State finds some registered Texas voters were wrongly flagged as potential noncitizens 3%

By Natalia Contreras6% VoteBeat.org2%

7/31/2026, 7:00:06 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Loss Aversion, Negativity Bias, and Self-Serving Bias, with Availability Heuristic as the most egregious example at 5.5% saturation with 66 hits. Analysis detected 444 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,198 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 10.7% and a BS Rank of 3% (25,939 of 26,715 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 97.10% of the article peer group.

Election officials across the state should immediately reinstate some voters who were incorrectly flagged as potential noncitizens through a federal program, the Texas Secretary of State's Office told county officials Wednesday. 
Christina Adkins, the state elections director, told county officials the state had reviewed Texas Department of Public Safety records confirming the citizenship of some of the 2,724 registered voters who were flagged as potential noncitizens, according to an audio recording of her comments obtained by Votebeat and The Texas Tribune, as well as election officials who heard them. 
The voters were flagged after the state checked its voter roll through a federal program called Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, used to verify the citizenship of people registered to vote. 
Adkins said the state is still working through the data and that she couldn't yet say how many of the 2,724 people had provided proof of citizenship to DPS and should thus be reinstated if they were already removed from the voter roll. 
She characterized SAVE as having "some inaccurate information" but added that "most of the data that we got out of SAVE was consistent with what DPS had." 
According to election officials, the secretary of state's office said it plans in the coming days to send voter registrars additional information from DPS showing some of the flagged registered voters had in fact provided proof of citizenship to DPS while registering to vote or obtaining a driver's license or state ID. 
There isn't yet an exact number of how many U.S. citizens' registrations were actually canceled or how many were canceled in total by counties after being flagged by SAVE, said Kristin Miles, the Bastrop County elections administrator and president of the Texas Association of County Election Officials. 
"Counties are following appropriate list maintenance procedures under Texas law, and will ensure eligible voters whose registrations were cancelled are reinstated, and that only U.S. citizens remain on the voter rolls," Miles said in an emailed statement. 
The Texas Secretary of State's Office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 
According to the audio recording of the meeting with election officials, Adkins told election officials that once they receive the new information and review it, the state believes reinstating voters who had provided proof is "a very important thing to do to make sure that these individuals are not further impacted now that we have more information at our disposal." 
The state used a federal tool to flag potential noncitizens on the voter rolls 
Texas officials last fall sent counties information on the 2,724 potential noncitizens generated by checking the state's voter roll of more than 18 million registered voters through SAVE, something the Trump administration has vigorously urged all states to do since it overhauled SAVE shortly after Trump came back into office last January. 
Counties mailed notices asking those registrants to provide documented proof of citizenship. 
Some voters responded to the letters from voter registrars and confirmed they were U.S. citizens, although a total number of how many is not yet available. 
The registrations of voters who did not respond to notices within 30 days were canceled. 
It isn't clear how many were confirmed to be noncitizens. 
In some counties, officials said some people on the list had submitted an application to their local county voter registrar that accurately noted they were not U.S. citizens but were nonetheless added to the voter roll in error by county officials, and those have since been removed. 
Under state law, if a voters' registration is cancelled for failing to respond to a request for proof of citizenship, their registration can be immediately reinstated by providing proof of U.S. citizenship to an elections office or at a polling location. 
The new information by DPS would immediately trigger the reinstatement without requiring further action from the voter. 
Through their investigations, election officials also found that hundreds of the flagged voters had registered through DPS. 
The agency requires proof of citizenship or proof of lawful presence, such as a work visa or green card, to obtain a state driver's license or state ID, and keeps copies of such documentation on file. 
The Texas Secretary of State's Office in December told Votebeat and the Tribune that it did not initially check the registrants flagged as potential noncitizens against DPS' records before sending the list to county election officials to investigate. 
That decision prompted a March lawsuit from voting rights groups and some Texas voters who said the state should have done so. 
The lawsuit is still pending in federal court. 
Votebeat reported that the secretary of state's office later asked DPS to check the list of 2,724 potential noncitizens flagged by the SAVE program against its records to verify whether any of them had already provided proof of citizenship. 
Email communications between secretary of state and DPS officials obtained by Votebeat via a public records request show the secretary of state's office made the request on May 4, with DPS completing its review June 16. 
Election officials in multiple states have raised questions about SAVE's accuracy 
Experts and election officials have raised concerns about the SAVE program's accuracy, and officials in multiple states have said it incorrectly flagged at least some citizens. 
In April, former Secretary of State Jane Nelson sent a letter to U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services raising concerns about the accuracy of the SAVE program after county election officials found citizens had been wrongly flagged as noncitizens. 
Adkins in May also told county officials that her office had found "discrepancies" with the data, though she stressed that it was generally fairly accurate. 
States' use of the revamped SAVE tool is currently in limbo in the wake of multiple court rulings. 
In June, a federal judge blocked the overhaul of the SAVE program, saying it violated privacy and voting rights. 
That ruling prompted the Trump administration to pause certain features in the SAVE system to comply. 
However, last month a different federal judge ordered Homeland Security to restore access to the revamped system for four states  Florida, Ohio, Iowa and Indiana  due to an earlier settlement agreement. 
