The whole idea of “emphasis” or “make sure” votes on paper ballots is to prevent election officials from marking a vote on a race that the voter skipped because he voted a straight ticket. It makes no sense to have a straight ticket device, if you still have to go down and vote for every office. It only makes sense if you want the opportunity to change votes.

When the legislature considered eliminating straight ticket voting, one Democratic senator posited a scenario where a voter had carefully considered each office and candidate on their own individual merits and chosen whom to vote for, and then rhetorically asked whether such a voter who had carefully considered each candidate individually shouldn’t be able to mark one box for the lot of them.

He also suggested that voters might get frustrated with delays due to voters requiring longer to vote. Implicit in this is that straight ticket voters are readily identifiable which infringes on their right to a secret ballot, and may result in voter intimidation. Imagine a somewhat shy first time voter who had carefully prepared to vote spending hours pondering each office, waiting in line next to an impatient individual who shifts their weight from foot to foot, muttering under his breath for voters in the voting booths to hurry up and just mark a straight ticket.

One county election official testified that if straight ticket voting were eliminated he would need to provision more voting machines. Implicit is that he considers the share of straight ticket voting in a precinct when allocating voting machines, since it varies geographically and is racially correlated.

If he didn’t, then voters in certain areas where voters were less likely to vote a straight ticket would face delays. If he did, then voters in other areas might be pressured to vote a straight ticket, or overlook races to which the straight ticket did not apply, such as non-partisan offices or special elections.

In 2008 in Harris County, there was a special election for a state senate seat, so that the straight ticket did not apply. Even though the race was placed first on the ballot, above the straight ticket and presidential race, there was a 16% undervote in the hotly contested race for an open seat. In contested legislative races, the undervote was more typically 4 or 5%. Even in cases where a candidate was unopposed, the undervote was typically around 20%.

Non-partisan races were also overlooked. In one school district at the bottom of the ballot, 58% of voters did not vote.

Whether a voter voted or not in a race is a combination of a straight ticket vote and marks in the individual race. But there can be two adjacent races, one with Republican and Libertarian candidates and the next with Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian candidates. If someone votes a Democratic straight ticket, they haven’t voted for one race, but have in the other. Should feedback occur warning that one race was not voted in? And a voter may interpret feedback as condemnation or that the right to a secret ballot is compromised. Did you really mean to not vote for the powerful County Judge? Or what if you vote a straight ticket but want to actively not vote for anyone in a single race?
With an interactive device, you may end up with different interpretations based on the sequence that a voter voted.

It is interesting that the district court decision kept referring to the pre-1998 system as both paper ballot and punch card. How likely is that a “emphasis” voter would go through a completed ballot and check that all his chads weren’t left hanging.

There is also confusion with the device in Oklahoma, where the legislature mandates on straight-ticket device just for the presidential election, and another straight-ticket device for all the other partisan offices. It’s ludicrous to have such a device for just one office, but that is Oklahoma.

train111