Early or on Election Day: What to know about voting in Abilene City Council runoff race
Early voting turnout has been low for the Place 5 Abilene City Council runoff election compared to previous years.
During the last runoff race for Abilene City Council Place 5 in 2019, the Taylor County Elections Office reported a total of 2,297 votes were submitted by the fourth day of the early voting period.
This year, the race between incumbent Kyle McAlister and newcomer Miguel Espinoza has had a turnout of 1,537 votes.
With early voting running through Tuesday and Election Day on Saturday, the last days will be the final push for the two candidates' campaigns.
Get to know the Place 5 candidates: Espinoza or McAlister? Early voting open for Abilene City Council runoff election
There is still time to get to the polls for early voting through Tuesday.
Early voting polling locations are located at:
Taylor County Plaza, 400 Oak St. Open 8 a.m.-5 p.m.
Mall of Abilene, 4310 Buffalo Gap Road. Open 10 a.m.-6 p.m.
Abilene City Hall, 555 Walnut St. Open 8 a.m.-5 p.m.
Four voting centers will be open 7 a.m.-7 p.m. on Election Day Saturday.
Here are the Election Day polling locations:
Westminster Presbyterian Church, 4515 South 14th St.
Abilene City Hall, 555 Walnut St.
New Beginnings United Pentecostal, 5535 Buffalo Gap Road
Taylor County Plaza, 400 Oak St.
What to know about the upcoming 2025 Children's Art and Literacy Festival
Development Corporation of Abilene seeks approval for $3.5 million Project Surf incentive
This article originally appeared on Abilene Reporter-News: Polls open for Abilene City Council runoff election
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Office of Open Records orders Cambria County to search again for 2024 election failure
CAMBRIA COUNTY, Pa. (WTAJ) — Cambria County officials have been ordered to conduct a new search for records related to a major voting system failure during the November 2024 election, following a successful appeal from State Rep. Frank Burns under Pennsylvania's Right-to-Know Law. The state Office of Open Records ruled that the county's original reason for denying Burns' records request, citing a noncriminal investigation, was not valid, requiring the county to either provide the documents or legally attest that they do not exist. Burns requested any documentation explaining the nature of the voting machine malfunction that led to ballots going unscanned and unaccounted for, as well as a tally of how many ballots were successfully or unsuccessfully scanned on Election Day. The Nov. 5, 2024, issue reportedly involved voting machines that had passed pre-election testing but failed when used, prompting concerns from voters and lawmakers alike. Burns has continued to push for transparency surrounding the incident, stating that the public still has no clear explanation for what went wrong or how many ballots were impacted. In response to an inquiry from WTAJ, Cambria County's solicitor, Ronald Repak, provided a statement acknowledging the OOR ruling and outlining the four key parts of the decision. According to the county, the OOR deemed one of Burns' requests moot after the county turned over the logic and accuracy testing records. The OOR also denied Burns' request for a finding of bad faith, instead stating, 'The County has been timely, attentive, and professional in both its responses to the Requester and to the OOR and has made serious attempts to provide the Requester with the information he is seeking.' The county confirmed the OOR did grant Burns' request for the number of ballots that failed to scan, which officials say occurred because the ballots did not include TIS (timing) marks required by the tabulation system. The county said this issue affected all ballots when polls opened. Additionally, the OOR granted Burns' request for documentation explaining the nature of the problem. The county reiterated it has repeatedly said the mistake was due to a clerical error by a county worker who uploaded ballots to the system without the necessary marks. Officials said there was no malicious intent. 'The County has no issue with completing another search to answer questions which the County has already gone to great lengths in answering,' Repak stated. The OOR has given the county 30 days to provide Burns with the relevant records or a sworn statement that they do not exist. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Supreme Court turns away RNC challenge to Pennsylvania ballot ruling
