Texas Primary Election Highlights the Hazards of Unnecessary Election Changes

Election administration requires a delicate balance of voter access, transparency, efficiency, and reliability. The costs of political parties disrupting that balance were evident in Texas’s March primary elections, when voters in two major Texas counties experienced confusion over where they could vote.

Due, it seems, to that confusion, Republican Party leaders in Dallas County have decided to return to the status quo of recent election cycles, permitting voters to choose among multiple polling locations for the May runoff elections. Williamson County, the other county where the change and confusion occurred, is poised to do the same.

As background, political parties enjoy significant discretion over how they run their primary elections. In Texas, that discretion includes the choice of whether to use precinct-based or countywide voting. Precinct-based voting requires voters to go to a specific polling location, while countywide voting allows voters to cast their ballots at any polling location in their county of residence. Countywide voting has been the norm in large Texas counties in recent years. But for reasons that remain unclear, Republican party officials in Dallas and Williamson counties decided in January to eliminate countywide voting for those casting their ballots on Election Day. Adding to the confusion, countywide voting remained in place during Texas’s early voting days and is used in general elections. But under state law, the Republican officials’ choices regarding the primary elections obligated the Democratic party in those counties to adopt the same system.

As a result, hundreds of Election Day voters in the two counties, many of whom were accustomed to voting at the polling place of their choice, attempted to vote at locations that were no longer permitted to process their ballots. They were consequently sent to alternate polling sites where their votes could be tallied. The confusion led Democratic party officials to seek emergency judicial relief to extend polling hours in both counties, which was quickly granted, with one judge citing “mass confusion” over where “voters were entitled to cast their ballots on election day.” The Texas attorney general immediately challenged judges’ orders in the Texas Supreme Court, which paused both orders and instructed election officials in both counties to segregate the ballots cast after 7 p.m., the regular polling place closing time.

Though the Texas Supreme Court provided scant reasoning for its decision to pause the lower courts’ orders, when requesting review, the state attorney general argued that the lower courts acted improperly in failing to give the attorney general advance notice before issuing their orders. There is great irony in the attorney general bemoaning a lack of notice, as the lower courts’ orders were largely premised on the fact that many voters lacked adequate notice about the location of their newly assigned voting precincts. That said, as of 2025, the Texas Election Code requires trial courts to notify the attorney general in advance of any hearing in which an election litigant is seeking a temporary restraining order.

By the end of Election Day, it was unclear how many votes in Dallas and Williamson counties were affected, though officials in Dallas County later reported that more than 1,750 Democratic ballots were segregated. A high-profile Democratic party primary contest for U.S. Senate between U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett and Texas state Rep. James Talarico looked briefly to be in disarray given the confusion, but Crockett conceded the race on March 4. And in recent days, Democratic party officials in Dallas County withdrew their lawsuit seeking to have the affected ballots counted. Though the worst outcome, in which one or more election contests remained unresolved while litigation ensued, was avoided, there is no solace to be had given what transpired. 

This episode offers three lessons. The first is simply that, whenever possible, election rules should be determined ex ante, with ample time for voters to receive adequate notice about when, where, and how they can vote. Turnout was high in this Texas primary election — a positive development, to be sure, but one that put additional strain on election administrators and highlights the crucial need for sensibly calibrated election processes. The late-stage decision to abandon countywide voting in Dallas and Williamson counties for the primary Election Day disturbed voters’ expectations and assumed an impractical level of awareness among the electorate of the change. While both party and county officials reached out to voters via mailings and social media posts, many voters evidently remained unaware of the new rules.

Relatedly, the episode highlights the peril of needless election administration changes. Many imaginable circumstances could warrant voting-related bureaucratic changes. An infrequently used voting precinct in an underpopulated area might be justifiably closed as a means of preserving scarce resources. The arrival of a hurricane may justify increased reliance on absentee ballots, as was the case in North Carolina in 2024. Elections, like life, can be unpredictable. But here, the logic of abandoning countywide voting is somewhat confounding.

Which suggests a third lesson — it can harm voters and our election system when decisions are made, or even appear to be, based unfounded fears of voter fraud. Again, the precise reasons for the move to precinct-based voting are ambiguous. When asked, the Williamson County Republican party chair cited the importance of “being more confident in the outcomes of our elections,” and added, “It’s legal. It’s something we’re entitled to do, and it’s something that our party would like us to do.” As others observed, the decision appears to stem from an abiding skepticism, in the face of all credible evidence, that countywide voting risks double and triple voting by bad actors. In this regard, the fear seems 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 pretexts for polling location decisions, serves as a reminder that actively combatting and correcting election disinformation, especially when peddled by those with a hand in running our elections, is imperative.

Joshua Sellers is a professor at the University of Texas School of Law.

Suggested Citation: Joshua Sellers, Texas Primary Election Highlights the Hazards of Unnecessary Election Changes, Sᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (Mar. 23, 2026), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/texas-primary-election-highlights-hazards-unnecessary-election-changes