El Paso voters depend on local journalism to help them understand the candidates, issues and forces shaping this year’s elections. That makes the quality, context and accuracy of election reporting particularly important.
As the 2026 election campaign season draws to a close, selected examples of El Paso Matters’ election coverage will be examined, not simply to determine whether its conclusions are agreeable, but to assess whether those conclusions are supported by the underlying evidence, whether important context is provided, and whether readers are given enough information to independently evaluate the claims being made.
This is not a predetermined indictment of El Paso Matters, nor an attempt to catalog every story the organization publishes. Where its reporting is well-supported and informative, that should be recognized. Where questions arise about sourcing, methodology, context, proportionality or presentation, those questions deserve scrutiny as well.
The following analysis examines the first example.
What Does the Poll Actually Tell Us About El Paso Republicans?
Today’s El Paso Matters article by Bob Moore uses an ACLU of Texas poll on immigration enforcement to suggest that El Paso Republicans face “steep challenges” in the November election. [see poll below]
There is a reasonable political argument behind his conclusion. The poll found that 65% of El Paso respondents believe ICE tactics have gone too far, while 65% say preventing and solving violent crime should be the top priority for local and state police. Those findings could certainly present challenges for Republican candidates who make aggressive immigration enforcement a central campaign issue.
But that is not quite what the poll revealed.
The survey questioned 1,031 adults in El Paso County and four Rio Grande Valley counties about immigration enforcement. It was conducted by Change Research for the ACLU of Texas and weighted using demographic and 2024 presidential-vote data. It was not a poll of Republican versus Democratic candidates, candidate preferences, likely voters or the electoral prospects of either political party.
That distinction matters. Moore’s statement that the results “suggest that El Paso Republicans face steep challenges” is an interpretation of the poll and not the poll’s finding.
The poll contains evidence that makes the political picture more complicated. It explicitly describes highly partisan views of Donald Trump and his immigration policies, while also including Trump voters who expressed concerns about aggressive immigration enforcement. Opposition to a particular immigration-enforcement policy does not necessarily establish how a respondent will vote for a particular Republican candidate.
There is also the second issue of transparency. The poll is not linked or properly identified in Moore’s article in a way that allows readers to readily examine the underlying research. That is significant because the survey was commissioned by the ACLU of Texas, an advocacy organization with an explicit position on immigration policy. The poll itself identifies the ACLU as its sponsor and Change Research as the pollster.
Readers should not have to rely solely on the news organization’s characterization of a politically significant poll. They should be able to examine the questions, methodology, sample and results for themselves and determine whether the conclusions being drawn from the research are justified.
None of this means the poll is invalid, nor does it establish that Moore’s broader conclusion about Republican prospects is necessarily wrong. The historical record cited in the article may independently support the observation that Republicans have faced extraordinary difficulty winning countywide elections in El Paso.
Dear reader, I hope you appreciate this article. Before reading more, I ask that you consider my work and make a small donation to help keep this publication open for everyone. El Paso lacks news diversity. I offer 20+ years of historical knowledge about El Paso’s politics and public policy. Media diversity matters. Make a small donation today to help keep my work going for another 20+ years. Thank you.
The problem, however, is one of context that a voter can use to make the important decision about voting on November 3rd, and for which candidate. Moore’s article moves from a poll measuring attitudes about immigration enforcement to a conclusion about the electoral prospects of an entire political party without clearly distinguishing the poll’s findings from Moore’s personal inference.
That distinction is particularly important in election coverage. Voters should be able to tell the difference between what the underlying evidence demonstrates and what Moore believes that evidence means.
Moreover, the headline also raises a separate question about the potential for election coverage to discourage or demobilize voters. Describing El Paso Republicans as facing “steep challenges” may be a reasonable characterization of the party’s long-term electoral record, but the poll presented in the story does not itself measure Republican voter support, candidate preference or willingness to participate in the election. Presented without that distinction, the headline can leave readers with the impression that the political outcome is already largely determined.
This does not establish an intent to suppress voting, nor does it make the story voter suppression in the legal sense. But research has found that the way news organizations frame elections can influence how people perceive their ability or willingness to participate. In election journalism, therefore, the question is not only whether a statement is technically defensible, but whether the framing accurately communicates the evidence without unnecessarily suggesting that voters’ choices are inconsequential.
A better, and journalistic headline could have reported what the poll found while leaving the electoral implications open to the readers. “Poll Finds El Paso Voters Critical of Immigration Enforcement” would accurately describe the survey, while “Immigration Enforcement Could Pose a Challenge for El Paso Republicans, Poll Suggests” would preserve the political analysis without presenting the party’s electoral prospects as an established fact.
As the 2026 campaign develops, that distinction will be an important consideration in evaluating El Paso Matters’ election coverage.