Election Integrity Failures

The incumbent fought against protecting voters’ constitutional right to a private ballot. He attacked efforts to preserve precinct-based voting while defending and expanding a countywide voting system that made it significantly harder to protect ballot privacy and conduct meaningful audits.

The incumbent opposed and attacked efforts to protect convenient, walkable precinct-based polling places across District 2. At the same time, he joined the Commissioners Court in defending and expanding countywide voting — a system that violates voters’ constitutional right to a private ballot and creates serious problems with chain of custody and auditability.

While the incumbent has tried to portray support for precinct-based voting as an attempt to “disenfranchise voters,” the opposite is true. Research from the Brennan Center for Justice has shown that countywide voting often disadvantages working families and communities with limited transportation — the very voters such systems claim to help. Precinct-based voting, by contrast, keeps elections close to the people and better protects both access and the private ballot.

Source: Brennan Center for Justice, “Voter Suppression in 2020,” August 20, 2021

Under the countywide voting system the incumbent supported, voters were not assigned to specific precinct polling locations. This created records that could link individual voters to their ballot choices — especially in lower-volume scenarios. This directly conflicts with the Texas Constitution’s protection of the private ballot and makes meaningful audits far more difficult.

Source: Texas Secretary of State Election Advisory No. 2024-20, June 6, 2024

Public records show that the incumbent’s own Deputy Chief of Staff, Todd Hensley, had his constitutional right to a private ballot violated under the countywide voting system. During early voting, he was the only voter from his precinct to cast a ballot at the Esperanza Community Center — making his vote easily identifiable.

Even more significantly, multiple high-profile elected officials — including several County Commissioners and the Dallas County Democratic Party Chairman — also had their ballots made identifiable under the same system. These officials had their own constitutional rights violated, yet the One-Party Machine continued to defend and expand the countywide voting model rather than restoring precinct-based voting to protect voters.

During early voting in the March 2026 Primary, 9,682 voters had their ballots stripped of privacy because of the countywide system the incumbent supported. This included 7,324 Democrats and 2,358 Republicans. On Election Day, precinct-based voting was restored — protecting voters’ right to a private ballot.

Had Election Day also been administered under the countywide system, it is estimated that roughly another 10,000 voters would have had their constitutional right to a private ballot violated as well.

Source: Dallas County Elections, dallascountyvotes.org

In October 2024, public testimony was given before the Dallas County Commissioners Court presenting evidence that the countywide voting system had violated the constitutional right to a private ballot of multiple elected officials. This included several County Commissioners, Dallas County Democratic Party Chairman Kardal Coleman, County Judge Clay Jenkins (as well as his mother), County Clerk John Warren, and County Tax Assessor John Ames.

Despite being shown clear evidence — including physical copies of ballots — no action was taken. The One-Party Machine continued to defend and expand the countywide voting system in subsequent elections, allowing the violation of voters’ constitutional rights to continue.

This demonstrates that even when the problem was publicly documented and brought directly before the Commissioners Court, protecting the machine took priority over protecting the constitutional rights of the voters of Dallas County. The court had the legal authority under Texas Election Code § 123.002 to rescind the countywide voting system at any time yet chose not to act.

Source: Public testimony before the Dallas County Commissioners Court, October 2024 (video available)

The incumbent has repeatedly used fundraising appeals to falsely claim that efforts to restore stronger election safeguards — including precinct-based voting — are attempts to “disenfranchise voters.” These claims are not only misleading, but they are also the opposite of the truth.

Barry Wernick has consistently advocated for election systems that are both accessible and auditable, grounded in constitutional principles and long-standing Texas election law. In contrast, the incumbent has defended countywide voting while attacking those seeking to protect voters’ constitutional right to a private ballot and improve chain-of-custody protections.

Source: Incumbent Commissioner’s Fundraising Text Message, April 27, 2026 (documented by @Wernick4Dallas)

Free, fair, and auditable elections require both access and verifiable safeguards. Countywide voting, as structured under the incumbent’s support, sacrificed the latter in the name of the former. Meaningful election integrity demands systems that are both accessible and fully auditable.

Source: Walter C. Daugherity, Ed.D., M.A.T., “Balancing Ballot Secrecy Versus Transparency,” June 16, 2024

A church, mosque, synagogue, or any other private facility can lawfully serve as a polling place. The law still says public buildings come first.

Texas Election Code § 43.031(c) requires that the building selected shall be a public building if practicable. Section 43.031(d) allows a private building only when a suitable public building is unavailable. Section 43.031(a) defines a public building as one owned or controlled by a political subdivision. Richardson ISD facilities qualify.

Section 43.033 bars charging for a public building on a day it is normally open and makes assessing that charge a Class C misdemeanor. Section 43.007(f) requires a countywide program to adopt a methodology for where vote centers are placed.

The incumbent helped lock in private mosque sites, then campaigned on the partisan result, while suitable public buildings sat in the same neighborhoods. That is not what the Code prefers.

Source:  Texas Election Code §§ 43.031, 43.033, and 43.007(f)

These actions were possible because of the 5–0 One-Party Machine on the Commissioners Court. With no real opposition or independent oversight, the incumbent was able to defend and expand a countywide voting system that violated voters’ constitutional right to a private ballot — without being held accountable.

It is deeply hypocritical that the incumbent fought for and publicly bragged about a countywide voting system that violated voters’ constitutional right to a private ballot, while attacking efforts to restore precinct-based voting that would have protected those rights. During early voting in the March 2026 Primary, 7,324 Democrats and 2,358 Republicans had their right to a private ballot violated under the system he supported. While the incumbent chose to make election integrity a partisan issue, reform efforts focused on protecting the constitutional rights of all voters — regardless of party — Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike.