KTBB News, Weather, Talk

FORT WORTH – The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports Tarrant County’s voting machines are incapable of changing voters’ ballots, according to the manufacturer. “Tarrant County’s voting devices are among the most secure in the nation and do not ‘flip votes,’” said a spokesperson for Hart InterCivic in an emailed statement. “The devices are tested and certified at the state and federal level and were successfully tested locally in Tarrant County prior to the start of Early Voting.” The company is aware of reports of a Tarrant County man who said a voting machine changed his choice for president at the White Settlement Library on Monday, Oct. 21, and it is taking the allegation seriously, the spokesperson said. “Hart voting machines cannot and do not ‘flip’ votes,” the statement read.

After video of Tony Carpenter talking about his experience went viral, Tarrant County Elections Administrator Clint Ludwig said in a statement posted to X that the machine was working correctly. “What we believe to have occurred is the individual did make a selection on the machine and that selection was printed on their ballot,” Ludwig said on Tuesday, Oct. 22. “When they went to cast their ballot, they checked it and realized that was not the vote that they wanted.” But Carpenter isn’t buying it. “He’s full of [expletive],” he said in an interview on Wednesday, Oct. 23. “I’ll tell him that to his face. He needs to call me. No, he needs to come see me.” Ludwig did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Carpenter checked his full ballot twice and his choice for president three times, he said. His vote might have gone to Vice President Kamala Harris had he been as carefree as others he said he saw voting.

AUSTIN (AP) – A costly proposed national certification exam for psychologists has been scrapped for now after Texas’s licensing authority led the fight against it by considering crafting a cheaper alternative to alleviate the mental health provider shortage.

On Tuesday night, the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards, also known as ASPPB, released a statement before their national meeting in Dallas later this month saying the organization has decided to pause the rollout of an additional qualification test to the industry.

The decision, released in 2022, had originally outlined that by Jan. 1, 2026, an extra $450 “skills” test would be added to the already required $800 knowledge exam known as the Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology, or the EPPP test.

This additional skills test was designed to weed out applicants who lacked the skills to work in a clinical setting.

“In response to ongoing feedback from our membership and the broader professional, educational, and training communities, the Board has decided it is time to shift from conflict to resolution,” the ASPPB board said in a statement.

Instead, the ASPPB will explore the feasibility of creating a single-session exam that integrates both knowledge and skill assessment.

“Together, we can navigate this important moment in time and shape a future that supports both the growth of our profession and the protection of those we serve,” the testing agency said in their statement.

John Bielamowicz, the presiding member of the Texas psychologists’ licensing board, applauded the decision but mentioned its hastiness.

“This kind of whiplash isn’t fair to those who are on the cusp of entering the psychology ranks,” he said.

Texas was the first licensing board in the nation to consider an alternative to the national exam due to its cost, leading to other states such as Oklahoma, California, New York, and Florida supporting it.

Currently, Texas licensed psychologists must have a doctoral degree and pass three exams: the $800 knowledge exam by the national testing board, a $210 jurisprudence test, and a $320 oral exam. This is in addition to the $340 a prospective psychologist must pay to do the required 3,500 hours of supervised work.

Any failure requires a candidate to retake an exam and pay the price again. Several mental health providers testified to the Texas board earlier this year that they had spent thousands of dollars trying to pass the current knowledge exam. They said that adding anything else can be costly.

Refusing to adopt this additional test would have made any future psychologists in Texas ineligible to use the existing exam, which the state licensing board has used since 1965.

This summer, the Texas Behavioral Health Executive Council sent a letter to the Federal Trade Commission saying the national board has violated federal antitrust laws by updating the EPPP without approval and input from the states.

The national board denied these claims, stating that the allegations against it ignore the long development history and justifications behind the additional test. The board added that the test change is consistent with every other doctoral-level health service licensure examination in the United States.

Tuesday’s announcement is a significant win for the state of Texas as it struggles to find enough mental health workers.

According to the Texas Department of State Health Services, 246 of the state’s 256 counties have a shortage of mental health professionals, with two counties having partial shortage designations.

Bielamowicz, the presiding member of the state psychologists’ licensing board, said the agency still plans to fold the test into one, meaning a price hike could still be on the horizon.

“I appreciate that ASPPB finally recognized the lack of support for their new test. However, their decision to back away from this deadline changes little — it’s clear they intend to repackage the same ideas and try to force it through at a later date,” he said.

ASPPB still supports the spirit that they say was behind the walked-back decision to add a second test.

“Although the Board of Director’s position remains steadfast — public protection is best achieved by evolving our licensure examination to be comprehensive and competency-based, evaluating not only our foundational knowledge but also practical skills — we find ourselves at a pivotal moment,” according to ASPB’s statement. “Our collective goals are at risk of being overshadowed by a tug of war, where no clear winners emerge.”

