Latest news with #SenateBill16
Yahoo
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Noncitizen voting is very rare. Don't make voting harder for millions of Texans
In the final stretch of the Texas legislative session, lawmakers are racing to advance several bills that would impose new voting requirements on Texas voters. On paper, these bills sound like they are about election security; but in practice, they're simply red tape that threatens to block millions of law-abiding Texans from casting a ballot. Senate Bill 16, which has passed the Senate, and the companion HB 5337 working its way through the Texas House, would create a confusing two-tiered voter registration system for Texas voters. All eligible Texas voters — both new registrants and existing voters — would have to show a passport or birth certificate, or prove they've previously shown one of these documents to the state Department of Public Safety, to remain on the voting rolls. Even long-time registered voters would be forced to produce this new paperwork — or be barred from voting in state and local races for offices such as school board, mayor, city council, governor, and even for president. Huston-Tillotson University student Myles Wilson, left, registers to vote with the help of volunteer Cliffton Styles, right, at a voter registration drive last September. Lawmakers are considering bills that would require all voters to present proof of citizenship, such as their birth certificate or passport. These documents can be expensive or hard to track down. For many Texans, especially rural and older voters, these records can be difficult to obtain. Research shows that only roughly half of voting-eligible Texans have a passport, and Texans in rural counties are even less likely to have one. In addition, many Texans have changed their names since birth due to marriage or other reasons, so their current names may not match the one on their birth certificates. An estimated 5.6 million women living in Texas couldn't use their birth certificates alone to prove their citizenship to vote because they changed their names when they got married. That's, of course, if they can find their birth certificate — or if the rural hospital where they were born issued them (many hospitals did not routinely issue them until the 1930s or '40s). In other words, these bills would strip many eligible voters of their freedom to vote — not because they aren't citizens, but because they can't produce the right paperwork. Unfortunately, we at Secure Democracy USA have seen this movie before. These bills copy a failed approach in Arizona, where this complex voter registration system has led to confusion at the polls, administrative chaos and lawsuits. Keep in mind that Arizona has just 15 counties. Texas has 254. Imagine taking Arizona's chaotic experience and multiplying it by 17 across Texas — along with the cost to taxpayers to implement, enforce and defend these laws in court. And when Kansas had a law similar to the one proposed in Texas, one in eight citizen registrants was blocked from voting for more than three years. Fully 31,000 eligible citizens were blocked from voting in Kansas, which has less than one-tenth the population of Texas. The state's highest ranking election official, Republican Secretary of State Scott Schwab, now says other states should not make the same mistake by passing these types of laws. Lawmakers advocating for these bills suggest these changes are necessary to prevent noncitizens from voting, but that dog don't hunt. First, noncitizens voting is exceedingly rare. And second, Texas already has some of the toughest laws on the books to ensure only U.S. citizens can register and vote. Texas election officials regularly check the state's voter rolls to ensure that noncitizens are not registered to vote. It's why Texas leads the way when it comes to safeguards and checks against noncitizen voting. Most importantly, Texans value their freedoms. More bureaucratic red tape is the last thing they want. SB 16 or HB 5337 would surely block tens of thousands of eligible Texas citizens from voting — and that's messing with too many Texans. Daniel Griffith is the senior director of policy for Secure Democracy USA, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization building stronger elections, state by state. This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Don't make voting harder for millions of Texas citizens | Opinion
San Francisco Chronicle
05-05-2025
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
Bill banning deals that hide police misconduct, prompted by Chronicle investigation, clears hurdle
