Collin County Commissioners Unanimously Back Hand-Marked Ballots To Boost Voter Trust
On Monday, the Collin County Commissioners Court approved a move to hand-marked paper ballots for the November 2025 election, pending an implementation plan due later this month.
The 4–0 vote marked a sharp policy shift in one of Texas' fastest-growing counties, where electronic voting machines have long been the standard. Commissioner Duncan Webb was not present for the vote. While the new ballots will be marked by hand, officials emphasized that tabulation will remain electronic. The court directed county staff to return with a plan by June 23 detailing how the change will be implemented.
'I'd like to take the opportunity to make a motion to adopt hand-marked paper ballots for the upcoming November 2025 election and to direct staff to present to the court a plan for implementation by June 23,' County Judge Chris Hill said during the meeting. Commissioner Cheryl Williams seconded the motion.
Collin County's recently appointed Elections Administrator, Kaleb Breaux, told the court that the transition is logistically possible, though not without some caveats. To remain compliant with federal law under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the county must maintain approximately 300 'express vote' electronic units—about one per polling location—with additional backup machines.
Breaux said the county could potentially eliminate 'express touch curbside units,' offering additional cost flexibility. The administrator estimated that this might cost $2.4 million, noting that his projections fall well below the $3–4 million figure cited by his predecessor in 2024.
Breaux also indicated that the county may qualify for some HAVA sub-grants to offset costs.
Monday's vote comes nearly a year after the court declined to adopt a similar proposal. In August 2024, the Commissioners Court directed staff to explore the feasibility of a hand-marked ballot system following a failed motion to implement it that year. At that time, several commissioners raised concerns over cost, timing, and logistical readiness.
Public advocacy for election system reform intensified across Texas last year, particularly following a series of incidents in which loopholes in election laws had allowed certain primary ballots—including those of prominent political figures—to be identified and publicized through legal records requests.
Shannon Barnett, founder of the nonpartisan group My Vote Counts in Texas, has been a vocal advocate for hand-marked ballots and praised Monday's decision.
'Big thanks to the Collin County Commissioners—finally, a vote that puts the community first,' Barnett told The Dallas Express in an exclusive statement. 'Your unanimous decision to bring back hand-marked paper ballot elections for the November 2025 election shows a strong commitment to boosting public trust.'
Barnett's organization has advocated for a return to in-precinct voting and the elimination of countywide polling places, arguing that current practices compromise ballot secrecy. She has also cited frequent power outages and machine malfunctions in Texas as further justification for hand-marked, hand-counted systems, still legal under state law and already used in nearly 100 Texas counties for absentee ballots. Dallas's ability to conduct the spring 2024 election was disrupted when power outages at polling stations made it impossible for citizens to vote.
Critics of electronic voting systems often point to transparency and security concerns. As reported in The Dallas Express, the 2005 bipartisan election reform commission led by former President Jimmy Carter warned that Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) systems often lack transparency and auditability. Though these systems may include paper records today, advocates like Barnett argue that the most straightforward solution is to return entirely to hand-marked paper ballots.
The cost has remained a key sticking point. In 2024, Commissioner Susan Fletcher reportedly cited estimates of $3.3 to $4.2 million for the switch and questioned whether the county could shoulder the burden in time for an election. On Monday, however, the court expressed optimism that Breaux's new estimates would make the plan more feasible.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
One Supreme Court Justice Just Keeps Sliding Further to the Right
The Supreme Court delivered an important victory to disabled children on Thursday, unanimously affirming their right to reasonable accommodations in public education. Chief Justice John Roberts' opinion for the court reiterated that schools engage in unlawful discrimination when they deny these accommodations to kids, even if officials are not acting in bad faith. His ruling provides a lifeline to schoolchildren throughout the country who are wrongly denied equal access to learning opportunities because of a disability. Yet this victory comes with an asterisk: In a concurrence, Justice Clarence Thomas—joined, alarmingly, by Justice Brett Kavanaugh—launched an assault on civil rights law that would devastate disabled Americans' ability to receive an education and participate in all aspects of public life. Thomas and Kavanaugh suggested that the long-standing interpretation of disability law is, in fact, unconstitutional, arguing that states should have far more leeway to discriminate against those with disabilities. We should expect such callous radicalism from Thomas. But Kavanaugh's endorsement of this position is yet another ominous sign that the justice is drifting toward the hard-right flank of the court. It is difficult to know exactly what to make of Kavanaugh's drift to the right because he remains an intellectual lightweight who struggles to articulate and defend his views with any coherence. Is he just another MAGA-pilled jurist eager to promote Trump's agenda? Did his bruising confirmation battle leave him with a lifelong grudge against Democrats that he acts upon by trashing progressive priorities from the bench? Has he fallen under the influence of Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito, who spurn centrism as craven capitulation to their perceived