How Texas’s Attorney General is Leading the Fight Against Voter Fraud and Why National Leaders Should Emulate
The AI-generated image in this article perfectly captures how Ken Paxton is perceived—like TALOS, the mythical guardian of Rhodes/Crete. In this case, Paxton stands as the protector of Texas, unwavering in his commitment to safeguarding election integrity. Even artificial intelligence recognizes his role as a steadfast defender, upholding the principles of democracy and justice, much like the ancient figure who stood watch over his homeland.
After reading the Texas Tribune’s article, which seemed like a tiny violin whining over the exposure of unethical actions, practices, and fraud that undermine election integrity and trust, it’s worth noting that the article was partly sponsored by the Methodist Healthcare Ministries of South Texas, Inc. This raises concerns about the level of involvement and influence that NGOs might have in such reporting.
Ken Paxton, the Attorney General of Texas, has been involved in legal actions related to Catholic Charities, primarily concerning issues related to immigration policies and the treatment of migrants. One notable instance involves a 2021 lawsuit where Paxton sued the Biden administration over its policies that allowed for the transportation of migrants into the United States, arguing that these policies created a public health and safety crisis in Texas. In addition, Catholic Charities are under scrutiny legally for their alleged participation in human trafficking from impoverished regions with the aid of federal tax dollars, to which Dade Phelan, who sits on the Catholic Charities board in Texas, tried to impeach Ken Paxton.
For the record, Methodist Healthcare Ministries of South Texas, Inc. has partnered with various organizations, including Catholic Charities, to serve the needs of illegal migrants. While Methodist Healthcare Ministries focuses on providing healthcare and wellness services, partnerships with organizations like Catholic Charities can help expand their reach and effectiveness in addressing the illegal migrants considered underserved populations. They now sponsor hit pieces against politicians masked in whining pieces, throwing support behind politicians or entities they work with. I guess NGO’s have a lot of money to buy paid placement articles.
Ken Paxton, the Texas Attorney General, has become a target for those who want to bend the rules in elections and hold onto power. People who don’t want to be open about their actions, especially when it comes to human trafficking, crimes against humanity, and election integrity, seem to go after him. It looks like anyone who wants to cheat or hide things doesn’t like Paxton. They try to attack him because he might be in their way. This is evidence that Paxton is doing something right by standing up to those who want to break the law and destroy the foundation of our great nation. His position as Attorney General puts him in conflict with people who don’t want to follow the law or be honest about their actions, and he will make a great Attorney General of the United States.
The Tribune shared the story of Filomena Leo and some precious memories of her late husband, William “Billy.” Billy was a real force in civic work and served as the former mayor of La Joya, a city in the Rio Grande Valley. Sadly, Billy Leo died in 2018 but left behind a lasting legacy. He wore many hats in South Texas public roles, once being Hidalgo County clerk. As a passionate civic leader, he regularly hammered home the importance of absentee voting in local polls, reported the Texas Tribune.
Back in the ’80s, Billy took steps to boost voter turnout. He hired campaign workers to lend elderly folks a hand with mail-in voting. These workers were known as “politiqueras.” However, when that term was linked to shady dealings, Billy clarified he was not on board. Filomena recalls vividly, “He made sure his helpers knew the drill—they got paid for their work but never to sway votes,” reported the Texas Tribune.
Nowadays, it’s more challenging for campaign workers to help elderly and disabled voters. Texas lawmakers responded by making mail-in voting rules stricter after much concern about voter fraud following the 2020 election. Senate Bill 1 came about—this bill blocks unsolicited mail-in ballot applications from local election officials and adds new rules for those assisting voters.
As part of an “election integrity investigation” led by Attorney General Ken Paxton, Texas officials recently searched the homes of at least six Latino individuals & seized cell phones over claims of illegal vote harvesting in Frio County. Among those checked were notable figures like Cecilia Castellano (a Democratic candidate for the Texas House) and Manuel Medina (former chair of the Bexar County Democratic Party). Both have flat-out denied any wrongdoing, reported the Texas Tribune.
These actions have ignited discussions all over. Latino advocacy groups accuse Paxton of trying to intimidate voters & tilt upcoming elections toward Republicans. The allegations of vote-harvesting by politiqueras are resurfacing after elections in the Valley—a place known for its hot political battles.
In 2018, Mission City faced a legal battle over election results. Former Mayor Norberto “Beto” Salinas claimed his rival, then-Mayor Armando “Doc” O’Caña, was involved in bribery, illegal voting, and messed with mail-in ballots during a runoff. A judge first invalidated the election, but an appeal flipped this decision, letting O’Caña stay in office. Rick Salinas, representing his dad, blamed ballot harvesting for harming the integrity of local politics, reported the Texas Tribune.
Though Texas Democratic Party chair Gilberto Hinojosa found no solid proof of ballot harvesting while supporting O’Caña, he conceded that such practices likely happen across Texas, especially in the Valley. He argues that Republican-driven fraud investigations mainly target Latino & Democratic regions like Rio Grande Valley.