Texas lawmakers will still get to decide this upcoming legislative session whether to proceed with a state-developed licensing test for psychologists despite the ASPPB’s decision, Bielamowicz said.

ODESSA (AP) — The Odessa City Council on Tuesday banned transgender people from using restrooms outside of the sex assigned to them at birth, following an emotionally charged exchange between residents and city leaders.

In a 5-2 vote, members of the council expanded a 1989 ordinance that prohibits individuals from entering restrooms of the opposite sex, suggesting they were doing so to protect Odessans and their own families.

Residents pleaded with the council, arguing that such proposals were divisive, stoked fear among the community, and would further stretch city services.

“It is not only unnecessary but also a complete waste of the city’s time, money and resources,” Alexander Ermels, president of PFLAG’s Midland and Odessa chapter and a transgender man, said during public testimony. PFLAG is one of the oldest LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations in the U.S.

“It’s not addressing any real problem in our community,” Ermels said. “Instead, it’s creating one, making people worried about something that just is not an issue.”

Statewide advocates called the move one of the most extreme measures by a local government that further endangers LGBTQ+ participation in the public sphere. It follows a legislative session where lawmakers filed more than 100 bills that sought to regulate the lives of LGBTQ+ Texans. And it could lay the groundwork for a statewide version of the ordinance — similar to one that Texas lawmakers failed to pass in 2017.

And while the Odessa council first debated the matter earlier this summer, its passage comes as Republicans across the U.S. and Texas have ramped up their attacks on transgender people and the politicians that have supported them.

It is also the latest action by a conservative mayor and his allies on the council to push this West Texas town even further to the right. The council has previously approved an anti-abortion ordinance that largely mirrored state law. Mayor Javier Joven, who is up for reelection in November, has said his mission has been to help the city “repent.”

Under the amended ordinance, the city can seek fines of up to $500 and trespassing charges if a transgender person uses a restroom that matches the gender they identify as. The sweeping new terms also allow individuals to sue and seek no less than $10,000 in damages plus the cost of the lawsuit and attorney fees.

The ban applies to “any building, facility or space owned, leased or controlled by, or leased to, the city of Odessa including but not limited to community centers, libraries, airports, park facilities and administrative office buildings.”

It excludes parents of children of the opposite sex who are younger than 12 years old, maintenance and custodial workers, law enforcement officials and medical emergencies.

Council member Chris Hanie insisted he introduced the ordinance to protect the safety of his daughters and grandchildren.

“There’s never been fear. I don’t care who you are, and what you do in the privacy of your home is your business, but I don’t need to see it in public,” Hanie said.

Jonathan Saenz, the president of Texas Values, a conservative and religious think tank who attended the meeting and spoke at length on behalf of the ordinance, reassured local officials that the ordinance would hold up to legal scrutiny.

Joven, responding to public testimony, said the city would not encourage law enforcement officers to surveil the identity of residents using public restrooms.

Statewide advocates questioned the legal integrity of the ordinance and whether local officials can enforce it without overwhelming the courts and the city with lawsuits.

Brian Klosterboer, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Texas chapter, said the ordinance exposes the city to liability and “puts a target on its back.” Unlike the legislature, which is protected by sovereign immunity and cannot be sued, the city is at risk of increased legal challenges.

He also said it was rare for local ordinances to authorize new types of lawsuits.

“Police or even people’s neighbors could question their sex and try to enforce this kind of ordinance, so it leads to a lot of bigotry, hatred and division,” he said. “It ultimately will make our communities less safe because people will be policing each other.”

Johnathan Gooch, communications director for Equality Texas, a statewide advocacy group, said it was a disheartening decision by local officials in Odessa, adding it was one of the harshest ordinances he and the organization had seen outside school boards.

Gooch said it puts transgender people at increased risk of discrimination. Texas law does not protect individuals from being discriminated against based on their sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression.

“It’s a very aggressive way to alienate trans people from public life, and I think it is counter to the spirit of friendship that most Texans embody,” he said. “It enables vigilantes just to target anyone that they don’t think matches the type of gender expression they expect to see in the bathroom, and that is truly insane.”

During 40 minutes of public testimony, residents urged the city to drop the proposal and to shift their focus back to pressing everyday issues.

Gale Norris, a lifelong resident who works for the city’s human resources department and a transgender woman, said the ordinance would inspire neighbors to turn against each other and questioned the ability of police officers to monitor every restroom.

“We already have our hands full solving city staffing issues, improving our infrastructure and tightening our budget so that we can better and more efficiently serve the people,” she said. ”I want to do right by the city as much as this council does, but I don’t believe this is the way to do it.”

McKayla De La Rosa, a second-year student at the University of Texas at Permian Basin, was not planning to testify. However, after she heard the discussion between council members and residents she decided to make her voice heard.

She told the council that she must leave town to pursue a doctoral degree, which the university does not offer. When she finishes, she wants to return to Odessa. This ordinance might scare her away.