00 PM, and a class on the "Nuts and Bolts of Elections" at 7:15 PM. Then on Saturday at noon we'll be holding a complimentary lunch for Republican County Chairmen attending the Secretary of State's Seminar. I'm really looking forward to the weekend. I also want to congratulate our TRCCA Vice President Linda Rogers for coordinating with the Secretary of State and setting up these TRCCA activities. You owe it to yourself to attend (and to schedule your arrival a day early so you can take advantage of what we're offering).

Our instructors will also be scheduling training classes during the months following the SOS seminar because we realize that there will be new county chairmen appointed who have no opportunity to avail themselves of the Secretary of State's training. We'll also be there for you whenever you have questions or need our advice. Don't hesitate to call our Executive Director, Tom Haughey. His cell phone number is 956-655-6004.

I would urge you to get together with your county's elections administrator or county clerk as soon as possible and begin planning for the upcoming primary elections. As you know, the Secretary of State's Office has had its hands full in recent months trying to get IBM technicians and Hart systems analysts to iron out the problems in the new HAVA-mandated SOS computer system. You need to make sure that your county has contingency plans in place to produce and certify an up-to-date voter list if the SOS program experiences any technical problems.

Remember that any such system failure won't just be the county government's headache. It will be yours as well if you are the one conducting your party's primary. Some advance planning now may well avert future embarrassment. The largest counties have purchased alternative software they're using to maintain a separate voter list to guard against the statewide failures which plagued the recent city elections. The precaution seems well advised.

 

EVENTS – Correction

For paid members that received email notices for the training seminars, please note that due to time constraints, meeting room availability, and conflicts, some times and topics that were scheduled have been changed. We are sorry for any inconvenience but we are sure the programs offered will be beneficial to ALL county chairs. For correct information see the insert in this newsletter.

IMPORTANT****NOTICE*****IMPORTANT

IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO VOTE

On the advice of our legal council, the TRCCA executive committee, at the quarterly executive meeting held at the TRCCA Headquarters in Austin on August 25, 2007, proposed a change to the by-laws. Article XII of the present by-laws addresses the amending or repealing of any part of the by-laws.

ARTICLE XII – Amendments

These by-laws, or any part thereof, may be amended or repealed by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of those present and voting at any general or biennial meeting provided that notices of all proposed changes are submitted, in writing to the membership of the TRCCA at least fifteen (15) days prior to the meeting at which such action shall be taken.

ARTICLE II – OBJECTIVES (PRESENT)

Section 2. External Objectives. To work with the Texas Republican Party, and the National Republican Party, to establish and promote the principles of the Republican Party. To encourage able and qualified U.S. citizens to seek office at all levels of government and to help elect Republican candidates to office at all levels of government.

To put the TRCCA in a position of compliance with Texas Ethic Commission Rules, the TRCCA Executive Committee proposes that the above underlined portion of Article II – Objectives be deleted.

After the change, if approved by the qualified voting members, the amended version would read as follows.

ARTICLE II – OBJECTIVES

Section 2. External Objectives. To work with the Texas Republican Party, and the National Republican Party, to establish and promote the principles of the Republican Party

This proposed change to the by-laws of the TRCCA is presented to you in writing and is to be voted on at the October 13th, 2007 General Meeting of the TRCCA membership to be held in Austin, Texas at the Sheraton Austin Hotel, 701 East 11^th Street. The meeting will be held during the Secretary of State’s Seminar “lunch break” from 12:00 PM – 1:00 PM. (See newsletter insert for more details about luncheon).

RPT Straw Poll

Fort Worth Convention Center
1201 Houston Street Fort Worth, Texas

Pre-registration opens online

Monday, June 4, 2007; closes August 24, 2007

Registration - Exhibit Hall Annex, Commerce Street Entrance.

Friday, 8/31/07 & Saturday, 9/1/07.

Credentials Committee – Exhibit Hall Annex Lobby.

