Fighting for election integrity and transparency

Don Huffines Teams up with DAT to Fight Voter Fraud

Posted by |

DALLAS, TX — Today Don Huffines announced he’s partnering with election integrity watchdog Direct Action Texas (DAT) to stop voter fraud in the DFW area.

Voter fraud is taking place, but it has no place in Texas.

“I take seriously finding and prosecuting voter fraud from the lowest level operators harvesting ballots to elected officials empowering the illegal behavior.”

Huffines has a history of combating voter fraud in Texas. As a member of the Texas Senate, he called for rigorous checking of voter rolls and served on the Senate Select Committee on Election Security.

Since 2015, DAT has developed a track record of discovering, investigating, and handing over actionable cases of voter fraud to law enforcement officials.

If you suspect voter fraud call toll-free at 1-877-267-8683 or email

Don Huffines is offering a $5000 reward to anyone who calls in to the tip line or sends an email with information leading to a criminal conviction. 

Your information will be kept in confidence.

“Elections have to be run fairly and free of fraud or our system of governance is doomed.”

Curbside Confusion

Posted by |

Most people are unfamiliar with curbside voting. Before 2020, it was very rare. Most disabled voters took advantage of voting by mail. In this tumultuous election, some are attempting to ignore it’s intent and pervert it into illegal drive-thru voting. Direct Action Texas would like to help clear up the confusion.


The voter must be “physically unable to enter the polling place without personal assistance or likelihood of injuring the voter’s health.” (Election Code Sec. 94.009a)

Best Practice:

The Office of the Attorney General has made it clear that a fear of COVID 19 does not qualify a voter to vote curbside. Curbside voting should be extremely rare because voting by mail is available to those with a disability. Curbside is more for those with a recent injury or disability. However, the election officer is not allowed to ask about the nature of the voter’s disability. Legislation is required to fix this loophole.

Many counties have encouraged those testing positive for COVID 19 after the deadline to vote by mail should use this method.


“An election officer shall deliver a ballot to the voter at the polling place entrance or curb.” (Election Code Sec. 94.009a)

Best Practice:

Two election officers should deliver the ballot to the voter. Those officers should be of different political parties in a general election. Numerous things can happen at the vehicle and between the vehicle and the polling place. For transparency and everyone’s safety an election official should NOT process a curbside voter alone.

This section makes it clear that this type of voting should only be available at a polling place. It does NOT allow for drive-thru voting locations. 


“The regular voting procedures may be modified by the election officer to the extent necessary to conduct voting under this section.” (Election Code Sec. 94.009b)

Best Practice:

In counties that use a Direct-Recording Electronic (DRE) machine, that DRE can and should be used to for curbside voting.


“After the voter is accepted for voting, the voter shall mark the ballot and give it to the election officer who shall deposit it in the ballot box.” (Election Code Sec. 94.009c)

Best Practice:

The election officers should have an envelope in which to place the voted ballot for secrecy while carrying it back into the polling location. The fact that the election official is carrying a voted ballot, reinforces the need for that official to not be alone.


“On the voter’s request, a person accompanying the voter shall be permitted to select the voter’s ballot and deposit the ballot in the ballot box.” (Election Code Sec. 94.009d)

Best Practice:

If the voter asks for assistance, the assistant must provide the required information as if he/she is assisting the voter inside the polling place.


The voter in the vehicle should have the same privacy as a voter in a voting booth. (Secretary of State Handbook for Election Judges and Clerks)

Best Practice:

Any people inside the vehicle, other than the voter, should be asked to exit the vehicle while the voter is voting. If they stay inside the vehicle, they should be treated as assistants. This would exclude minor children.


Poll Watchers and inspectors must be allowed to accompany the election officer. (Election Code Secs. 33.056a, 34.002a)

Best Practice:

Poll Watchers and Inspectors should accompany the election officials to the vehicle, unless doing so would leave the polling location vulnerable to fraud.

ALERT: Critical GOP Expulsions Reported

Posted by |

As the first week of early voting came to a close, reports of the systematic firing of key Republican election workers began to mount.

Dallas County was the site of the first reports of GOP election workers being fired for not wearing facemasks.

Guidance from the Secretary of State’s office states that, while mask usage is encouraged, it is not mandatory.

Expelling election workers for not donning a mask so far appears to disenfranchise and disproportionately harm the Republican Party.

Additional complaints from workers being expelled from overseeing this contentious election have emanated from Comal and Williamson county.

If you have been fired from your position as an election judge or poll watcher, send us an email at

Tight Margins Highlight Danger of Voter Fraud Ignored

Posted by |

One fraudulent vote is one too many.

The left for years has slavishly peddled the talking point that voter fraud either doesn’t exist or is so small a problem it should be ignored.

Conservatives are routinely derided for calling attention to the issue of election integrity and voter fraud. This derision is an unjust, cynical chastizement in service of the narrative.

