Voting in Texas

Election Information
2025 election and voting dates
Voter registration
Early voting
Absentee/mail-in voting
All-mail voting
Voter ID laws
State poll opening and closing times
Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker
Select a state from the menu below to learn more about its election administration.
AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingSubmit

Voting policies are enacted and enforced primarily at the state level. These policies, which include voter identification requirements, early voting provisions, online voter registration systems, and more, dictate the conditions under which American citizens cast their ballots in their individual states.

THE BASICS

Texas permits early voting, but does not allow online voter registration and no-excuse absentee voting.

Texas' voter ID law has been subject to legal challenges. See below for further details.

See state election laws

Voter registration

To vote in Texas, one must be a United States citizen, a resident of the county in which one registers, and at least 18 years of age.

Registration must be completed 28 days prior to the election. An applicant can obtain a voter registration application at a library, any government office, or online. The voter will then be mailed a voter registration certificate or card with his or her name, address, and precinct number.

Online registration

See also: Online voter registration

Texas does not permit online voter registration.

Voting in elections

President Barack Obama and others casting their ballots in 2012

Voter identification

See also: Voter identification laws by state

Texas requires voters to present a form of photo identification at the polls. If a voter does not possess the required form of identification, poll workers must ask the voter whether he or she "cannot obtain an acceptable form of photo ID." If the voter answers "yes" to this question, he or she can present a non-photo form of identification and complete a "Reasonable Impediment Declaration." Upon doing so, the voter may cast a regular ballot. For complete details, including a list of acceptable forms of photo and non-photo identification, see here.

Texas' voter ID law is the subject of ongoing litigation. For further information, click "[Show more]" below.

Show more

Before Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was overturned on June 25, 2013, Texas' voter identification law, SB 14, required preclearance by the United States Department of Justice before taking effect. SB 14 required that every voter must present one of the following at his or her polling place: a Texas driver's license, a Texas Election Identification Certificate, a Texas personal identification card, a Texas concealed handgun license, a United States military identification card containing the person’s photograph, a United States citizenship certificate containing the person’s photograph, or a United States passport. Preclearance was denied on March 13, 2012, and a lawsuit was subsequently filed by the state. On August 30, 2012, a three-judge panel in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia unanimously struck down the voter ID law. The court ruled that the law would negatively impact minority voter turnout and impose strict burdens upon the poor.

The state filed a lawsuit against the ruling, and on December 17, 2012, a federal court deferred those proceedings until the United States Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of parts of the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court overturned portions of the Voting Rights Act in June 2013, allowing the state's voter ID law to take immediate effect, as the state was no longer required to obtain preclearance for changes to election laws. On August 22, 2013, the United States Department of Justice sued Texas over its voter ID law, using a different section of the 1965 Voting Rights Act to claim that the law would result in "denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.” On October 9, 2014, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas struck down the law, ruling that it had been enacted "with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose." An emergency application was filed with the United States Supreme Court, which ruled on October 20, 2014, that Texas could implement its voter ID law for the 2014 general election. This decision applied only to the 2014 general election.

On August 5, 2015, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that Texas' voter identification law violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, affirming in part the October 2014 decision of the district court. However, the Fifth Circuit panel did not find sufficient evidence to prove discriminatory intent on the part of the state legislature in passing the law. The appeals court remanded the case to the district court, ordering it to "re-examine its conclusion that Texas acted with discriminatory purpose." The appeals court panel wrote the following in its ruling:

“	Accordingly, if on remand the district court finds that SB 14 has only violated Section 2 through its discriminatory effects, it should refer to the policies underlying SB 14 in fashioning a remedy. Clearly, the Legislature wished to reduce the risk of in-person voter fraud by strengthening the forms of identification presented for voting. Simply reverting to the system in place before SB 14's passage would not fully respect these policy choices.	”
—United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit

On August 28, 2015, Texas filed a petition requesting review by the full Fifth Circuit. On March 9, 2016, the full Fifth Circuit court agreed to re-hear the case. State Attorney General Ken Paxton applauded the decision, saying, "Today's decision is a strong step forward in our efforts to defend the state's voter ID laws. Safeguarding the integrity of our elections is a primary function of state government and is essential to preserving our democratic process." In announcing its decision to hear the case, the court did not indicate when oral arguments would occur. Of the 15 judges on the Fifth Circuit, 10 were appointed by Republican presidents.

