County officials worry about preparing for April 3 primaries

The two associations that represent the majority of Texas counties have filed a brief with the three-judge redistricting panel in San Antonio, asking the court to convene a hearing of election officials to discuss the feasibility of actually conducting an April 3 unified primary as the court ordered.

 

This is a pre-emptive strike by the Texas Association of Counties and the Conference of Urban Counties, which are concerned that foot-dragging in Washington DC or San Antonio could spell dire consequences for counties charged with following the letter of state and federal law on issues such as redrawing precinct lines, adjusting voter registration databases, getting ballots out to overseas soldiers and staffing polling sites.

 

Travis County Clerk Dana De Beauvoir was on the team that suggested the initial election schedule to the board, and she was the one who told the three-judge panel in the latest hearing that April 3 date was a workable option.

 

De Beauvoir said the schedule was workable. She didn’t say it was easy.

 

“We did work on the proposed schedule, but we always said it was a tight fit,” said De Beauvoir, reached Wednesday night. “We did tell the court we could make it doable, if they would keep to a schedule. Of course, if everybody takes two weeks, then it is obviously not going to work.”

 

The biggest assumption is that the U.S. Supreme Court would meet in conference soon after the Jan. 9 hearing and agree to minimal changes to the Texas maps, possibly contained to the six hot spots highlighted in hearings. Counties already have redrawn precincts on maps that could hold up for the vast majority of the state, if the only question is tweaking agreed to among plaintiffs and the state before the three-judge panel in San Antonio, De Beauvoir said.

 

“If there’s only tiny little changes in the six areas that are considered the ‘hot ones,’ then I don’t think it’s out of the question we could be ready for an April 3 primary,” De Beauvoir said. “It’s tough, but it’s not impossible.”

That doesn’t mean De Beauvoir, as an elections official, isn’t sympathizing with her colleagues around the state. Their objections are valid ones. To make the dates work will require significant effort on the part of counties and, especially, outside vendors who typically aren’t pushed to ratchet up performance.

 

On the other hand, a primary date any later than April 3, given the May municipal elections, seems inconceivable to De Beauvoir, almost as inconceivable as a bifurcated primary with dates for the presidential and state elections.

 

“I’m not looking forward to this, but I don’t know what other date would work, or how else it could work,” said De Beauvoir, acknowledging it might have been easier as an elected Democrat to avoid the question of a viable date entirely. “Somebody had to come up with something to tell the judges, and that is where we can actually be helpful in the process.”

 

Asked about the brief Wednesday afternoon, county lobbyist Deece Eckstein noted that Travis County may be mentioned in the brief filed by the Texas Association of Counties and the Conference of Urban Counties, but it can’t be a party to the brief. That will likely be clarified in a future hearing.

 

Travis County is the one county that has standing in the Texas redistricting case, and it would only confuse the judges that the county would both advocate for a new map and primary schedule, only to object to the primary schedule.

 

“The tricky part for us is that we are the only county in that case. We’re party to the case with standing before the court,” Eckstein said. “We don’t want to confuse the judges.”

 

The county brief would come into play if the Supreme Court and the San Antonio panel fail to act on time to use the proposed timeline, Eckstein said. In that case, the county brief might be used to compel the three-judge panel to reconvene and decide whether to push back the primary date to mid-April.

 

The two groups are also asking for a hearing to seek permission not to meet all of the deadlines for military ballots and for pre-clearance of precincts.