Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections And Budget Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Uvalde County to keep precinct voting and press commissioners on budget transparency
Summary
Several residents spoke during public comment, urging the county to retain precinct‑based voting rather than move to countywide voting and asking for clearer budget detail on fee revenue, employee supplements and county allocations to volunteer fire departments.
Get email alerts on the Elections And Budget Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Three residents used the citizen‑communications portion of the meeting to press the court on voting procedures and budget transparency.
Diana Alvedo Carue said she reviewed the approved budget posted on the county website and could not find line items for some programs. She asked where departmental fee revenue (for example, fees collected by the sheriff’s office) is recorded and how supplements to employee pay are shown in departmental budgets. “I noticed that there is a lot of revenue that comes into the county through the different departments,” she said, and asked the court to explain where that income is used.
Brenda Cable, who said she has served as an election judge in Montell Precinct, urged commissioners to keep precinct‑based voting. “I can definitely see how it could be a major train wreck” if countywide balloting results in voters receiving ballots with the wrong precinct races, she said.
Rhonda Beakhill opposed countywide voting and cited Texas Election Code section 122.001, arguing a countywide voting system could fail to meet statutory requirements for preserving ballot secrecy, suitability, accuracy and auditability.
A public commenter also asked why the county continues to provide small allocations (recorded in the budget) to volunteer fire departments that are also part of emergency service districts. The clerk said those contracts and budgets are on file in the clerk’s office.
The court did not take action on countywide voting during this meeting; the public comments were recorded for the court’s consideration.

