Election management requires a delicate balance between voter access, transparency, efficiency, and credibility. The cost of parties upsetting this balance was evident in the Texas primary in March, when voters in two key Texas counties experienced confusion about where they could vote.
Because of this confusion, Dallas County Republican leaders appear to have decided to revert to the status quo of recent election cycles, allowing voters to choose from multiple polling locations in the May runoff elections. Williamson County, another county experiencing change and disruption, is poised to take similar action.
By way of background, political parties enjoy significant discretion over how to conduct primaries. In Texas, that discretion includes choosing between using precinct-based voting or countywide voting. Precinct-based voting requires voters to go to a specific polling place, whereas county-wide voting allows voters to vote at any polling place within their county of residence. Countywide voting has become the norm in large Texas counties in recent years. But for reasons that remain unclear, Republican officials in Dallas and Williamson counties decided in January to eliminate countywide voting for people voting on Election Day. Adding to the confusion, countywide ballots are still being conducted during Texas’ early voting period and are being used in the general election. But under state law, Republican officials’ choices regarding primary elections required Democrats in those counties to adopt the same system.
As a result, hundreds of Election Day voters in both counties, many of whom were accustomed to voting at the polling place of their choice, attempted to vote at a location that was no longer allowed to process ballots. As a result, they were sent to another polling station, where their votes were to be counted. The confusion led Democratic officials to seek emergency judicial relief to extend voting hours in both counties, which one judge quickly granted, citing “massive confusion” over “who is entitled to vote on Election Day.” The Texas Attorney General’s Office immediately challenged the Texas Supreme Court justice’s orders, and the court halted both orders and directed election officials in both counties to sequester any votes cast after the regular polling place closing time of 7 p.m.
On appeal, the Texas Supreme Court offered little evidence for its decision to suspend the lower court’s order, but the state’s attorney general argued that the lower court acted improperly by failing to give the attorney general prior notice before issuing the order. The lower court’s order is primarily premised on the fact that many voters lacked proper notice of the location of their newly assigned voting precincts, and it is a great irony that the Attorney General bemoans the lack of notice. As of 2025, however, the Texas Election Code requires trial courts to notify the Attorney General in advance of a hearing in which an election litigant is seeking a temporary restraining order.
By the end of Election Day, it was unclear how many votes had been affected in Dallas and Williamson counties, but Dallas County officials later reported that more than 1,750 Democratic ballots had been quarantined. The closely watched Democratic Senate primary race between Rep. Jasmine Crockett and Rep. James Talarico briefly appeared to be in turmoil due to confusion, but Mr. Crockett conceded the race on March 4. And in recent days, Democratic Party officials in Dallas County dropped a lawsuit seeking to count the affected votes. The worst outcome of having one or more races left unresolved while litigation continued was avoided, but that should be no consolation given what happened.
There are three takeaways from this episode. The first is that we need to determine election rules as much as possible. in advancethere will be enough time for voters to receive adequate notice of when, where, and how they can vote. The high turnout in this Texas primary, while certainly a positive development, placed additional strain on election officials and highlighted the critical need for a wisely calibrated election process. The last-minute decision to abandon countywide voting in Dallas and Williamson counties on primary election day upset voter expectations and assumed that voter awareness of the change had reached an unrealistic level. Party and county officials reached out to voters through mailings and social media posts, but many voters were apparently unaware of the new rules.
In this regard, this episode highlights the dangers of unnecessary changes to electoral governance. Voting-related bureaucratic changes could be justified in many possible situations. Less-used polling places in sparsely populated areas may legitimately be closed as a means to conserve scarce resources. As in North Carolina in 2024, the arrival of a hurricane could justify increased reliance on absentee voting. Elections, like life, are unpredictable. But here, the logic of abandoning countywide voting is a little confusing.
This suggests a third lesson. This means that when decisions are made, or appear to be, based on unfounded fears of voter fraud, they can have a negative impact on voters and our electoral system. Again, the exact reasons for the shift to precinct-based voting are vague. In response to a question, Williamson County Republican Party Chairman cited the importance of “having more confidence in the election results,” adding, “It’s legal. It’s what we have a right to do and it’s what our party wants us to do.” As others have observed, this decision appears to stem from a deep-seated skepticism that, in the face of all reliable evidence, countywide voting risks double or triple voting by malicious actors. In this regard, this fear appears to be tied to broader fears among conservatives about election security, ballot integrity, and voter fraud.
The staying power of these false narratives and their use as a pretext for voting location decisions is a reminder that it is essential to actively combat and correct election disinformation, especially when promoted by those involved in running elections.
Joshua Sellers is a professor at the University of Texas School of Law.
Recommended Citation: Joshua Sellers, Texas primary highlights the dangers of unnecessary election changesSᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (March 23, 2026), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/texas-primary-election-highlights-hazards-unnecessary-election-changes