enemies on the left? Whatever the cause of his transformation, it is by now an undeniable fact that he has abandoned the middle of the court, sliding to the right of Roberts, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and sometimes even Justice Neil Gorsuch. Thursday's case, A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools, shows exactly why robust federal protections for disabled Americans remain so vital. The plaintiff, Ava Tharpe, 'suffers from a rare form of epilepsy that severely limits her physical and cognitive functioning,' as Roberts put it. Her seizures are worst in the morning, leaving her able to learn only after about 12 p.m. each day. When Tharpe transferred to a new school district in 2015, officials refused to provide her with special evening instruction, leaving her with far fewer hours of instruction than her peers. Eventually, Tharpe's parents sued under several laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, which broadly bar discrimination on the basis of disability. But the federal courts tossed out their suit. These courts acknowledged that Tharpe was denied equal access to education because of her disability. But they held that Tharpe was not entitled to an injunction or damages under the relevant statutes because she had not proven that school officials 'acted with bad faith or gross misjudgment.' Mere 'non-compliance' with the law, the courts concluded, was not enough to justify judicial intervention. This holding was, Roberts wrote, flatly wrong. The widespread adoption of this approach, however, has allowed rampant discrimination against disabled children to fester for decades, despite Congress' clear effort to stamp it out. 'In other disability discrimination contexts,' Roberts wrote, courts do not force plaintiffs to prove that state officials acted with malign intent. And there is no reason why this rule should apply to 'the educational services context' alone. 'In imposing a higher bar for discrimination claims based on educational services as compared to other sorts of disability discrimination claims,' the chief justice declared, the lower courts bungled 'the unambiguous directive' of the law. So Tharpe's suit can move forward. And now all disabled children denied accommodations by school officials will have an easier time establishing illegal discrimination and securing judicial relief. But Thomas and Kavanaugh were not content to let Roberts deliver a clean victory for civil rights law. Instead, Thomas chose to write a concurrence, joined by only Kavanaugh, that aimed an arrow at the heart of disability law. He argued that courts have been misinterpreting these statutes for decades, granting overly generous protections to disabled people. And he warned that this prevailing understanding of civil rights law may actually violate the Constitution in several different (and dubious) ways. Thomas' central gripe is that, as Roberts wrote on Thursday, federal courts do not typically need proof of intentional discrimination to rule in favor of disabled plaintiffs. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973—two closely related statutes that cover much the same ground—disability discrimination can occur even when government officials are not actively seeking to inflict harm. For instance, a school district might not intend to injure wheelchair users when it installs a stairway with no ramp. This refusal to consider the needs of mobility-impaired students has long been seen as discrimination nonetheless. Both the school district and a coalition of red states, however, argued that federal law does not clearly prohibit 'unintentional' discrimination against disabled people. In his concurrence, Thomas embraced that argument. And he wrote that Congress must use clearer language under the Constitution's spending clause if it wishes to outlaw such unintentional discrimination. This solution, though, turns out to be a mirage—because Thomas then declared that even if Congress clarified the statute, his view is that it would violate the Constitution in at least three different ways. First, he wrote that Congress has no general power to 'protect the learning environment in schools' under the commerce clause. Second, he wrote that Congress has no authority to mandate 'special accommodations for the disabled' under the 14th Amendment. Third, he wrote that Congress cannot compel states to provide such accommodations without violating the anti-commandeering doctrine rooted in the 10th Amendment. If the Supreme Court adopted these views, it would effectively eviscerate all disability rights law—not just public education requirements, but the entire framework prohibiting discrimination against disabled children and adults alike. Thomas did hedge by noting that he expressed 'no definitive views' on these theories. But he urged the lower courts to 'carefully consider whether the existing standards comport with the Constitution.' And caveats aside, the justice left no room for doubt that he believes all three of these constitutional objections to disability law have serious merit. It is hard to know where to start with this hodgepodge of grievances, because none of them are plausible under a fair reading of the law as it stands today. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissected Thomas' gripe about 'unintentional discrimination' in her own deft concurrence. Sotomayor explained that existing statutes apply whether or not officials show 'any invidious animus or purpose.' At bottom, these laws do not simply outlaw state bigotry toward disabled people; they also 'impose an affirmative obligation' to accommodate disabilities. Their expansive language clearly applies 'even where no ill will or animus toward people with disabilities is present.' So the Constitution's spending clause does not require Congress to speak any more clearly than it already has. Thomas' deeper constitutional objections are equally specious. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the commerce clause empowers Congress to address noneconomic conduct as part of a broader regulatory scheme. Disability laws are a key part of Congress' efforts to grant all children equal access to education, a universal public service on which the federal government spends billions each year. If these statutes exceed the commerce clause, then much (perhaps all) federal rules and regulations in this area must fall, too. But disability laws like the ADA do not even need a foundation in the commerce clause to survive constitutional assault, because they are—contrary to Thomas' claim—deeply rooted in the 14th Amendment, a standalone basis for their enactment. It is true that the Supreme Court has never held that the 14th Amendment, on its own, always requires states to accommodate disabled people. But SCOTUS has held that this amendment empowers Congress to go beyond what the Constitution requires in order to 'prevent and deter unconstitutional conduct.' The court has, in fact, expressly upheld some of the ADA's mandates under congressional authority to enforce the 14th Amendment. The court has also wielded the 14th Amendment to invalidate discriminatory policies in public education. It seems obvious that, under this precedent, Congress may rely upon the amendment to impose expansive nondiscrimination policies on state education systems. And when Congress acts pursuant to its enumerated powers, it cannot run afoul of the anti-commandeering doctrine. Of course, Thomas has long taken a hostile view of Congress' right to protect individual freedoms, particularly when it does so by limiting state authority. It is no surprise that the justice sounds eager to tear down the whole edifice of disability law. What is jarring, and portentous, is that Kavanaugh signed onto Thomas' opinion in full, further solidifying the justice's spot on the court's ultraconservative bloc. Earlier in his tenure, Kavanaugh often posed as a moderate, siding with the chief justice nearly 100 percent of the time. Over the past few years, though, he has shifted to the right, making bedfellows with Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito more and more often. Just in recent weeks, Kavanaugh has argued that the Second Amendment protects AR-15s, and—alone among the justices—argued for a ruinous assault on class actions. (The class-action case involved blind people denied an accommodation, a hint of the animosity toward disabled people he displayed in Thursday's case.) The list goes on. In March, when the Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to pay out $2 billion in foreign aid, Kavanaugh joined Alito's bilious dissent, which smeared the lower court judge as a power-drunk hack. Last year, Kavanaugh sided with the hardcore conservatives in voting to let Texas nullify the Biden administration's authority over immigration enforcement. In other cases, the justice has staked out a far-right position, as when he suggested that a landmark federal law protecting Native children is, in fact, unconstitutional discrimination. And he pressed the court to consider striking down laws restricting 'conversion therapy' for LGBTQ+ minors before some of his conservative colleagues were ready to do so. 'You sowed the wind,' Kavanaugh warned Democratic senators during his confirmation battle, and now 'the country will reap the whirlwind.' That threat now reads less like a warning than a mission statement.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court Unanimously Sides With Disabled Student in Lawsuit vs. District
In a unanimous opinion delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday sided with the family of Ava Tharpe, a teen with a rare form of epilepsy whose suburban Minneapolis district denied her request for a modified school day. The decision, A.J.T. vs. Osseo Area Schools, means K-12 students do not have to meet a higher standard of proof than others suing under the Americans with Disabilities Act. If the justices had agreed with the district's longstanding argument, children with disabilities would have had to prove their school system intentionally acted in bad faith in denying them in-school accommodations. In 'friend of the court' briefs, numerous advocacy groups had warned that holding special education students to a different — and extraordinarily strict — definition of discrimination would have made it virtually impossible for families to assert their rights. Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter The court agreed, saying everyone who files suit under the ADA should have to meet the same standard of 'deliberate indifference,' or disregard for an individual's need for accommodations. 'That our decision is narrow does not diminish its import for A.J.T. and 'a great many children with disabilities and their parents,' ' Roberts wrote, citing language from a lower court decision. 'Together they face daunting challenges on a daily basis. We hold today that those challenges do not include having to satisfy a more stringent standard of proof than other plaintiffs to establish discrimination under Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.' In a concurring opinion, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson elaborated, citing examples of discrimination that, intent notwithstanding, must still be addressed. 'Stairs may prevent a wheelchair-bound person from accessing a public space,' Sotomayor wrote. 'The lack of auxiliary aids may prevent a dead person from accessing medical treatment at a public hospital; and braille-free ballots may preclude a blind person from voting, all without animus on the part of the city planner, the hospital staff or the ballot designer.' Related 'Today's decision is a great win for Ava, and for children with disabilities facing discrimination in schools across the country,' said Roman Martinez, a lead attorney on the case. 