On April 29, 2016, the United States Supreme Court issued an unsigned order, declining to interfere with the state's photo ID requirement. However, recognizing "the time constraints the parties confront in light of the scheduled elections in November 2016," the court did suggest it would be willing to intervene if the appeals court failed to rule on the matter by July 20, 2016.

On July 20, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that Texas' voter identification law violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Nine of the court's 15 members joined in the majority opinion. The court determined that the state's voter identification law had a discriminatory effect on minority voters who sometimes lack the required forms of identification. The court stopped short of striking down the law as a whole. Instead, the court ordered that election officials must "ensure that any remedy enacted ameliorates [the law's] discriminatory effect, while respecting the [Texas State Legislature's] stated objective to safeguard the integrity of elections by requiring more secure forms of voter identification." The appeals court also stopped short of saying whether the requirement was enacted with discriminatory intent, remanding that question to the lower court for further consideration. Texas Democrats applauded the court's decision. State Representative Trey Martinez Fischer (D) said, "The court got it right, recognizing the stink of discrimination." Meanwhile, Republicans, who controlled the state legislature at the time the requirement was enacted, defended the law. Governor Greg Abbott (R) said, "Voter fraud is real, and it undermines the integrity of the election process. Texas will continue to make sure there is no illegal voting at the ballot box."

On August 3, 2016, state officials and opponents of the state's voter ID requirement reached an agreement on how best to remedy the law in light of the Fifth Circuit's ruling. Under this agreement, voters are permitted to use the following forms of identification at the polls, provided their names appear on voter registration rolls:

1. A form of identification specified in the original voter ID law (SB 14), including a Texas driver's license, a Texas identification certificate, a Texas personal identification card, a Texas concealed handgun license, a United States military identification card containing the person’s photograph, a United States citizenship certificate containing the person’s photograph, or a United States passport
2. A "valid voter registration certificate, a certified birth certificate, a current utility bill, a bank statement, a government check, a paycheck, or any other government document that displays the voter’s name and an address"

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) said that the state would appeal the decision. On September 6, 2016, the United States government filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas a motion to enforce the temporary remedy described above. The motion read, in part, as follows:

“

Despite the Remedial Order’s clarity, Texas’s voter education and poll worker training documents depart from it. Rather than educating voters and poll officials about opportunities tocast a regular ballot for those who 'do not possess SB 14 ID and cannot reasonably obtain it,' the State has recast that language to limit the opportunity to cast a regular ballot solely to those voters who present SB 14 ID or who 'have not obtained' and 'cannot obtain' SB 14 ID. That standard is incorrect and far harsher than the Court-ordered standard it would displace. By recasting the Court’s language, Texas has narrowed dramatically the scope of voters protected by the Court’s Order.

”

On September 19, 2016, federal Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos sided with federal government, finding that state officials had violated the terms of the interim remedy. Danielle Lang, an attorney representing opponents of Texas' voter ID law, summarized Ramos' order as follows: "Going forward, the state of Texas is required to change important documents that were, in the court’s words, ‘misleading,’ including language on VoteTexas.gov, in the secretary of state’s press release, and in the poster that will go at the polling place locations."

On September 23, 2016, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton petitioned the United States Supreme Court to restore Texas' voter ID law. Paxton said, "Safeguarding the integrity of our elections is essential to preserving our democracy. Voter ID laws both prevent fraud and increase the public’s confidence in our elections. Texas enacted a common-sense voter ID law and I am confident that the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately reinstate it."

On February 27, 2017, the United States Department of Justice filed a motion in federal court seeking to dismiss the department's earlier claim that Texas' voter ID law had been enacted with racially discriminatory intent. The Justice Department did not seek to reverse its position that the law had a racially discriminatory impact. Opponents of Texas' voter ID criticized the move. Danielle Lang, an attorney for the Campaign Legal Center (one group that sued Texas over its voter ID law), said, "It's a complete 180. We can't make heads or tails of any factual reason for the change. There has been no evidence that's come to light." Lang characterized the development as an "extraordinary disappointment." Meanwhile, proponents of the state's voter ID law praised the Justice Department's decision. J. Christian Adams, president and general counsel of the Public Interest Legal Foundation (a self-described "public interest law firm dedicated entirely to election integrity"), said, "We are seeing early reminders of what a Justice Department looks like when it drops the ideological pet projects and follows the law." On April 3, 2017, The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted the Justice Department's motion. However, the court indicated that it would still address the question of discriminatory intent in its ruling: "The Court intends to issue its new opinion on whether SB 14 was passed with discriminatory intent in violation of the Voting Rights Act at its earliest convenience and in due course."\

