The federal court says Texas AG Ken Paxton can continue investigating vote harvesting

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton can continue investigating allegations of so-called vote harvesting during the November election, a U.S. appeals court said Tuesday. Critics fear the decision could have a chilling effect on voter outreach and turnout in the state.

The three-judge U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday granted a temporary stay of certain portions of SB 1, or the 2021 Texas Election Law, including a provision of the law that allows Paxton’s office to continue its investigation into alleged illegal actions. at least until the elections on November 5th.

The stay will remain in effect until a full appeal of the law is either granted or rejected, according to the appeal decision.

Her decision temporarily overturns U.S. District Judge Xavier Rodriguez’s ruling late last month. Rodriguez ordered an immediate halt to SB 1’s voting provision, joining plaintiffs who argued that the provision was too vague and constituted a restriction on free speech.

He also acknowledged “widespread confusion” about what constitutes the illegal practice of vote harvesting in Texas.

TED CRUZ warns that the Texas Senate race is “incredibly close.”

Paxton had immediately said he would appeal that decision, arguing that the vote harvesting component of SB 1 was critical to protecting election integrity in Texas and preventing voter fraud.

“Blocking our ability to investigate certain election crimes would have been a serious disruption to the electoral landscape with only a month left until Election Day,” Paxton said at the time.

Still, the vaguely defined scope of vote-gathering has led some advocacy groups and voter initiatives in Texas to halt their canvassing, volunteer work and other in-person election events altogether for fear of being caught up in a raid or of providing food or transportation to volunteers could potentially be considered “compensation,” which is illegal under law.

Writing for the three-judge appeals court on Tuesday, Judge James Ho appeared to support Paxton’s claim, noting that the provision in question had been on the books for “over three years” before the federal judge’s decision last month.

Still, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit say their confusion remains over the vague definition of vote harvesting, which in turn has had a chilling effect on volunteerism in the state.

This is due in part to the high penalties for those convicted of the crime, which is classified as a third-degree felony under SB 1.

BIDEN’S ON THE WAY: THE PRESIDENT AND THE FIRST LADY’S CAMPAIGN ON THE BIGGEST BATTLEFIELD

Individuals who provide, offer or receive “compensation or other benefit” for so-called vote collection services can be convicted of a third-degree felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison and up to $10,000, according to SB 1 fines.

According to the text of the law, “vote harvesting services” include any “personal interaction with one or more voters in the physical presence of an official ballot or an absentee ballot for the purpose of casting votes for a particular candidate or measure.” .

Paxton’s office previously said: “secure elections are the cornerstone of our republic.”

In August, his office’s Election Integrity Unit conducted searches in three South Texas counties as part of the ongoing investigation, which were reportedly carried out only after officials had collected enough evidence to obtain proper search warrants.

But the plaintiffs allege that his office used the provision to conduct illegal “voter raids” against interest groups and organizers in Texas.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Juan Proaño, the CEO of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, lamented the ruling and told Fox News in an interview on Tuesday that his group would appeal the case all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.

“It’s really scary for our community,” Proaño told SB 1’s Fox News, pointing out that the provisions have already had a “significant” chilling effect on voters and stakeholders in Texas – which she said was both unwarranted and used as a potential means of voter suppression.

“There is no data at all that would actually show that non-citizens are participating in the electoral process,” he said, adding that LULAC “stands for election integrity.”

“And so we will continue to take this case all the way to the Supreme Court if we have to.”