Friday, August 31, 2007 & Saturday, September 1, 2007.

Campaign School Friday - August 31, 2007. Grand Ballroom, Level 2.

Fundraising Dinner, keynote Michael Steele - Hall A.

Friday, August 31, 2007.

Straw Poll Event - Saturday, September 1, 2007. Arena.

Editor’s Note

It is so easy to enjoy the fruits of the efforts of others without ever realizing what all is involved with what they do for us. Some people step forward and take the “reins” and lead with authority and effectiveness. We are so fortunate to have a lady form Burnet County (The Circle R Ranch) that has taken that step, has taken the reins, and just happens to be our vice president. I have worked closely with her on more than one occasion and was in total awe of her dedication to perfection and detail, and yet I do not know all that she does for our organization We do not have room in the newsletter to list all the miracles she has performed this year.

Please take time to thank her for all of her hard work and dedication.

2007 Election Law Seminar Information

The Elections Division of the Office of the Secretary of State is pleased to announce the dates for the 2007 Election Law Seminars. All seminars are open to the public, all are held in Austin, and there is a nominal registration fee to attend each seminar to cover the cost of the seminar manual, breaks and a lunch. The seminars are educational presentations, tailored to the audience as it relates to their election-related duties, and pursuant to the Texas Election Code.

If you have any suggestions for topics, or would like to serve on a panel, please contact Kim Kizer via e-mail or by phone at 512.463.9873. If you have any questions regarding any of the Secretary of State's Election Law Seminars, please feel free to contact Leticia Salazar via e-mail, toll-free at 1.800.252.VOTE(8683) or direct at 512.463.5650.

General Contact Information for the Secretary of State

Section Mailing Address:
Elections Division
Secretary of State
P.O. Box 12060
Austin, Texas 78711-2060

Section Physical Address:
Elections Division
Secretary of State
208 East 10^th Street
Rusk Building, Third Floor
Austin, Texas 78701

Section Hours of Operation:
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Central Time, Monday through Friday.

Section Directory:
Ann McGeehan, Director of Elections
Melinda Nickless, Assistant Director of Elections
Elizabeth Hanshaw Winn, Legal Section
Kim Kizer, Special Projects

Karen Richards, Voter Registration
Shelia L. Latting, Election Funds Management

Questions and comments may be sent to: elections@sos.state.tx.us , or you may phone the Elections Division toll-free at 1-800-252-VOTE(8683).

Address for election forms from SOS.

http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/forms/index.shtml

Texas Election Code.

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/el.toc.htm

Election Returns.

http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/historical/index.shtml

Ethics Commission

http://www.ethics.state.tx.us/

County Parties

http://www.ethics.state.tx.us/main/party.htm

The Secretary of State has training for poll workers available online at http://texaspollworkertraining.com/. This training allows the participant to take the training at their pace by allowing them to start and stop as needed. This is a great tool for anyone that is interested in or is currently working at a poll.

TRCCA.org

If you have not visited the TRCCA site lately you are missing an adventure. This is your site and Karl Pankratz; our webmaster has done a phenomenal job of reconstructing the site. Please take some time to tour it and leave your comments. The more “hits” we have the more popular it will become.

Karl gave a presentation of the possibilities of the site to the executive committee at its quarterly meeting in Austin on August 25, 2007. Remember that personal plans can change programs, but Karl has expressed a desire and the executive committee has invited him to attend the Secretary of State Seminar in October to answer questions and hopefully demonstrate the site. The latter is in question. Regardless, it will be worth your time to visit the site.

Thank you Karl.

 

History of Voting

Early Voting

Ancient Greece

Ancient Greece had one of the earliest forms of democracy, since at least 508 BC. Each year, the Greeks had a negative election -- voters were asked to cast a vote for the politician they most wanted to exile for ten years. Votes were written on broken pots, ostraka in Greek, and from this name comes our present word to ostracize. If any politician received more than 6,000 votes then the one with the largest number was exiled. If no politician received 6,000 votes then all remained. If there was a fairly even spread of votes, nobody would get over 6,000 and no one would get exiled -- hence only very unpopular politicians were ostracized and exiled.