On April 10, 2017, Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas ruled that the state's voter ID law had been enacted with discriminatory intent. Ramos wrote the following in her ruling:

“	Upon reconsideration and a re-weighting of the evidence in conformity with the Fifth Circuit's opinion, the Court holds that the evidence found 'infirm' did not tip the scales. Plaintiffs' probative evidence–that which was left intact after the Fifth Circuit's review–establishes that a discriminatory purpose was at least one of the substantial or motivating factors behind passage of SB 14. Consequently, the burden shifted to the State to demonstrate that the law would have been enacted without its discriminatory purpose. ... The State has not met its burden. Therefore, this Court holds, again, that SB 14 was passed with a discriminatory purpose in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.	”
—Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos

According to The New York Times, "lawyers involved in the case said the ruling effectively strikes down the law, although the judge did not issue a separate order doing so." Marc Rylander, a spokesman for Texas attorney general Ken Paxton, said, "We're disappointed and will seek review of this ruling at the appropriate time."

On June 1, 2017, Governor Greg Abbott (R) signed SB 5 into law, amending the state's voter identification requirements. For those voters lacking the requisite photo ID, the law established an affidavit option requiring voters to sign a form stating that he or she was unable to obtain photo identification for one of the following reasons:

1. lack of transportation
2. lack of birth certificate or other documents needed to obtain identification
3. work schedule
4. lost or stolen identification
5. family responsibilities
6. required identification has been applied for but not received

These provisions were scheduled to take effect January 1, 2018. However, on August 23, 2017, federal Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos issued an order barring implementation of SB 5, finding that the revised legislation was not "an adequate remedy for the findings of [racially] discriminatory purpose and discriminatory effect in SB 14." Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) said that he would appeal Ramos' decision: "Today's ruling is outrageous. Senate Bill 5 was passed by the people's representatives and includes all the changes to the Texas voter ID law requested by the Fifth Circuit. The U.S. Department of Justice is satisfied that the amended voter ID law has no discriminatory purpose or effect. Safeguarding the integrity of elections in Texas is essential to preserving our democracy. The 5th Circuit should reverse the entirety of the District Court’s ruling." On August 25, 2017, Paxton petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit to grant a stay of Ramos' ruling pending appeal proceedings.

On September 5, 2017, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit voted 2-1 to stay Ramos' ruling, authorizing Texas to enforce the provisions of its voter ID law for elections taking place in November 2017. Judges Jerry Smith and Jennifer Elrod formed the panel's majority and wrote the following in the court's order:

“	The State has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits. SB 5 allows voters without qualifying photo ID to cast regular ballots by executing a declaration that they face a reasonable impediment to obtaining qualifying photo ID. This declaration is made under the penalty of perjury. As the State explains, each of the 27 voters identified—whose testimony the plaintiffs used to support their discriminatory—effect chain–can vote without impediment under SB 5.	”
—Judges Jerry Smith and Jennifer Elrod

Judge James Gray dissented, arguing that it was not clear that the state was likely to succeed on the merits and that, therefore, the request for a stay should have been denied. On September 8, 2017, opponents of Texas' voter ID law filed a motion requesting en banc review of both the September 5 stay order and the full case. On September 11, 2017, the Fifth Circuit denied the request for a stay of the September 5 order. On October 10, 2017, the Fifth Circuit denied the request for en banc review. The court voted 4-10 on the matter, with four judges favoring en banc review and 10 judges opposing it.

On April 27, 2018, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit issued a 2-1 ruling reversing the earlier district court order that had barred the state from enforcing the provisions of its voter ID law. Judge Edith Jones wrote the following in the court's opinion:

“	That Plaintiffs’ factual critique boils down to speculation demonstrates the prematurity of the court’s decision to invalidate SB 5 in 2017, well before the law took effect in 2018. Nothing we conclude today disposes of any potential challenges to SB 5 in the future. Plaintiffs may file a new lawsuit, and bear the burden of proof, if the promise of the law to remedy disparate impact on indigent minority voters is not fulfilled. They did not challenge SB 14, for instance, for several years after its effective date. As a remedy for the deficiencies found by this court in Veasey II, however, there is no evidentiary or legal basis for rejecting SB 5, and the district court was bound not to take the drastic step of enjoining it. Further, because SB 5 constitutes an effective remedy for the only deficiencies testified to in SB 14, and it essentially mirrors an agreed interim order for the same purpose, the State has acted promptly following this court’s mandate, and there is no equitable basis for subjecting Texas to ongoing federal election scrutiny under Section 3(c) [of the Voting Rights Act].	”
—Judge Edith Jones