'This outcome gets the law exactly right, and it will help protect the reasonable accommodations needed to ensure equal opportunity for all.' In a statement to The 74, a district spokesperson said the high court 'declined to decide what the particular intent standard is for such claims,' noting that 'the case will now return to the trial court for next steps consistent with the court's ruling.' In 2015, when Ava was in fourth grade, her family moved from Kentucky to Minnesota. Because her severe form of epilepsy causes frequent seizures during the morning, she had been allowed to attend school in the afternoon and early evening. Initially, the Osseo district agreed to a modified schedule, but reneged after the family moved, saying it was unwilling to provide services outside the normal school day. The state administrative law judge who heard the family's initial complaint called the district's arguments 'pretextual,' saying it was more concerned with 'the need to safeguard the ordinary end-of-the-workday departure times for its faculty and staff' than with outside evaluators' assessments of Ava's needs. As the case made its way to the Supreme Court, the district had consistently argued Ava had to prove the school system acted out of ill intent — a standard that would have applied only to K-12 students. But in the brief it submitted before oral arguments, Osseo widened its argument, saying that a showing of bad faith is required in all ADA cases, not just those involving schools. The April 28 hearing erupted in rare verbal fireworks when Justice Neil Gorsuch took exception to a statement by the district's attorney that lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice, who sided with the family, were 'lying' when they said the district had changed its argument. Justice Amy Coney Barrett characterized the district's shift as 'a pretty big sea change,' while Jackson questioned whether the district was saying the ADA does not necessarily require accommodations for people with disabilities. In their concurring opinion, Sotomayor and Jackson noted that when they wrote the act, lawmakers addressed the question at the heart of the case head-on: 'Congress was not naïve to the insidious nature of disability discrimination when it enacted the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. It understood full well that discrimination against those with disabilities derives principally from 'apathetic attitudes rather than affirmative animus.' ' The decision comes at a time when disability protections have come under fire from the second Trump administration and a number of Republican governors. In October, motivated by new rules that said gender dysphoria could be considered a disability, 17 states sued the federal government. Gender dysphoria is the clinical term for distress caused when a person's gender does not match their sex assigned at birth. That suit, Texas vs. Kennedy, originally sought to have Section 504, the portion of the ADA that outlaws in-school discrimination, declared unconstitutional. The states have since dropped that demand from the suit but are still asking courts to overturn rules prohibiting discrimination in a wide array of public settings. Whether the states will continue to press the new, broader case in the face of Thursday's decision remains to be seen. For their part, disability advocates were quick to celebrate. The district's position was 'flatly inconsistent with the law and would have stripped millions of people with disabilities of the protections Congress put in place to prevent systemic discrimination,' said Shira Wakschlag, senior executive officer of legal advocacy and general counsel for The Arc of the United States, which submitted a brief on the issues. 'The very foundation of disability civil rights was on the line.'
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Glenville-Emmons moving forward with $24.4M bond referendum in August
Jun. 12—The Glenville-Emmons School District is moving forward with a bond referendum in August that will ask voters to consider a $24.425 million bond to fund facilities improvements at its existing buildings instead of building new as previously considered. Improvements would include a secure elementary entrance, upgraded Career and Technical Education spaces, ADA accessibility updates, asbestos removal and repairs to HVAC, roofing and water systems, according to a press release. The bond proposal represents priorities shared by community members during and after the failed 2023 referendum, the district stated. "This plan is different because it reflects the current sentiments and priorities of our community," said school board Chairwoman Tabitha Page. "While the previous referendum in 2023 was based on community feedback at that time, we have shifted our focus to addressing deferred maintenance projects and making the most of our existing facilities. This is a more practical and affordable path forward that still meets our students' needs." She said the referendum reflects the core values of their rural community, including responsibility, stewardship and a deep commitment to one another. "As a board, we are dedicated to ensuring that our schools remain strong, safe and equipped to provide high-quality education for generations to come," she said. A press release states the improvements focus on three key areas: —Healthy and safe learning environments with better air quality, upgraded HVAC, ADA accessibility, lead remediation in water systems, asbestos abatement and a safer, more secure entrance at the elementary school. —Relevant, updated classrooms that support hands-on learning in Career and Technical Education (CTE), agriculture and the trades, reflecting careers and life skills valued in the community. —A sustainable investment that protects our existing schools and strengthens the district's ability to serve students into the future. The proposal was reviewed and approved by the Minnesota Department of Education, and copies of the state's review and comment summary are available from the district upon request. The district will host open house and building tours ahead of the referendum, where attendees will hear a presentation on the referendum and get a facility tour highlighting key concerns and project scope areas. They will also have the opportunity to ask questions of district leadership. These are scheduled for 5:30 to 7 p.m. July 10, July 24 and Aug. 6. The July 10 and Aug. 6 dates will be at Glenville-Emmons Elementary School, while the July 24 date will be at the high school. The district also has a referendum website at with more information about the project scope and tax impact. Early voting begins June 27 and runs through Aug. 11.