Voting rights in ancient Greece were only for male landowners, so the number of voters was small. Today, there are few politicians who would survive 6,000 negative votes!

Medieval Venice

The Venetian state was built up in the 13th century and they elected a Great Council of 40 members. The Venetians introduced "approval voting": electors cast one vote for every candidate they find acceptable and none for those whom they deem unacceptable. The winner is the person who is acceptable to the largest number of voters.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Voting Rights

The history of voting in America is a story of ever-increasing voting rights. The rules for eligibility have changed substantially since America's founding, and continue to change today. When America was young, only white males over the age of 21 were allowed to vote. Some of the landmark changes since then:

Black Suffrage

The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution were passed following the Civil War, in the later 1860s. They outlawed slavery and extended civil rights and suffrage (voting rights) to former slaves. The LEGAL right to vote for African-Americans was established, but numerous restrictions kept many blacks from ACTUALLY voting until the 1960s Voting Rights Act.

Direct election of Senators

The 17th Amendment made it so U.S. Senators were directly elected by popular vote. Prior to 1913, Senators were appointed. The President, of course, is still not elected by popular vote, but by the Electoral College. For example, in the presidential election of 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote but George Bush won the electoral college vote.

Women's Suffrage

The 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote in 1920. This amendment resulted from an international movement of "Suffragettes". Women still lacked the right to vote in Switzerland until the 1970s, and as of 1990 women could not vote in Kuwait.

18-year-old vote

The 26th Amendment lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. This occurred in 1971, amid the Vietnam War, when 18-year-olds were routinely drafted and sent to war without the right to vote.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Voting Systems

The system in use in the United States is by no means the world standard. For that matter, voting systems differ from state to state. Some voting systems you may not be familiar with:

Parliamentary System

The American voting system elects legislators based on one geographical district, by majority or plurality (whoever gets the most votes in that district wins). The districts are whole states for Senators and parts of states for House members. This is known as the "First-past-the-post" system.

In the parliamentary system, all legislators are elected at-large, meaning from the entire country's electorate. Voters choose one party, and the party's total votes determine how many legislative seats the party gets. The legislators are pre-determined on a list of party candidates. The Prime Minister is the person who is first on the list of the party which got the most votes.

The first-past-the-post system tends towards two parties, as we have in America. The parliamentary system favors multiple parties, since any party getting enough votes for even one seat, gets a voice in Parliament.

Instant Runoff Voting

I.R.V. is a system intended to help third party participation in a two-party system. Voters choose a first choice, second choice, and third choice. If their first choice loses, their vote transfer to their second choice candidate. For example, in 2000, voters might have voted first for Nader and second for Gore -- allowing more expression of political preferences while eliminating the "spoiler effect".

I.R.V. systems are in effect in several nations abroad, and also in numerous municipal elections in the U.S.

Fusion Voting

Fusion voting allows candidates to run under several party labels in one election. The largest example is New York State. Candidates often run as both Democrats and Liberal Party nominees; or as Republicans and Right-To-Life Party nominees. Third-party participation is encouraged because voters can choose a person AND a party, since the person's name appears once under each party. Much negotiation occurs to get the third-party nominations by major-party candidates, which is absent in states without fusion voting.

Voting equipment

The Supreme Court case of Bush v. Gore in 2000 highlighted the inadequacies of Florida's voting equipment. Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) to address some of the problems. Now voters have the right to cast a provisional ballot if their status is disputed; and people with the same names as felons are not routinely removed from voting rolls. Future controversy may center around electronic voting equipment because of the lack of a paper trail for manual recounts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Future of Voting

World Democracies

What's the world's largest democracy? It's NOT America!