With election laws tightening, the line between lawful voter assistance and unlawful acts is getting blurred. Alvaro Corral, a political scientist at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, notes that what used to be simple voter help could now possibly be illegal. This shifting legal scene might make officials think twice before offering essential voter support, risking lower turnout within Latino communities.
By taking these firm actions toward election integrity, Ken Paxton shows his dedication to protecting democratic processes and ensuring fair elections free from illegal acts.
A Closer Look at the Controversial Practice
In recent years, ballot harvesting has become contentious in the broader debate about election integrity and fairness. As the practice becomes more widespread, it raises questions about the balance between facilitating voter participation and ensuring the security and reliability of election results. Educated voters must understand what ballot harvesting entails, its potential risks, and the arguments for and against its use.
Understanding Ballot Harvesting
Ballot harvesting, or ballot collection, refers to third parties collecting completed mail-in or absentee ballots from voters and delivering them to election officials or designated drop-off locations. While some states have legalized the practice, others have implemented strict regulations or outright bans. The varying legal landscape across the United States has contributed to confusion among voters and election officials.
The Potential Risks of Ballot Harvesting
Critics of ballot harvesting argue that it poses several risks to the integrity of the electoral process. One primary concern is the potential for voter coercion or pressure. When third parties collect ballots, they could influence how individuals vote. Reports from past elections have highlighted instances where ballot collectors allegedly used persuasive tactics or subtle intimidation to sway voters’ choices, undermining the principle of free and fair elections (Source: The New York Times).
Another significant risk is the potential for ballot tampering. Once a ballot leaves a voter’s possession, its security cannot be guaranteed. There have been allegations of ballots being altered, discarded, or mishandled by those involved in collection efforts. Such actions directly compromise the integrity of the election process and the accuracy of the final results (Source: Heritage Foundation).
Security issues also arise from the lack of a transparent chain of custody in ballot harvesting. Unlike traditional voting methods, where there is a well-documented process for handling and transporting ballots, the involvement of third parties disrupts this chain, making it difficult to verify who handled the ballots and whether they were securely stored. This lack of oversight can open the door to potential fraud and mishandling, further eroding public trust in the electoral process (Source: Brennan Center for Justice).
Vote buying is another concern associated with ballot harvesting. There have been allegations that individuals or organizations may offer money or other incentives to voters in exchange for their ballots. This practice not only corrupts the democratic process but also disproportionately affects vulnerable populations, who may be more susceptible to such offers (Source: National Conference of State Legislatures).
Privacy concerns also play a significant role in the debate over ballot harvesting. The presence of ballot collectors could compromise voters’ privacy by exposing how individuals voted. This violation of the right to a secret ballot can lead to intimidation or retaliation, deterring voters from casting their ballots freely (Source: Pew Research Center).
Erosion of Trust and Administrative Challenges
Ballot harvesting can also lead to a loss of public trust in election results. Even the perception of widespread ballot harvesting, mainly if linked to fraud or coercion, can significantly diminish voter confidence. This erosion of trust can result in lower voter turnout and increased skepticism about the legitimacy of election outcomes, posing a severe threat to democratic institutions (Source: Brookings Institution).
Additionally, ballot harvesting can overwhelm election officials, especially if many ballots are collected and delivered simultaneously. This can delay processing and counting ballots, causing confusion and uncertainty about election results. Overwhelmed election offices may struggle to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the final vote count (Source: Government Accountability Office).
Legal and Ethical Implications
The legal landscape regarding ballot harvesting varies significantly from state to state, leading to confusion among voters and election officials. Some states, like California, have relatively permissive laws that allow third-party ballot collection, while others, like Texas, have implemented strict regulations or bans. These inconsistencies create challenges in maintaining uniform standards and enforcing the law, leading to potential legal disputes and accusations of unfair practices (Source: National Association of Secretaries of State).
Ballot harvesting also raises ethical concerns, mainly when targeting vulnerable populations. Elderly voters, individuals with disabilities, or those with limited English proficiency may be more easily influenced by ballot collectors, making it challenging to ensure the integrity of their votes. Critics argue that while ballot harvesting may increase voting access, it exposes these populations to potential exploitation and manipulation (Source: Harvard Law Review).
The Argument for Ballot Harvesting
Despite the risks, supporters of ballot harvesting argue that it plays a crucial role in increasing voter participation, particularly in underserved communities. By making it easier for individuals who may face barriers to voting, such as transportation issues or physical disabilities, ballot harvesting helps to ensure that more citizens have their voices heard in the electoral process (Source: American Civil Liberties Union).
Advocates claim that ballot harvesting can be conducted safely and securely with proper oversight and regulation. They argue that the focus should be on implementing safeguards to prevent abuse rather than eliminating the practice (Source: League of Women Voters).
While supporters of ballot harvesting argue that it enhances voter participation and can be conducted safely with proper regulation, several counterarguments challenge its effectiveness and security.
One of the primary concerns is that ballot harvesting opens the door to coercion and manipulation. When third parties are involved in collecting ballots, there is an inherent risk that they might pressure voters to support a specific candidate or party. Voter harvesters could more easily influence vulnerable populations, such as the elderly, individuals with disabilities, or those with limited language proficiency. This undermines the democratic principle that voting should be private, voluntary, and uninfluenced.
