Cooke County clerk urges hiring election administrator as early‑voting changes loom

County Clerk Pam Neely told the Cooke County Commissioners Court on June 25 she is seeking funds to create a full‑time election administrator role and other resources to handle an expected increase in election workload tied to state law changes and possible equipment rules.

Neely said she trimmed her budget request in some lines but is proposing a $65,000–$70,000 salary for an election administrator (EA) to centralize election functions now spread across offices. She told commissioners she expects work tied to administering elections will grow substantially under a state bill that, in her reading, would require “12 days before election day, including Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays” of early voting and would mean early voting locations also must serve as polling places on election day.

That change is part of House Bill 2753 (referred to in the hearing as “house bill 27 53”), which Neely said she has read “two or three times” and is still trying to interpret. She said the measure appears to require 12 consecutive days of voting that would blur the current separation between early voting and election day and would increase staffing and logistics demands in 2027. “It’s just 12 straight days of voting,” she said, describing how the measure mandates weekend and holiday coverage. Neely said she has asked the Secretary of State for clarification and expects training this summer that will detail county responsibilities.

Neely also raised concerns about an executive order discussed by elections officials that could affect the county’s use of ExpressVote machines. “Our express vote prints out a ballot, and it has these barcodes on it, and that is how it tallies through these barcodes,” she said, noting state officials are reviewing whether barcode‑based tabulation will remain permissible. If ExpressVote machines are restricted, Neely said counties could be forced to adopt ballot‑on‑demand printers — a change she called costly and potentially disruptive to timely results.

Neely described technical budget items tied to elections: maintenance and firmware for electronic poll books that she said cost “almost close to $50,000,” certification of poll books that spared the county from a recent grant aimed at counties that need replacements, and an itemized elections supply line (account code 201000) that covers maintenance, hardware and firmware. She said the county receives reimbursement from outside entities when it runs elections for cities and school districts, but she does not see a statutory mechanism that would let those entities directly fund an EA position used by the county.

Neely argued the EA would streamline work now split across offices — registration, equipment maintenance, precinct logistics and reporting — and would be better positioned to comply with evolving state requirements. She said some neighboring counties already have EAs and routinely forward election work to them.

Commissioners asked operational questions about staffing and costs; Neely said she reduced other parts of her budget to accommodate election needs and that she would keep a part‑time scanner position for document scanning unless an EA is created. She said more detailed proposals and cost estimates will come as the Secretary of State clarifies the coming changes and as the county’s election staff complete summer training.

Neely’s presentation did not include a formal motion or vote by the court. The clerk asked commissioners to consider the EA proposal as part of the FY2026 budget process and to weigh the county’s ability to meet new state timelines and potential equipment changes.