Post‑election review: Katy ISD reports higher turnout, Secretary of State inspector finds no major irregularities

Katy ISD General Counsel Justin Graham presented a post‑election review of the May 2025 school board election at the district’s June 23 meeting, reporting turnout of more than 18,000 votes — an increase of roughly 10% from the previous comparable election — and summarizing operational lessons for future elections.

Graham told trustees the district now has about 242,000 registered voters in the Katy ISD area and that the May election benefitted from expanded early-voting opportunities and a partnership that allowed the City of Katy to join the district-run election, which reduced duplicate costs. A Texas Secretary of State inspector observed central count operations and issued a favorable assessment, Graham said: “I did not observe any abnormalities during my time at Katy ISD,” he reported.

Operational highlights and concerns: - Sites and turnout: Katy ISD used six early-voting sites (five comprehensive high schools plus the Merrill Center) and 13 election‑day precincts. Graham said Peyto High School — a site added recently to serve north-of-99 growth — recorded the lowest early‑vote total (488 votes) and cost the district roughly $5,300 to staff; staff asked whether the board wished to keep that site given low utilization but also noted north-side growth may increase future demand.

- Complex precinct mapping: Graham noted the district crosses three counties (Harris, Fort Bend, Waller) and runs 316 different ballot styles because of ward and precinct splits, adding operational complexity.

- Write‑in handling and timing: a write‑in candidate on the ballot required a manual review of affected ballots and signatures, which delayed some preliminary results on election night; Graham said the staff and temporary procedures handled the load and that the write‑in process is now operationally understood.

- Voter‑convenience rules: trustees asked whether Katy ISD could allow in‑district voters to vote at any site on election day, as some counties do. Graham said that rule (vote‑anywhere on Election Day) is a county-level provision and would require legislative change to apply to the district.

Trustee discussion and next steps: trustees asked staff to evaluate early-voting locations and signage (Peyto’s campus signage was noted as confusing if approached from some directions) and to provide cost and turnout data to guide site choices for future elections. Graham and staff also reinforced the district’s long-standing practice of encouraging early voting to minimize election-day congestion and to improve voter convenience within precinct constraints.

Voice from the meeting: Graham summarized the district’s statutory responsibilities and goals: “...we endeavor as the elections administrator for this district to provide free and fair elections, you know, universal suffrage,” he said. Trustees praised staff for transparent processes and asked for continuing outreach about procedures and site decisions ahead of next year’s election.

No formal policy changes were made at the meeting; trustees asked for follow-up information on early‑vote site utilization and signage and to return to the board with recommendations.