A bill that would bar California law enforcement agencies from using secret deals to bury officer misconduct, a widespread and longtime practice exposed in an investigation published last year by the Chronicle, cleared a legislative hurdle Tuesday, passing out of the state Assembly's Public Safety Committee. 'Throughout California, dangerous and dishonest officers are skirting accountability through this practice,' the bill's author, Assembly Member Isaac Bryan, D-Culver City (Los Angeles County), told the committee. The Chronicle investigation 'Right to Remain Secret,' produced with UC Berkeley's Investigative Reporting Program, revealed that at least 163 departments had signed 'clean-record agreements' that concealed allegations of corruption and criminality against nearly 300 officers, helping at least 108 of them to land subsequent jobs in law enforcement or as security guards. The conduct hidden by these agreements included many accusations of serious misconduct, including sexual assault, falsifying police reports and excessive force. In many cases, the departments that agreed to bury the alleged misconduct in secret files did so despite an unwavering belief that the conduct had occurred. As written, the bill would prohibit California law enforcement agencies from agreeing to destroy, remove, halt, modify, or conceal findings of any misconduct and void any of these promises retroactively. Additionally, the bill would make all such agreements disclosable. Currently, the Peace Officers Research Association of California, or PORAC, the state's most powerful law enforcement lobbying organization, is the only group publicly opposing the bill. The California Police Chiefs Association and the California State Sheriffs' Association have not taken a formal position. Testifying in opposition, PORAC's legislative advocate, Randy Perry, told the committee the bill is redundant, saying police accountability bills passed in California within the past decade have addressed this issue. 'Officers that they're using as examples would never be able to be peace officers now. They couldn't go to another department and be hired by somebody else,' Perry told the committee, referencing Senate Bill 2, which permits the state to revoke the licenses of officers accused of serious misconduct. Bryan said that was a 'ridiculous argument,' saying, 'We just have not seen those numbers from the police certification board.' According to a website maintained by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training's website, the agency with the power to revoke licenses, only one officer identified in the Chronicle's investigation has lost his license. As for the provision to make clean-record agreements disclosable, Perry said that the newspaper investigation, by getting access to more than 300 agreements, proved that this part of the bill is also unnecessary. He cited Senate Bill 1421 and Senate Bill 16, laws that for the first time gave the public access to specific police misconduct records. 'This bill is trying to help the press go back and get very old cases,' Perry said. Bryan countered that 'the idea that this information is readily available is false,' noting that one-third of the agencies contacted by the Chronicle and the Investigative Reporting Program refused to disclose all or some of these secret deals, including the 10 largest agencies in the state. In fact, the passage of SB1421 and SB16 were only part of why reporters received many of these agreements. Much of the underlying conduct covered up by the agreements does not fall in the categories of records disclosable under those transparency laws. PORAC has offered an alternative to Bryan's bill — a clarification that any police separation agreements that conceal misconduct described in SB1421 and SB16 are disclosable. It does not propose a prohibition of these agreements. Bryan said the amendment was not sufficient. 'These agreements shouldn't exist. They are against the public interest. They are against public safety. They allow for the worst of the worst to cover that misconduct,' he said. PORAC has advocated for the use of clean-record agreements for years, records show. Almost every agreement obtained by reporters was executed by a small group of attorneys funded by PORAC, which is financed by police unions. Additionally, PORAC's website highlights dozens of examples of these lawyers' success in securing agreements that give officers a 'clean slate.' The bill passed through committee with bipartisan support, with both Republicans on the committee — Juan Alanis of Modesto and Tom Lackey of Palmdale (Los Angeles County) — voting yes. The sole dissenting vote was James Ramos, D-San Bernardino. A spokesperson for the Assembly member did not explain the reason for the no vote but said Ramos is 'seriously reconsidering his vote before the bill comes to the full Assembly floor.' 'These protect the self-described bad apples of the department from whom they would like to separate,' he said. 'We need to end this practice.'