Judge Patrick Higginbotham penned a separate concurring opinion. Judge James Graves concurred in part and dissented in part, writing the following in his opinion:

“	The scant changes implemented through S.B. 5 do not alter the district court's finding that S.B. 14 was enacted with a discriminatory purpose. Instead, S.B. 5 merely carries forward the discriminatory strain of its predecessor, and for that reason it should be quarantined. I would therefore find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in enjoining both S.B. 14 and S.B. 5. Because the majority does not do so, I respectully dissent.	”
—Judge James Graves

In a statement, Paxton praised the court's ruling: "The court rightly recognized that when the Legislature passed Senate Bill 5 last session, it complied with every change the Fifth Circuit ordered to the original voter ID law. Safeguarding the integrity of our elections is essential to preserving our democracy. The revised voter ID law removed any burden on voters who cannot obtain a photo ID." State Representative Rafael Anchia (D), chairman of the Mexican American Legislature Caucus (a plaintiff to the suit), said, "Our view today is the same as it has been since the first day of this litigation — Texas' voter ID law is discriminatory. We are undeterred by today's decision, and we will continue to fight against laws that aim to suppress the vote."

On June 19, 2018, the Fifth Circuit dismissed a further appeal, allowing Texas' voter ID law to stand.

Thirty-five states require voters to present identification in order to vote at the polls on Election Day. Of these states, 23 require voters to present identification containing a photograph, and 12 accept other forms of identification. The remaining 15 states do not require voters to present identification in order to vote at the polls on Election Day.

Valid forms of identification differ by state. In certain states that require voters to provide identification, there may be exceptions that allow some voters to cast a ballot without providing an ID. To see more about these exceptions, see details by state. Commonly accepted forms of ID include driver's licenses, state-issued identification cards, and military identification cards.

Poll times

See also: State poll opening and closing times

In Texas, all polling places are open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Central Time. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote. Texas is divided between Central and Mountain time zones.

Primary election type

See also: Primary elections in Texas

A primary election is an election in which registered voters select a candidate that they believe should be a political party's candidate for elected office to run in the general election. They are also used to choose convention delegates and party leaders. Primaries are state-level and local-level elections that take place prior to a general election. Texas utilizes an open primary system. Voters do not have to register with a party in advance in order to participate in that party's primary. The voter must sign a pledge stating the following (the language below is taken directly from state statutes)

“

The following pledge shall be placed on the primary election ballot above the listing of candidates' names: 'I am a (insert appropriate political party) and understand that I am ineligible to vote or participate in another political party's primary election or convention during this voting year.'

”

For information about which offices are nominated via primary election, see this article.

Absentee voting

See also: Absentee voting

Texas voters are eligible to vote absentee in an election if:

• They cannot make it to the polls on Election Day because they will be away from the county on Election Day and during early voting;
• They are sick or disabled;
• They are 65 years of age or older; or
• They are confined in jail.

To vote absentee, a request must be received by county election officials no later than close of regular business on the eleventh day before the election. The completed ballot must then be returned by the close of polls on Election Day.

Early voting

See also: Early voting

Texas permits early voting. Learn more by visiting this website.

Convicted felons' voting rights

See also: Voting rights for convicted felons

Voting rights for convicted felons vary from state to state. In the majority of states, convicted felons cannot vote while they are incarcerated but may regain the right to vote upon release from prison or at some point thereafter.

Felon voting rights in Texas
State	Felon voting rights

Election administration costs

National Conference of State Legislatures report, 2018

On February 14, 2018, the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) released a report on the costs of election administration in the states: "The Price of Democracy: Splitting the Bill for Elections." The report's authors noted that "no one knows how much [states] spend on elections ... [because] good research on election costs is slim." Generally, local units of government (most often counties, but sometimes cities and towns) are primarily responsible for election administration costs, though states and the federal government may also contribute. The report identified the states listed in the table below as assuming financial responsibility for at least some aspects of election administration.

To access the complete NCSL report, click here.

Election administration costs assumed by state
State pays all expenses for federal or state elections	State bears a portion of election costs	State pays for statewide special elections or statewide elections that don’t coincide with regularly scheduled elections	State pays for primary elections (statewide, presidential, or both)
Alaska Delaware	Alabama Colorado Hawaii Kentucky Louisiana Rhode Island	Arkansas Florida Iowa Michigan Missouri New Jersey North Dakota Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Washington West Virginia	Arizona Arkansas Idaho Kansas Michigan Minnesota Missouri South Carolina Tennessee Texas Virginia Washington
Note: If a state is not listed above, it was not included in the report. Source: National Conference of State Legislatures, "The Price of Democracy: Splitting the Bill for Elections," February 14, 2018

Election agencies

Seal of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission

See also: State election agencies

Individuals seeking additional information about voting provisions in Texas can contact the following state and federal agencies.

