Fifth Circuit Remains Constitutional Challenge to Texas Ballot Harvesting Ban – JURIST

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted a stay on constitutional challenges to a controversial Texas law criminalizing vote harvesting until after the Nov. 5 presidential election.

The court stayed a lower court preliminary injunction, allowing the ballot collection provision in Senate Bill 1 (SB-1) for the presidential election to remain in effect. The court reasoned that this suspension of proceedings was necessary to avoid confusing voters, placing undue burden on election administrators, or sowing chaos or distrust in the electoral process. In support of its argument, the court also relied on the fact that the injunction was issued after counties had already begun sending mail-in ballots and on the differences in voting law between counties caused by the injunction. After the suspension, the law remains in force but can still be challenged after the election.

In August, U.S. District Judge Xavier Rodriguez found that the ban on “vote harvesting” violated voters’ First Amendment right to free speech and voters’ Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. Accordingly, the court prohibited Texas from implementing the ban.

The law in question, Senate Bill 1 (SB-1), criminalizes “vote harvesting” when an individual provides and collects mail-in ballots without a clear chain of ownership of the ballots, as well as soliciting ballots to people who do not have done Request them. As part of its provisions, the law also requires identification as a criterion for voting and requires identification numbers, such as. B. Driver’s license numbers, match those shown on the electoral rolls.

In September 2021, the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas (ACLU) challenged the provision on three grounds. First, the group argued that by criminalizing the assistance of certain third parties in absentee voting and by requiring parties to pre-register, the provision violates the right of disabled Americans to receive assistance “from a person of the voter’s choice” under Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act. Second, the group also argued that rejecting applications and ballots for failing to provide ID numbers – information that is irrelevant to determining voter qualifications – violated Section 101 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Finally, the group also complained that the provision was vague and overbroad since it targeted speech “in the physical presence of the ballot paper,” without limiting it to cases of voter fraud or coercion and during active voting. The group argued that this violated the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.