Texas will be able to proceed with the abolition of straight ticket voting

Politics
#1

On Friday, a United States District Court ordered Texas to reinstate straight ticket voting.

Understandably, Texas and all its Supervisors of Elections had a first class apoplectic meltdown. Considering early voting starts October 13th in Texas and the General Election is about a month away and all the ballots have already been printed, their meltdown was justified.

Texas appealed.

Today, a three Judge panel of the Fifth Circuit stayed the order of the District Court, meaning Texas will be able to proceed with non-straight ticket voting as planned.

Obviously, the underlying issue will continue on to trial in the District Court, but any decision will not have any effect earlier than the 2022 elections.

I agree with the Fifth Circuit on two grounds.

  1. This was just too ■■■■■■■ close to an election to be ordering such a drastic change. It would have been impossible for Texas to comply and conduct the November 3rd election on time. I agree with providing relief, WHEN APPROPRIATE, but NOW was clearly NOT appropriate.

  2. As for the underlying merits. I ■■■■■■■ HATE the concept of straight ticket voting. It should be banned EVERYWHERE. Until recently, I was a Pennsylvania voter. I absolutely REFUSED to check the straight ticket box, even if I ended up voting a straight ticket. I marked each race individually. If you are so simple minded that your vote is controlled solely by the presence of a D or R, the State should NOT accommodate you. You can mark each race individually as the voters in the vast majority of States do.

BTW, Pennsylvania has now abolished STV, effective this election cycle. Texas has just abolished it. So has Utah. Numerous other States have abolished it in recent years.

Alabama, Indiana, Michigan, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and South Carolina are the six remaining States that use STV. Hopefully it will be stomped out in those States as well soon.

#2

While I prefer that straight party tickets be allowed, that is for the legislature, not the courts, to decide.

5 Likes
#3

My preference is No straight party vote, and no party affiliation next to the names, and the names in random order.

#4

It wasn’t a last minute thing. They voted on it in 2017 and was delayed until now.

#5

I was referring to the court order itself as being a last minute thing.

#6

People should know the party affiliations of candidates. The ballot is the best place to provide that.

#7

If a party nominates you or your affiliate with a party, that name should go on the ballot because it indicates how you will run the government. The Michigan Supreme Court is supposed to be non-partisan, but parties expect loyalty from the justices they nominate.

Maybe we should outlaw political parties in general?

1 Like
#8

We should outlaw partisan judicial elections, that is for sure. Moronic way to select judges.

Florida uses the merit system for appellate judges and non-partisan election for trial judges.

#9

I agree with the ruling being reversed. It really is too close to the election to change things.

#10

Living in a state with no judicial elections, and powerless Sheriffs, I look south and west and wonder why y’all so damned crazy.

#11

Or the Congress

#12

They’ll know if they did their homework. People should know who they’re voting for before hitting the polls. It’s not a bar.

#13

Or, people can use their commons to provide themselves with this information in the cheapest, simplest and most efficient way.

I choose the latter.

If a person joins a party to run for office, that affiliation is germane to their office-seeking, and should be made known.

#14

As long as there are political parties, voting based on a party ticket should exist. I shouldn’t have to fill in every bubble just because you want to waste MY time.

If you want me to fill in every bubble, eliminate political parties from the ballot.

#15

It’s widely available information. Make a cheat sheet if you need to.

#16

That isn’t an argument. It especially isn’t a counterargument. It’s just a revanchenent of an original position.

I have explained the what-for and why of including party affiliation.

I’m not sure you have made any case for concealing, omitting or occluding it.

#17

Your argument is that the voter should be as dumb as possible and look for the D. I disagree. I’d rather the voter educate themselves on each candidate and vote according to their interests. People would be far better represented if they knew who they were voting for prior to getting in the booth.

#18

AKA be lazy and not know anything about the candidate other than party affiliation.

#19

You want me to waste my time filling in bubbles? Eliminate political parties and let each man stand on his own.

#20

It is not the peoples’ responsibility to elucidate the affiliations of the persons who would govern them. Got it. You are both restating the opinion.

Adding in the moral signifier, lazy, doesn’t show why the people must therefore occlude this information.

Please, make a policy case for the concealment and ommission.