Yahoo
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Semi-open primary backers celebrate new law
Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver didn't always support open primaries. 'I used to think if you want to be a member of the club, then be a member of the club, and then you get to vote for members,' Toulouse Oliver said at a news conference Wednesday. That changed when she became Bernalillo County clerk. She recalled watching staff and poll workers turning away would-be voters. 'They made a plan to come vote,' Toulouse Oliver said. 'They came, they had opinions, they wanted to weigh in, and they couldn't.' Senate Bill 16, which passed the Legislature this year and will take effect in time for what will likely be a heated 2026 gubernatorial primary, will let voters who don't state a party affiliation cast a ballot in a Democratic or Republican primary without changing their registration, what is known as a 'semi-open primary' system. Supporters hope it will lead to increased participation among the rising number of independent voters, many of whom feel disenchanted with the two-party system. However, some minor-party members say it didn't go far enough, and at least one prominent political analyst doubts it will be much of a game changer. On Wednesday, Toulouse Oliver joined bill sponsor Rep. Cristina Parajón, D-Albuquerque, Bernalillo County Clerk Michelle Kavanaugh and other advocates at a news conference to celebrate the adoption of the bill. 'Our dream is that with a bill like this, we lead the nation in voter participation, that we lead the nation in young people voter participation, in veteran voter participation,' Parajón said. 'We dream that in our state, our multicultural state, that all voices can be heard.' Rise in unaffiliated voters About 309,000 New Mexico voters, or 23%, were unaffiliated as of March 31, 2025, while 43% were Democrats, 32% were Republicans and 2% were registered with a third party. The percentage of unaffiliated voters has been rising over the past decade and a half; it was just 15% in 2008 and has been going up steadily since. Over the same period, the percentage of Democrats has dropped while the percentage of Republicans has stayed about the same, according to data from the Secretary of State's Office. Political analyst and pollster Brian Sanderoff said there has been a 'slow but steady' increase in the number of unaffiliated voters as conservative Democrats age out or reregister as Republicans and more new voters register as unaffiliated. Supporters say the switch to semi-open primaries could increase voter participation and reduce headaches for voters and poll workers. But not everyone is so enthusiastic. Em Ward, chairperson for the Green Party of New Mexico, said a version of the bill proposed in 2023 allowed anyone not registered with a major party to vote in a primary without switching parties. That changed in the 2025 version, Ward said. There's a 'lack of clarity,' Ward said, about the bill's impact on voters registered with the Green and Libertarian parties. 'Nothing has changed for people who are registered for a party other than Democrats or Republicans,' Ward said. A fiscal impact report on the bill written by legislative staff raised similar concerns, saying some language 'could be interpreted as only voters who left their party field blank can request a primary ballot, rather than incorporating both unaffiliated voters and minor party voters.' Another part of the bill, the analysts wrote, 'suggests that minor-party voters may be included; however it is not explicitly stated.' Secretary of State spokesperson Alex Curtas told The New Mexican on Wednesday only voters who aren't registered with a party — i.e., independent or 'decline-to-state' voters — don't have to change their registration to vote in a primary. Voters registered with a minor party would still have to change their registration, he said, although voters can update their registration at the polls using same-day registration. SB 16 cleared the state Senate on a 27-11 vote and the House by a 36-33 margin. The bill didn't pass entirely on party lines; while Republicans in both chambers largely opposed the measure, a handful voted for it, and some Democrats opposed the bill. Representatives of the state's two major parties seemed unconcerned Wednesday the measure would take away their voters. 'In fact, we're excited that so many more New Mexicans will now have the opportunity to vote for our Democratic candidates in primary elections!' state Democratic Party spokesperson Daniel Garcia wrote in an email. Leticia Muñoz, executive director of the Republican Party of New Mexico, said the main concern the party had with the measure was 'election integrity.' 'We've seen challenges with Same Day registration since its inception,' Muñoz wrote in an email. 'But make no mistake, we are the party that has consistently reached out to Independents informing them how they can vote in the primary elections year after year.' She rejected the idea that Republicans might reregister as independents to vote in a Democratic primary. 'Our Party members make time to go vote for what they stand for, not against,' Muñoz wrote. 'We take pride in those ballots cast because we know the Republican Party stands for policies that benefit New Mexicans.' 'How many will participate?' Over time, Sanderoff thinks the measure could result in increased voter turnout. But he's not anticipating a major boom right away — unaffiliated voters, who are more likely to be young, typically vote at lower rates. The measure could also discourage voters from registering with one of the major parties. 'One of the disincentives to registering as an unaffiliated voter was that it was a hassle to participate in major-party primaries,' Sanderoff said. 'And that hassle has been removed.' While primary races in New Mexico are uncontested, Sanderoff said, there could be some high-profile ones coming up, especially as a slew of Democrats vie to succeed Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, who is ineligible to seek reelection because of term limits. 'Unaffiliated voters have a hard enough time getting out to vote in the general election,' Sanderoff said. 'Now, in the primary the question will be, how many will participate?' Cochiti Lake resident Mike Michalski has been an independent 'as long as he can remember.' Michalski didn't square with either major party; he's been changing his registration to vote in primaries, than switching it after voting. 'You jump through hoops,' Michalski, who attended Wednesday's news conference in support of the measure, said. Lately, he's been noticing increased anger and violence in politics. Michalski was especially discouraged when his four sons decided not to vote, and he hopes the law will increase voter turnout and decrease the vitriol. James Hernandez, president of University of New Mexico College Democrats, sees that same anger. Hernandez said an increasing number of young people are frustrated with, and feel 'left behind' by, the two major parties and are choosing not to affiliate as a result. 'For many New Mexicans, they too are angry at our current political system,' Hernandez said. 'And they have a right to be angry.'