The Supreme Court on Friday turned away the Republican National Committee's (RNC) bid to block Pennsylvania voters' in-person, do-over option when they return a defective mail ballot. The announcement was intended for Monday morning, but the court mistakenly released it early due to what a court spokesperson called an 'apparent software malfunction.' The order leaves in place a 4-3 ruling from Pennsylvania's top court that voters can still cast a vote at their polling place on Election Day if their mail ballot was rejected for technical reasons, despite a state law saying such votes 'shall not be counted' if the mail ballot was timely received. The additional option impacts thousands of voters each election cycle. The legal battle gained attention just ahead of the 2024 election, when President Trump narrowly beat former Vice President Harris in the key swing state and went on to retake the White House. Just before the election, the Supreme Court declined the RNC's request to intervene on an emergency basis. Now returning to the high court on its normal docket, the RNC urged the Supreme Court to use its case as a vehicle to more broadly restrict state courts' power over elections. Two years ago, the high court declined to endorse the maximalist version of the so-called 'independent state legislature' theory, which would give state legislatures near-total control over setting federal election rules by preventing state courts from restraining their actions. However, the justices in that decision warned that courts may not 'arrogate to themselves the power vested in state legislatures.' The justices have yet to adopt a specific test to measure when a court crosses that constitutional line, and the RNC cast its petition as a prime opportunity to do so. 'Failure to correct the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's indefensible distortion of the General Assembly's laws would effectively do just that by sending a strong message that judicial review under the Elections and Electors Clauses is illusory. The result would directly contravene the Constitution,' the RNC's attorneys at Jones Day wrote in the petition. The justices' refusal to take up the case comes months after the justices turned away a petition arising from Montana asking them to take up similar issues. The Pennsylvania case arose after Faith Genser and Frank Matis attempted to vote in the state's 2024 Democratic primary. Initially, the duo planned to vote by mail. But they mistakenly returned 'naked' ballots, meaning they didn't include a required secrecy envelope. With their votes invalid, Genser and Matis went to their polling place on the day of the primary election to cast provisional ballots. They sued after the Butler County elections board refused to count those ballots. The RNC's petition was joined by the Republican Party of Pennsylvania and the Butler County Board of Elections.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Commerce's Lutnick receives a timely reminder: ‘We cannot build bananas in America'
Ahead of Donald Trump's second inaugural, there were plenty of rumors that billionaire Howard Lutnick was well positioned to lead the Treasury Department — one of the most sought-after positions in any White House Cabinet. The Associated Press reported that some prominent supporters had lobbied on his behalf. Those efforts ultimately fell short, and Trump tapped Lutnick to serve as commerce secretary. As for why, exactly, he didn't get a more prominent position, The Bulwark reported two weeks after Election Day that Lutnick kept 'shooting himself in the foot' with foolish rhetoric. The report quoted a Trump adviser who said Lutnick needed to learn how to 'shut the f--- up.' And yet, he keeps finding microphones and making things worse for himself. This week, for example, Lutnick appeared on Capitol Hill, where he seemed eager to defend the president's policies on trade tariffs. As part of one especially memorable exchange, Democratic Rep. Madeleine Dean of Pennsylvania asked the Cabinet secretary, 'What's the tariff on bananas?' He responded, 'The tariff on bananas would be representative of the countries that produce them,' before ultimately acknowledging that the rate would be 10%. The congresswoman reminded the witness that Walmart has already increased the cost of bananas by 8%. After pointing to the possibility of increasingly unlikely trade deals, Lutnick eventually declared: 'If you build in America, and you produce your product in America, there will be no tariff.' It was at that point that Dean lowered the boom. 'We cannot build bananas in America,' she explained. Lutnick didn't respond, which was just as well given the circumstances. Complicating matters for the commerce secretary, embarrassing moments like these have become a staple of his tenure. Lutnick announced that the president was preparing to waive taxes on Americans earning under $150,000 per year, only to walk that back soon after. He urged a national television audience to buy stock in Tesla, sparking an ethics controversy the White House struggled to defend. In one especially glaring incident, Lutnick suggested that only criminals would complain about missing a Social Security check. A month later, the secretary pitched a 'new model' of American employment that sounded an awful lot like the factory jobs that existed in the 19th century. And don't even get me started on his 'little screws to make iPhones' comments. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that Lutnick's rhetorical record was proving to be so 'challenging' to the White House that officials asked him to start saying less. He might need a reminder. This article was originally published on
