Many observers can be forgiven for thinking that Texas Republicans want to disenfranchise as many voters as possible and their legislation to accomplish that failed after the dramatic Democratic walkout in the state Senate last week.
The Washington Post wrote that Texas Senate Bill 7 "would have created hurdles for voters of color." NBC News predicted that "Texas voting bill to support Trump's 'Big Lie' will eventually pass," thanks to a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision.
Not all news outlets, however, have been so inflammatory about Texas' voting bill. Some have even tried to explain what's in the bill.
CNN provided a list of 20 things SB 7 would have actually done. That list included bans on drive-thru voting sites, late-night voting, 24-hour voting and ballot drop boxes but also pointed out that the bill would have added early voting hours in some counties.
Earlier last month the Heritage Foundation issued a report that challenged the widely believed notion about voter suppression, under a headline "Dems Flat-Out Wrong," that voter turnout in 2020 was much higher than in 2016, especially from black Americans.
An actual comparison between SB 7 and already-on-the-books voting laws in blue states turns up instances in which those states’ voting laws are quite restrictive.
A GOP priority legislation this past session, SB 7 included reforms for all voting processes and provisions such as limits on early voting hours, restrictions on local voting options and reducing voting by mail options.
SB 7 effectively died May 31 when Democrats broke quorum and walked out ahead of the bill's midnight deadline. Prior to their walkout, Democrats objected to suspension of the Senate's own rules that normally would have given them more time to examine changes to the bill as it came out of committee. Those changes included new vote-by-mail ID requirements.
Walkouts to kill legislation are not unique to Texas. The strategy has become a regular occurrence among GOP state lawmakers in Oregon. In February, Oregon Republican lawmakers walked out for the third straight year, this time over Gov. Kate Brown's COVID-19 restrictions. In 2019, Oregon Republican lawmakers walked out - and some went into hiding after Brown sent police after them - to successfully kill a bill to lower the state's carbon emissions.
After the Democrat walkout in Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott threatened to withhold pay from the entire state Legislature over the walkout by the House and Senate's minority party. He announced SB 7 would be revived in an upcoming special session.
"I expect legislators to have worked out their differences prior to arriving back at the Capitol so that they can hit the ground running to pass legislation related to these emergency items and other priority legislation," Abbott said in a statement that followed the conclusion of the 87th regular legislative session. "During the special session, we will continue to advance policies that put the people of Texas first."
Republicans in the Texas Legislature seem to be trying to work out differences, even going so far as to admit that SB 7 is flawed. For example, Republicans in the Texas House, including State Rep. Travis Clardy (R-Nacogdoches), have promised to rewrite a portion of SB 7 that seemed to target the longtime "souls to the polls" practice by black churches to encourage congregants to vote. That was only one of the provisions of SB 7, all negotiated behind closed doors, and it limited Sunday early voting to 1-9 p.m.
That was an error, Clardy told to NPR, adding "that's one of the things I look forward to fixing the most."
"Call it a scrivener's error, whatever you want to, but I talked to our team yesterday, kind of regrouping over what happened," Clardy added during his NPR interview. "That was not intended to be reduced. What should have been 11 was actually printed up as 1."
SB 7 has been attracting criticism from the left for a while. Common Dreams argues SB 7 is a "ruthless voter suppression bill."
Two days before the walk out, President Joe Biden said in a White House statement that SB 7 is "part of an assault on democracy that we’ve seen far too often this year—and often disproportionately targeting black and brown Americans.
"It's wrong and un-American," Biden continued in his statement. "In the 21st Century, we should be making it easier, not harder, for every eligible voter to vote."
He also took the opportunity to push for support of the "For the People Act," the "John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act," and to "continue to call on all Americans, of every party and persuasion, to stand up for our democracy and protect the right to vote and the integrity of our elections."
Critics say progressives offered no such rhetoric in 2019 when New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, as part of his "Justice Agenda," signed legislation that allows early voting in that state eight days before an election. The same legislation also consolidated federal and state primary dates, allows teenagers to pre-register as voters when they come of age and provides for voter portability.
Texas already allows absentee voting for a wide variety of citizens, including those who are sick, disabled, elderly, out of town or incarcerated. These requirements are no more stringent - and perhaps even less restrictive - than New York’s absentee voting policy. SB 7 would have allowed for two weeks of early voting, six more days than is permitted in New York, according to a Wall Street Journal editorial.
SB 7 also would have rolled back drive-thru and 24-hour voting, mandated sensitive and personal information such as a state ID or Social Security number for all mail-in ballots, and changed the legal burden for voter fraud from “beyond a reasonable doubt” to “by a preponderance of the evidence,” the Wall Street Journal's editorial board wrote.
Many states in the Northeast limit the time in which opponents can rally a base via policies that prevent most early voting, according to a The Atlantic editorial.
"Democrats who have won election after election in states such as New York, Delaware, Connecticut, and Rhode Island have had little incentive to change the rules that helped them win," The Atlantic editorial said.
In April, Poynter Institute publication Politifact tackled questions about whether New York’s voting laws are even more restrictive than what another Southern state, Georgia, passed that same month. Politifact found that at least some of New York's voting laws are more restrictive than Georgia’s. For example, Georgia's laws allow for expansive early voting and no-excuse absentee ballots, the latter of which will be put before New York voters this fall in a proposed constitutional amendment.
Georgia’s new voting also allows 17 days of early voting, nine days more than in New York. Georgia also started automatic voter registration in 2016, something New York didn’t get around to until this past December.
Georgia and New York both ban certain handouts, such as food and water, to voters at the poll “but New York’s law is more lenient,” the Politifact article said.
Voting rights advocates have long organized efforts to give away bottles of water or food near polling sites where residents sometimes wait in line for hours to vote, including in black-majority neighborhoods.
"Are New York’s voter laws more restrictive than Georgia's?" the Politifact article said. "In some ways yes. In some ways no. But comparing them as they are now leaves out some important context."
Georgia's new law "tightens some rules in the name of security" but also is a “mixed bag with both the potential to expand voting as well as restrict it,” the Politifact article said.
Meanwhile, New York’s more recent voting laws are an about-face from where the state has been, Sean Morales-Doyle, a lawyer for New York University's Brennan Center for Justice, said in the Politifact article.
"New York has a long history of a not very open democracy but it is heading in the opposite direction," Morales-Doyle said.