Yahoo
01-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Bill requiring voters to show proof of citizenship clears Texas Senate
This coverage is made possible through Votebeat, a nonpartisan news organization covering local election administration and voting access. Sign up for Votebeat Texas' free newsletters here. In a quick vote after little debate, the Texas Senate approved a bill that would require voters to provide proof of citizenship before registering and would restrict them to voting in congressional races only if they do not. The bill, a Republican legislative priority, still needs approval in the state House before it can become law. It would cost state officials nearly $2 million over the next five years to implement, according to the bill's fiscal note, which doesn't include any costs expected to be borne by local election officials. Senate Bill 16, written by state Sen. Bryan Hughes, and supported by all Senate Republicans, is modeled after an Arizona law that requires proof of citizenship to vote in state and local elections, but there are some important differences. For one thing, it would apply to already registered voters in Texas, rather than just new applicants. It would bar voters who don't provide citizenship proof from voting in presidential elections, as well as state and local ones — a provision that federal courts have so far blocked in Arizona. And it prescribes new duties for local election officials to continually check the citizenship status of voters on their rolls — with potential felony charges for lapses. The Republican lawmakers are responding to a nationwide GOP campaign to raise alarm about the threat of noncitizen voting, even though it doesn't occur in significant numbers. 'Most Texans have already proven their citizenship when they got their driver's license, but the feds have not allowed us to do this for voter registration. Senate Bill 16 will address that,' Hughes said Tuesday during a Senate floor debate on the bill. Hughes said the process for voters would be 'seamless.' But voting rights advocates say the bill could create a new barrier to voting for Texas' more than 18 million registered voters and could diminish the rights of eligible voters who are not able to provide documents proving their U.S. citizenship. 'This is going to upend the way we do elections here in Texas,' Elisabeth MacNamara, advocacy chair for the League of Women Voters of Texas, told Votebeat. 'This is a huge burden on voters. It's also a huge burden on election administrators and we already don't over-resource our elections so this is going to make things a whole lot worse.' If approved by the Legislature, the new law would go into effect in September. Some election officials are concerned that the bill's requirements will confuse voters. 'It's not enough time to get everyone familiar with the requirements. We have a primary in March' of 2026, said Jennifer Doinoff, president of the Texas Association of County Election Officials. 'It could create a huge influx in provisional ballots.' Doinoff said election officials across the state are still trying to understand how the bill will be implemented. Among unanswered questions is how the process will work for Texans who vote by mail. In Texas, only elderly voters, people with disabilities, and those who are away from their county on Election Day, including members of the military, can cast ballots by mail. The bill doesn't address that, she said. In addition, election officials are asking legislators to consider including a backup option, such as an affidavit voters can sign if they can't provide proof of citizenship. 'We use something similar to that at the polls for voters who can't provide an ID,' she said. If passed, the sweeping bill will require much work and additional resources. It directs the Texas Secretary of State's Office to, by the end of the year, send all counties lists of already-registered voters who had not provided proof of citizenship prior to September 2025. Election officials would then have to document every effort made to check for such proof. If they can't verify that a voter is a U.S. citizen, they would have to notify the person that they are permitted to vote only a 'federal limited ballot' unless they can provide proof. A voter who has provided proof before or has been verified as a U.S. citizen wouldn't have to provide proof when updating or changing their registration information. According to the bill's fiscal note, the Texas Secretary of State's Office would need a modification to the state's voter registration management system in order to record whether a person has submitted evidence of citizenship, since the system currently isn't set up to do so. The state has estimated the cost of that at $578,931 in 2026 and $84,000 per fiscal year thereafter, the fiscal note says. In addition, the Secretary of State's Office said it would need two additional staff members to conduct citizenship verification reviews and to coordinate with county voter registrars. The two positions would be paid $70,662 per year, and benefits and other costs for both positions would cost around $45,000 per year. The agency also estimates that the positions would require roughly $16,000 in setup costs in 2026. The agency declined to comment. Last month, during a two-hour public hearing on the bill, more than 200 people signed up to oppose it and many testified against it. Twenty-six people supported