In the 2004 election in India, 380 million people voted -- more than the entire population of the United States. India conducts its voting on multiple days, moving thousands of voting machines from one province to the next.

Perhaps America will take some ideas for future electoral reforms from other democracies around the world. Some ideas follow.

Ballot Box and Donor Box

Voting was not secret in the United States until the mid-1800s. Prior to that, voters would be sworn in and announce their choices by voice. The secret ballot box was seen as a means to increase voter participation (because voters would not be scrutinized for how they voted) but also has problems with fraud (because there's no direct verification that the voter's intent was followed).

Some reformers want to apply the secret ballot box to campaign donations. Campaign finance reform is an ongoing debate in the U.S. Congress -- with the McCain-Feingold rules taking full effect in 2004 -- and this area is open to further reform. One such reform idea is to hide all donor information from the candidates, like votes are hidden, so that elected officials never know from whom their donations come, and hence cannot inappropriately reward their donors. The opposite reform for he same goal is to make donors as public as possible, to allow scrutiny of elected officials and their donors.

Future Voting Reforms

Many reformers in America call for multi-day voting as a way of increasing participation. Other reforms include:

Same-day registration: In Minnesota, people can register to vote on election day. This greatly increases turnout and was widely credited with Gov. Jesse Ventura's 1998 electoral victory.

Weekend voting: Why do we vote on Tuesdays? Changing to Saturday and/or Sunday voting would increase turnout substantially.

Mail-In Voting: In Oregon, all voting is conducted by mail. In many other states, absentee voters must sign a statement that they were unable to get to the polls on election day. Removing restrictions against absentee and mail-in voting are coming in several states.

Non-partisan primaries: Why can't Democrats vote in Republican primaries? Independent non-party-aligned voters are the majority in some states now. Cross-over voting in primaries would transfer power from the parties to the people.

Under-age voting: 17-year-old voting in municipal races would get candidates to campaign in high schools, and students could get used to voting before setting off on their own.

Immigrant voting: Several communities with high immigrant populations allow Green Card holders (non-citizens) to vote in municipal elections. Municipal immigrant voting increases civic participation at a level that matters to residents, whether citizens or not.

Controversy over voting rights: Increasing voting rights is always controversial, because incumbent politicians are always weakened by having more voters (and hence more potential challengers' power bases). For example, in Cambridge Massachusetts, the voters approved immigrant voting rights, but the State Legislature declined to enact the approved bill.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sources

Black suffrage: http://www-sul.stanford.edu/depts/dp/pennies/1870_black.html

The history of voting: http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Voting.html

Women's Suffrage http://www2.worldbook.com/features/whm/html/whm010.html

African-American Voting rights http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/golrec.html

Voting equipment: http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Voting.html

Voting history: http://americanhistory.si.edu/vote/intro.html

India voting: http://www.neoncarrot.co.uk/h_aboutindia/india_election_stats.html

HAVA Act: http://www.fec.gov/hava/hava.htm

Instant Runoff Voting: http://www.massirv.org

 

Executive Director's Report

By Tom Haughey

The biggest disappointment in this year's legislative session for those charged with conducting elections was undoubtedly the failure of the legislators to enact a picture ID requirement for voters. The battle between the two parties was particularly bitter and even threatened to shut down the Senate. Democrats accused Republicans of trying to disenfranchise elderly poor voters while Republicans were convinced that voter fraud was taking place and that Democrats had a vested interest in allowing it to continue. With such divergent views it's understandable that the two sides were unable to set aside their mutual mistrust long enough to agree on language that would satisfy everyone. As a result county chairmen were denied a vital tool which would have allowed them to insure that the concept of "One man, one vote" was a reality in Texas elections.

The arguments of those opposing a picture ID were that the poor and elderly would be inconvenienced or shut out by the requirement and that nobody had demonstrated widespread voter fraud was taking place. Both of these arguments, however, are somewhat flawed.

