On Tuesday, Texas held its Democratic and Republican primaries ahead of the upcoming November midterms. Democratic voters chose between Jasmine Crockett, the anti-Trump firebrand congresswoman, and James Talarico, the populist state representative, in an election that attracted national attention. Crockett conceded the race and endorsed Talarico on Wednesday, but only after claiming late on election night that she wasn’t ready to concede because of a voting issue in Dallas.
“We don’t have any of the results because there was a lot of confusion today,” Crockett told supporters at her election-night party. “We were able to keep the polls open, but I can tell you now that people have been disenfranchised.” Crockett received 45.6% of the vote, compared with Talarico’s 53.1%.
Voters in Dallas and Williamson counties faced challenges due to a change in voting location. Voting rights advocates say that the difficulties in voting amount to voter suppression – and they raise concerns about how smoothly the November midterms will go. (The Republican candidates, Texas attorney general Ken Paxton and the incumbent senator John Cornyn, will face off in a runoff on 26 May.)
Denisse Molina, who worked as a poll monitor with the Texas Civil Rights Project in Williamson county, said that she saw several voters go into one precinct only to be routed elsewhere. In one large voting site, Democratic and Republican voters were unsure where they were supposed to go because of a lack of adequate signage.
At another site, a leasing office at an apartment complex, Molina said there were only three voting machines available despite people from 13 precincts being routed to that location. About 200 people waited in line for hours – so long that voters began to leave.
“I had never experienced voter suppression like that,” Molina said. The difficulties Molina witnessed were not isolated. Across Dallas and Williamson counties, voters described classic suppression tactics: long lines, extended wait times and confusion about voting location.
On top of this, it's not like voting locations are set in stone forever. Moving a polling place shouldn't immediately equate to voter disenfranchisement. Regardless of why or how that change happened, innocent or practical or nefarious, educate voters if you're already talking about a candidate you want them to vote for. The county/state isn't responsible for going door-to-door to tell people about a change like that, and even if they sent out a mailer, that's easily ignored.
In Canada our polling stations are pretty set in stone. On occasion, due to community activities, they are changed but everyone also receives a voting card with the polling station clearly noted.
We also have a federal arms-length agency - Elections Canada - that takes care of all facets of a federal election, including boundary lines. Same with provincial elections. No politicians or political parties are allowed to be involved in any part of electoral rules, regulations or changing of boundaries.
I've always been amazed at America's electoral free-for-all that seems to encourage voter suppression.
Unfortunately, the way things are run electorally in the states is seen as a feature instead of a bug for most politicians here, and has been for pretty much the entire existence of the country.