Another significant issue is the difficulty in ensuring proper oversight and regulation. While advocates claim that ballot harvesting can be safe with strict rules, implementing and maintaining such standards poses a considerable challenge. Oversight effectiveness varies widely across jurisdictions, making it difficult to ensure all ballot collectors adhere to ethical practices. Without consistent and rigorous monitoring, the system becomes susceptible to exploitation, increasing the risk of fraud and abuse. Many local election offices may lack the resources and vigilance to enforce compliance effectively and detect violations.
Ballot harvesting also threatens the security of ballots and the integrity of the chain of custody traditionally maintained in voting processes. Once a third party takes possession of a ballot, it becomes challenging to guarantee that it will reach election officials securely and without alteration. The absence of a transparent, documented chain of custody opens the door to potential tampering or the loss of ballots, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Without stringent controls, the integrity of the votes collected by third parties cannot be assured, posing a significant threat to the legitimacy of election results.
Moreover, ballot harvesting can undermine voter privacy, a cornerstone of democratic elections that ensures voters can choose without fear of retribution or coercion. The presence of ballot collectors could compromise this privacy, especially if voters feel pressured to fill out their ballots in the presence of a collector. Such situations can lead to voters feeling compelled to reveal their vote or having their choices observed, which could then be reported back to interested parties, thus violating the principle of voter anonymity.
Ballot harvesting also has eroded public trust in elections. Even if instances of fraud are rare, the perception of ballot harvesting as a practice prone to manipulation can create doubts about the integrity of election outcomes. This erosion of trust is particularly dangerous in a politically polarized climate, where accusations of voter fraud can deepen divisions and reduce voter confidence and participation.
Scott Pressler of the Republican National Committee recently advocated for Republicans to engage in ballot harvesting, arguing that if Democrats are doing it, Republicans should follow suit. This approach is deeply problematic, morally bankrupt, and fundamentally un-American. By promoting ballot harvesting simply because political opponents are using it, Pressler disregards the ethical implications of the practice. Ballot harvesting has been criticized for its potential to enable fraud, undermine voter privacy, and erode public trust in our electoral process. Embracing such tactics lowers the standards of democracy, prioritizing political gain over the integrity of elections. Instead of following a “tit-for-tat” mentality, both parties should focus on ensuring secure, transparent, and fair elections that uphold the principles of democracy and respect the rights of every voter. Actions like those by Pressler only deepen divisions, compromise the legitimacy of our democratic system, and betray the American values of honesty, fairness, and respect for the people’s will.
Critics of ballot harvesting argue that alternative methods exist to increase voter participation without the associated risks. Expanding early voting options for those that require it (disabled, elderly, military personnel, among others), increasing the number of polling places, and enhancing absentee mail-in voting systems for those that qualify for such a ballot (US Citizens overseas), with robust security features can achieve the goal of improved accessibility such as providing the same security as paper currency to be used as the paper of ballots. Additionally, providing transportation to polling stations and exploring secure non-electronic voting options can help remove barriers to voting while preserving the integrity and security of the electoral process. (Source: National Institute of Standards and Technology).
While proponents view ballot harvesting as a means to increase voter turnout among underserved communities, the potential risks—including coercion, fraud, compromised privacy, and loss of public trust—suggest that less risky methods should be considered. Maintaining electoral integrity is crucial for a functioning democracy, and efforts to increase voter participation must balance with the need to safeguard against practices that could undermine the fairness and legitimacy of elections.
The ballot harvesting debate highlights the complex challenges of balancing voter access with election security. While the practice may increase voter turnout, especially among marginalized communities, it raises significant concerns about electoral integrity. By examining the risks and benefits of ballot harvesting and exploring alternative methods to promote voter participation, policymakers can work towards an electoral system that is both inclusive and secure. The ultimate goal should be to ensure that every eligible voter can confidently cast their ballot, knowing it will be counted accurately and fairly.
Politicians and political operatives (like Scott Pressler) have a moral responsibility to uphold the integrity of the electoral process. Engaging in ballot harvesting solely as a competitive tactic neglects this duty. It shifts focus from genuine voter engagement to manipulation. By adopting questionable practices simply because an opponent might use them, political actors abdicate their ethical responsibility to lead by example. This sets a dangerous precedent that rules and standards can be bent or broken for competitive advantage.
Ballot harvesting is a practice that goes against fair voting principles. Melania Trump’s “Be Best” message reminds us to act with integrity. When people collect and submit ballots for others, it can lead to problems. It might allow cheating or pressure on voters. This practice can make some people feel unsafe about their votes. Each person needs to cast their vote freely. Voting is a personal right that should be protected. By avoiding ballot harvesting, we can ensure that elections are honest and trustworthy. This way, everyone’s voice can be heard fairly. Let’s follow Melania Trump’s advice and do what’s best for our nation, and other AGs should follow Ken Paxton’s lead.
If you like my work, you can tip or support me via TIP ME or subscribe to me on Subscribestar! Follow and subscribe to me on Rumble and Locals, or subscribe to my Substack. I am 100% people-funded.
1 comment