It certainly seems inconvenient for a person in a nursing home who hasn't had a driver's license for years and has perhaps lost a birth certificate to go get a government-issued photo ID or for that matter to prove legal residency as a step toward issuance of that ID. Even Republican strategist Royal Masset saw pitfalls for his elderly mother in the requirement.

In point of fact, however, the DPS allows so many combinations of primary documents, secondary documents, and supporting sources to qualify a person to obtain a driver's license or DPS card that it is extremely unlikely that any citizen would be precluded from getting the license or ID. In fact, the Democrat elections administrator of my county favors the picture ID requirement for voting because so many undocumented non-citizens are applying for voter registration cards in order to get their hands on one of the supporting documents accepted by DPS for obtaining a Texas driver's license! It should also be noted that the now-defeated photo ID bill also qualified a registered individual to vote if he had any one of a host of alternative picture IDs ranging from passport to student ID card to military ID and even to library card. What's more, it allowed for two or more non-picture forms of identification to qualify the voter. Those legislators who were pushing for a picture ID requirement for voting were not disenfranchising voters.

If Democrats were concerned that the bedridden couldn't travel to the DPS for their picture, they should have offered enabling legislation requiring that the DPS make house calls to take the picture of anyone housebound or confined to a nursing home. In fact, the voter ID bill would have provided a lifeline to the elderly poor since a provision in it would have given them FOR FREE the identification card necessary for opening their own bank account (to enjoy the safety of direct deposit) and allowing them to board airplanes to travel to distant hospitals for lifesaving treatment. Even if the elderly poor never used the card to vote, the DPS card would have opened doors of opportunity to them.

The other argument against implementing a picture ID requirement is the lack of evidence that widespread voter fraud has occurred (although there was considerable evidence presented during the session). As one legislative staffer opposed to the bill told me: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Anyone who has conducted elections, however, knows that voter fraud is taking place. He sees the tip of the iceberg and wonders how much lies underneath. We mail out millions of voter registration cards here in Texas every other year that go to old addresses but are never returned to elections departments. Each of those cards provides the current resident with all the identification he needs to vote. How many of these cards are fraudulently voted? We don't know because we don't have the picture ID to use as a tool for spotting the fraud. We therefore fall short of the ideal "one man, one vote" but don't know how far short. The Democrats don't believe there is "widespread" fraud and would therefore deny county chairmen the necessary tool for quantifying the extent of the problem. I, for one, believe we need to have zero tolerance for voter fraud since even one incident of fraud destroys the concept of "one man, one vote." An election is sometimes won or lost by a single vote.

Sometimes people vote illegally without even knowing it. One election worker told me that when he was a teenager his father would lend him his voter registration card and send him to vote in his place. It wasn't until he took my elections class that he realized he'd been breaking the law. One of our county's presiding judges once asked another voter if he was a US citizen. "Why no," the would-be voter replied, "but they told us it didn't matter." A picture ID requirement would end a lot of confusion. It would also enable judges to root out malicious illegal voting. I remember an instance where an alternate judge stopped a voter because he recognized him as having voted earlier in the day. The individual claimed that his identical twin wearing his identical clothes had been the one who cast the ballot. The presiding judge let the fellow vote because there wasn't ID evidence to prove him wrong. Let's hope the legislature reconsiders the bill next session and passes it. That would certainly make the jobs of county chairmen, elections administrators, and election judges far easier.

ASSISTANT LEGAL COUNCIL

The Executive Committee of the TRCCA, at its quarterly meeting held at the TRCCA Headquarters on August 25, 2007, approved the appointment of Javier P. Guajardo, Jr. as Assistant Legal Council to the TRCCA. This is a new position that is created to take some of the responsibilities and load from Kevin Pagan (Legal Council to the TRCCA). Javier is no stranger to legal actions concerning election process or interpretation of the election code and other statutes. We will have more information about Javier in the next newsletter. We are hopeful that he will be in attendance, even for a limited time, at the Secretary of State Seminar in October. If you get the chance to meet him, thank him for the services that he is offering to us.

FINAL REPORT 5/29/07 TRCCA LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE

1. HB 218-Brown -Dems against-Photo ID to vote

Current Status: Placed on Intent Calendar for Senate 5/3 A last minute attempt was made by Senator Patrick to add language from HB218 to HB2823 in Conference Committee, however the attempt to remove the SPEAKER in the HOUSE killed that plan so HB218 is finally DEAD

HB 626-King-Dems against-Proof of Citizenship to register to vote

Current Status: in Senate State Affairs Committee left pending DEAD

2. HB 384 - Kolkhorst - Dems for - Provide paper trail for all electronic voting machines

Current Status: left pending in Committee DEAD

3. HB 1071 - Aycock - Dems for - Places into law requirements for transition between County Chairs

Current Status: Final Passage, Sent to Gov.

4. HB 1463- Zedler - Dems against - Increases penalties for voter fraud DEAD

Current Status: Killed in Elections Committee by Republican State Rep. Kirk England-Dist.106 Dallas

5. HB 1462 - Zedler - Dems against - Gives AG's office jurisdiction over election and campaign finance violations

Current Status: Killed on a point of order in the House DEAD

6. SB 1434 - Estes - Dems for - Equal Representation in Early Voting Personnel

Current Status: Final Passage 5/21

7. HB 938 - Talton - Dems against - Requires Deputy Voter Registrar to be a citizen and registered voter

Current Status: Sent to Local and Consent in House 4/17 DEAD

8. HB 2017 - Giddings - Dems for - Moves Primary filing date back an additional 30 days

Current Status: Sent to Senate intent Calendar 5/14 DEAD

9. HB 862 - Aycock - Dems for - Allows State Party Chair to temporarily appoint a County Chair where no County Executive Committee exists

Current Status: Final Passage, Sent to Gov.

10. HB 3143 - Flynn - Dems for - Defines electioneering outside 100 feet

Current Status: Placed on SENATE Intent Calendar Sent to GOV.

11. HB 2110 - Zedler - Suspends voting rights for registered sex offenders

Current Status: Left pending in Elections Committee DEAD

12. HB 2912 - Aycock - Dems for - Notifies County Chairs of all election activities

Current Status: Received in Senate Affairs Committee 5/10 DEAD

From B. R. "Skipper" Wallace

TRCCA Legislative Chair

PS: Passing 4 out of 12 Bills is a very poor showing in my opinion, however after talking to other people who work the Legislature they said I was lucky to get any Republican Election Bills passed this Session. We must always thank the Lord for small favors. Sorry we did not do better. We did the best we could under the circumstances.

Editor’s note: Please remember to “Shake a Hand” and give a big Texas “Thank You” to Skipper the next time you get a chance to communicate with him.

THANKS SKIPPER!

March 4, 2008 - Primary Election Date

April 8, 2008 - Primary Runoff Election Date

P. O. BOX 2781

SAN ANGELO, TEXAS 76902

ALL NEW (INITIAL) MEMBERS RECEIVE: Permanent Name tags, Lapel pins, and Business cards which identify you as a Republican County Chairman.

PAID MEMBERS RECEIVE: Voting privileges, periodic newsletters, mailings and/or E-mails to keep you informed of all TRCCA activities.

DUES:

COUNTY:_____________________________

RES. PH.:____________________________

FAX:_________________________________

CELL:________________________________

ADDRESS:____________________________

NAME:________________________________

BUS. PH:______________________________

EMAIL:________________________________

AMOUNT SENT: $______________________

CITY, TX, ZIP___________________________

Please remit to:

Texas Republican County Chairmans Association

Treasurer Michael B. Moore
P. O. Box 972253
El Paso, Texas 79997-2253
Office: 915-751-7467
Fax: 915-751-6420