it, including people from across the state who identified as Republicans. Some Senate Democrats Tuesday pressed Hughes on why the bill was necessary and warned that it would set up the state for legal battles, much as it has in Arizona. Hughes denied that would happen. In arguing that the bill isn't necessary, Sen. Carol Alvarado, a Houston Democrat, cited the findings of an investigation by Votebeat, ProPublica and the Texas Tribune that showed an announcement from Gov. Greg Abbott about noncitizens removed from the state's voter rolls inflated, and in some cases misstated, the numbers. Alvarado also said the bill could become cumbersome for local election officials and lead to voter confusion. Hughes said there would be 'plenty of time' to prepare ahead of next year's elections and said he believes many Texans have already shown proof of citizenship while obtaining a driver's license. Election officials will be able to verify others, he said. 'So we're talking about a relatively small group of people,' Hughes said. Under the legislation, voters could prove their citizenship by providing any of the following: a copy of a U.S. passport; a passport card; a certified copy of a birth certificate issued by a U.S. state or territory; 'United States citizenship papers'; identification issued by the U.S. agency responsible for citizenship and immigration; or for citizens born outside the U.S., a consular report of birth abroad. The list does not include tribal documents, which Arizona does accept. Anyone who shows up to the polls who has yet to provide proof of citizenship will have six days to provide it in order for their full ballot to count. If a voter does not provide it, only the federal races will be counted. A big part of the bill is new duties and burdens for election officials and others who manage voter registration. Deputy registrars — volunteers who work at voter registration drives — would have to notify people registering to vote that they must present documented proof of citizenship to their local county registrar. In addition to checking for proof themselves and documenting their efforts, local election officials would have to report the names of voters who have not provided proof to the state attorney general. And they would be subject to potential criminal penalties, including jail time, for knowingly registering an applicant without first verifying that they are citizens. The provision requiring already registered voters to prove their citizenship could affect voters who registered prior to the 2002 Help America Vote Act, which created voter identification procedures, and the 2005 Real ID Act, which requires people obtaining a state-issued ID or driver's license to provide proof of citizenship or proof of lawful presence in the U.S. Natalia Contreras covers election administration and voting access for Votebeat in partnership with the Texas Tribune. She is based in Corpus Christi. Contact Natalia at ncontreras@ Disclosure: League of Women Voters of Texas and Texas Secretary of State have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. Tickets are on sale now for the 15th annual Texas Tribune Festival, Texas' breakout ideas and politics event happening Nov. 13–15 in downtown Austin. Get tickets before May 1 and save big! TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.
Yahoo
01-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
‘This just makes sense': East Texas lawmaker files bill requiring proof of citizenship to vote
TYLER, Texas (KETK) – Senate Bill 16, which was filed by East Texas State Sen. Bryan Hughes on March 11, requires proof of citizenship when registered to vote. East Texas Senator files bills to clarify abortion law The Texas Senate Committee on State Affairs passed the bill and now it will head to the full Senate chamber for discussion. 'Senate Bill 16 says we're going to require proof of citizenship when you register to vote,' Hughes, a Republican representing Mineola in the Texas State Senate, said. The League of Women Voters stated that this proposal could hinder more than a million Texans by making it more challenging to vote. 'The right to vote is one of the most basic promises of our democracy. When you think in terms of a democratic government, every person is considered equal and is empowered to both participate in their government,' president of the Tyler/Smith County League of Women Voters, Rubye Kendrick said. Democrats and Republicans call for changes to the voting system If the law passes, a person who wants to vote must submit an application and prove their citizenship with a passport or birth certificate. 'When you think about it from a female perspective, when you are married, your birth certificate does not have your married name on it. It definitely would be an area that would be disenfranchising to citizens,' Kendrick said. Similar bills filed at the state and federal levels have received pushback because it is against the law for non-citizens to vote. 'Washington is talking about changing the law. There's a bill called the SAVE Act, which would require proof of citizenship when you register to vote. We hope they pass that, but we're not waiting on Washington,' Hughes said. On March 25, President Trump signed an executive order that mandates a check of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections. The order is expected to meet challenges in the courts. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
