Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Election Security topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Collin County to reconsider countywide voting and $80,000 poll book licenses, citing audit and privacy concerns
Summary
Public commenters urged the court to opt out of countywide voting and questioned an $80,000 poll-book license consent item, raising concerns about ballot secrecy, auditability, and internet-connected electronic poll books; speakers cited Texas Election Code §42.006 and a 1912 court ruling.
Get email alerts on the Election Security topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Several residents used the public-comment period to press the Commissioner's Court on election administration choices, urging the county to reconsider countywide voting and the use of internet-connected electronic poll books.
Debbie Lindstrom identified a consent-agenda line she described as "563 56 for $80,000 for poll book licenses" and said countywide voting requires internet-connected electronic poll books that raise "concerns about election integrity and security." Lindstrom asked the court to lobby the legislature and to opt out of the countywide polling-place program, arguing that precinct-based voting offers advantages in simplicity, auditability and ballot confidentiality. She referenced Texas Election Code §42.006 in noting precinct-sizing requirements and requested a follow-up from staff within a week.
Chuck Reynolds argued that hand-marked paper ballots score better in his comparison versus ballot-marking device (BMD) processes and said hand-mark ballots "win 7 of 8" points in his review, asserting BMDs introduce electronic translations and machine-readable barcodes that voters cannot verify. Another public commenter reiterated concerns that countywide voting and vote centers reduce ballot secrecy and make audits more difficult, urging a move to precinct-level voting in advance of the November election.
Speakers framed their concerns as risks to ballot secrecy and auditability and asked the court for follow-up and legislative advocacy. Court staff did not announce a change to the consent-item purchase during the meeting.