The rulings also do not prevent Texas or other states that previously used the revamped program from continuing to investigate the status of any potential noncitizens it flagged on the voter roll. 
The Trump administration has focused intently on searching for noncitizen voters. 
The Department of Justice asked all 50 states to turn over their voter rolls, seeking discrepancies and ineligible voters, and sued 30 states that declined to do so. 
Federal judges have so far ruled against the department in 18 of those cases. 
Texas, though, is among the states that voluntarily agreed to share its unredacted list of more than 18 million registered voters, including personal information such as dates of birth, driver license numbers and partial Social Security numbers. 
In April, at least three Texas counties received subpoenas from DOJ seeking individuals' voter registration information and voting history. 
Natalia Contreras covers election administration and voting access for Votebeat in partnership with the Texas Tribune. 
Natalia is based in Corpus Christi. 
Contact her at ncontreras@votebeat.org. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 2.1%Natalia Contreras: 2.4%Houston Public Media: 1.4%Confirmation Bias2.1%This article: 0.0%Natalia Contreras: 0.0%Houston Public Media: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.5%Natalia Contreras: 1.8%Houston Public Media: 2.3%Availability Heuristic5.5%This article: 0.0%Natalia Contreras: 0.5%Houston Public Media: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 1.8%Natalia Contreras: 0.2%Houston Public Media: 0.4%Hindsight Bias1.8%This article: 1.4%Natalia Contreras: 0.6%Houston Public Media: 1.0%Overconfidence Bias1.4%This article: 0.0%Natalia Contreras: 2.2%Houston Public Media: 3.7%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 5.0%Natalia Contreras: 1.1%Houston Public Media: 0.5%Loss Aversion5.0%This article: 0.0%Natalia Contreras: 0.8%Houston Public Media: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalia Contreras: 0.0%Houston Public Media: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.3%Natalia Contreras: 0.7%Houston Public Media: 2.0%Optimism Bias2.3%This article: 0.0%Natalia Contreras: 0.2%Houston Public Media: 0.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Natalia Contreras: 2.5%Houston Public Media: 4.0%Negativity Bias4.7%This article: 3.1%Natalia Contreras: 0.3%Houston Public Media: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias3.1%This article: 0.9%Natalia Contreras: 0.4%Houston Public Media: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.9%This article: 0.0%Natalia Contreras: 0.0%Houston Public Media: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalia Contreras: 0.0%Houston Public Media: 1.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalia Contreras: 0.0%Houston Public Media: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalia Contreras: 0.4%Houston Public Media: 1.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalia Contreras: 0.4%Houston Public Media: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalia Contreras: 0.0%Houston Public Media: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalia Contreras: 0.9%Houston Public Media: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalia Contreras: 0.4%Houston Public Media: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalia Contreras: 0.0%Houston Public Media: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalia Contreras: 0.0%Houston Public Media: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalia Contreras: 0.0%Houston Public Media: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 2.1%Natalia Contreras: 1.4%Houston Public Media: 2.6%Appeal to Authority2.1%This article: 0.0%Natalia Contreras: 0.0%Houston Public Media: 0.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalia Contreras: 0.1%Houston Public Media: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalia Contreras: 0.0%Houston Public Media: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 1.4%Natalia Contreras: 1.2%Houston Public Media: 1.7%Hasty Generalization1.4%This article: 0.0%Natalia Contreras: 0.0%Houston Public Media: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalia Contreras: 0.0%Houston Public Media: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalia Contreras: 0.7%Houston Public Media: 3.4%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalia Contreras: 0.7%Houston Public Media: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 1.8%Natalia Contreras: 1.6%Houston Public Media: 1.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)1.8%This article: 0.0%Natalia Contreras: 0.0%Houston Public Media: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalia Contreras: 0.7%Houston Public Media: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalia Contreras: 0.0%Houston Public Media: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalia Contreras: 0.0%Houston Public Media: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.2%Natalia Contreras: 1.1%Houston Public Media: 1.1%Anecdotal2.2%This article: 0.0%Natalia Contreras: 0.0%Houston Public Media: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalia Contreras: 0.6%Houston Public Media: 1.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalia Contreras: 0.0%Houston Public Media: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalia Contreras: 0.0%Houston Public Media: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalia Contreras: 0.0%Houston Public Media: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalia Contreras: 0.0%Houston Public Media: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalia Contreras: 0.0%Houston Public Media: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalia Contreras: 0.6%Houston Public Media: 0.9%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalia Contreras: 1.3%Houston Public Media: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 1.2%Natalia Contreras: 0.5%Houston Public Media: 1.1%Biased Writer Voice1.2%This article: 0.0%Natalia Contreras: 0.4%Houston Public Media: 1.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 1.6%Natalia Contreras: 0.9%Houston Public Media: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias1.6%This article: 0.0%Natalia Contreras: 0.0%Houston Public Media: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalia Contreras: 0.0%Houston Public Media: 0.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

1198 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers34%attributed speech793writer words
Selected voice

Christina Adkins

53%flagged-word coverage
213 attributed words53% of attributed speech33% writer coverage
0%2.5%5.0%Politically Left Leaning B-2.4 ptsWriter: 2.4%Christina Adkins: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-1.8 ptsWriter: 1.8%Christina Adkins: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.