This week, the Texas Attorney General’s office announced the arrest of a Carrolton man, Zul Mirza Mohamed, running for mayor for mail-in vote fraud.

Caught red-handed, Mohamed was charged with 25 counts of unlawful possession of a ballot and 84 counts of fraudulent use of a mail ballot application.

With several elections in 2020 anticipated to be close, even on the low side, 84 ballots fraudulently requested could swing an election.

In 2018, two seats in the Texas House could have been flipped with this many ballots, HD 132 gained by Democrats by a margin of 87 votes, and HD 138 which Republicans held by 47 votes.

Keep in mind this was the alleged ham-handed effort of just one man. If you put a harvesting team in the field, which exists in the DFW area and other parts of the state and it’s easy to envision more in reach seats falling.

For instance, House District 108 held by Republicans in 2018 by 220 or House District 66 was held by Republicans in 2018 by 391 votes could fall with a group of three harvesters.

Mail-in voter fraud, a proven tactic is being prosecuted at a higher clip in 2020 thanks to the efforts of the lawmakers in 2017 and the passage of SB 5.

Unfortunately, Governor Abbott did not prioritize election integrity during 2019, opening Texas’ election to further and avoidable abuse.

Staty tuned.

Real Stories of Real Fraud

Posted by |

Despite the constant claims by the mainstream media, mail-in ballot fraud does exist and becomes more and more prevalent with each election cycle.

The following are real stories told by real voters during interviews with Direct Action Texas in 2015. We have been told countless versions of these same stories in the years since.

The names of the voters have been changed for their protection.

My ballot just arrives.

David was questioned about his experience voting by mail. When asked about filling out his application he seemed puzzled. David said that he never filled out an application. His ballot simply arrived in the mail for each election. (Texas Election Code requires that a new application must be sent by the voter at least once a year.)

He went on to say that each election he receives his ballot and waits for the nice young lady to come by and help him fill it out. He tells her his candidate choices and she bubbles it all in for him. He does not check her work to make sure she did as he instructed and many of his choices are actually her suggestions.

Someone has clearly been sending in an application in his name each year for years and then sending a friendly harvester to assist. This is an illegal form of assistance because she did not provide her name and information, originally arrived unsolicited, and promoted one candidate over another.

I want to vote for the Democrats.

Julia was asked about her experience with the young woman who comes to help with her ballot. She said that she gets help with her mail-in ballot every election. It isn’t always the same person, but it is typically a young woman who appears sweet, friendly, and trustworthy. 

In the most recent May election, Julia told the young woman she wanted to vote for all the Democrats. The woman nodded her head and filled out the ballot. Julia hadn’t realized it was a local, non-partisan election. The young woman did not alert Julia that the candidates were not Democrats vs. Republicans. 

There’s no telling who Julia actually voted for in that election. Julia certainly doesn’t know. Most likely her ballot was cast for the slate paying the young woman.

We vote in person.

A voter named Rodrigo told us a story about his stolen vote and stolen voice.

One day a young woman came to Rodrigo’s door and asked if he would like to vote by mail. Rodrigo responded that he and his wife always vote in person because the polling place is right across the street. He then pointed to a building a short distance from his door. 

The young woman continued to attempt to convince Rodrigo that he and his wife should vote by mail instead. Rodrigo kept insisting that he would prefer to vote in person. The back and forth went on for several minutes.

Finally, the young woman stopped persisting and asked if Rodrigo and his wife would at least sign her paper to prove to her boss she had been to the door.  She claimed that if they would sign, she would be finished for the day and could go home. She seemed like such a nice person, so Rodrigo and his wife signed her paper. Most of the paper was obscured by other papers and all the couple really saw were two signature blanks on yellow paper. They signed, said goodbye to the young woman and went about their day.

On Election Day Rodrigo and his wife went to vote in person, just as they always had. Only this time they were told they couldn’t vote. They had already voted by mail.

Someone had applied for mail-in ballots in their names, stolen their ballots from their mailbox, and tricked them into signing their own carrier envelopes containing ballots later marked with choices that were not their own.

That’s not how I write my name.

Amelia and Martha are sisters who live together. Both women were asked to look at the signatures on their applications for ballot by mail and the envelopes that carried their voted ballots. Amelia had suffered a stroke and her unsteady hand was evident in her carrier envelope, but not in her application. Martha recognized this fact and verified that the signature on the carrier envelope was most likely that of her sister.

Martha looked at her own carrier envelope and recognized her signature. However, she was shocked by the signature on the application. Her first remark was “that is not how I make my Ms.” The capital “M” of the two signatures were remarkably different. Martha couldn’t imagine why someone would forge her signature. Then again, she doesn’t remember applying for a ballot by mail.

All of these stories represent people whose votes and voices were stolen by mail-in ballot harvesters. These are real stories of voter suppression. Kind, trusting people victimized by people willing to break the law to push their agenda. Voting in person is the safest, most secure way to vote. If you qualify and must vote from home, do so, but be cautious.

Pin It on Pinterest