Texas Secretary of State

James E. Rudder Bldg.

1019 Brazos St.

Austin, Texas 78701

Telephone: 512-463-5650

Email: elections@sos.texas.gov

U.S. Election Assistance Commission

1335 East West Highway, Suite 4300

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

Telephone: 866-747-1471

Noteworthy events

2018-2019

On March 30, 2018, United States District Court Judge Orlando Garcia issued an order indicating that Texas officials had violated the federal National Voter Registration Act by failing to register eligible voters who updated their driver's license records online. The National Voter Registration Act requires states to provide for voter registration opportunities when citizens apply for or renew their driver's licenses. The one-page order did not detail a required remedy for the violation. On May 10, 2018, Garcia ordered the parties to the suit to submit proposed remedies to the court by May 17, 2018. In this order, Garcia wrote the following:

“	[The Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS)] encourages Texans to use its online services to renew their driver's license and change their address because it is easier and more convenient. It cannot, at the same time, deny simultaneous voter registration applications when those online services are used. DPS is legally obligated, as a designated voter registration agency under the [National Voter Registration Act (NVRA)], to permit a simultaneous voter registration application with every transaction. Asking motor voters whether they are interested in voter registration and sending them to [the Secretary of State] for an entirely separate application process is not enough. The NVRA demands much more from voter registration agencies.	”
—Judge Orlando Garcia

On May 31, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit temporarily stayed Garcia's ruling pending appeal, permitting voter registration in Texas to proceed as it had prior to Garcia's ruling. On November 13, 2019, a three-judge panel of the appeals court reversed Garcia's ruling, finding that the plaintiffs who brought the original suit did not have standing to sue because they had, since suing, successfully registered to vote and no longer suffered harm under the state's registration practice.

Election policy ballot measures

See also: Elections and campaigns on the ballot and List of Texas ballot measures

Ballotpedia has tracked the following ballot measures relating to election and campaign policy in Texas.

1. Texas Proposition 15, Elections for County Surveyors Amendment (1993)
2. Texas Proposition 18, Local Elections With Unopposed Candidates Amendment (September 2003)
3. Texas Proposition 9, Legislative Vacancies Amendment (2001)
4. Texas Proposition 6, Appointment of Presidential Electors Amendment (2001)
5. Texas Proposition 8, State and Local Elections with Unopposed Candidates Amendment (September 2003)
6. Texas Proposition 8, Voting Requirements Amendment (1966)
7. Texas Proposition 2, Election of Railroad Commissioners Amendment (1894)
8. Texas Proposition 1, Poll Tax Payment Amendment (1902)
9. Texas Proposition 7, Qualifications to Vote on Bond Issues Amendment (1932)
10. Texas Proposition 1, Military Poll Tax Exemption Amendment (August 1945)
11. Texas Proposition 4, Poll Tax and Voter Registration Amendment (1949)
12. Texas Proposition 1, Poll Tax Repeal Amendment (1963)
13. Texas Proposition 7, Poll Tax Repeal Amendment (1966)
14. Texas Proposition 14, Voting in the Armed Forces Amendment (1966)
15. Texas Proposition 3, Voter and Election Constitutional Provisions Amendment (1975)
16. Texas Proposition 8, State Debt Ballot Questions Amendment (1991)
17. Texas Proposition 1, Voting in Different Precincts Amendment (July 1915)

Election policy legislation

The following is a list of recent election bills that have been introduced in or passed by the Texas state legislature. To learn more about each of these bills, click the bill title. This information is provided by BillTrack50 and LegiScan.

Note: Due to the nature of the sorting process used to generate this list, some results may not be relevant to the topic. If no bills are displayed below, no legislation pertaining to this topic has been introduced in the legislature recently.

Early voting in Texas primaries, 2018

Click here to learn about historic early voting turnout for both parties in Texas.

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Texas voting. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Voting in Texas - Google News

See also

• Ballot access requirements for political candidates in Texas
• Redistricting in Texas

Elections in Texas

• Texas elections, 2018
• Texas elections, 2017
• Texas elections, 2016
• Texas elections, 2015
• Texas elections, 2014

External links

• Voter guide
• Election website