Federal appeals court confirms Texas ballot harvesting ban

Texas Law on Paid Ballot Collection Upheld

A federal appeals court affirmed a Texas statute banning paid ballot collection on Thursday. This decision overruled a previous ruling which deemed the law unconstitutional, allowing Texas to enforce the new restrictions.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 26-page opinion stating that the district court incorrectly invalidated elements of Texas’ 2021 election law, Senate Bill 1. The law makes it illegal to receive compensation for directly engaging with voters as they complete mail-in ballots, aiming to sway their voting choices.

Under this law, anyone providing “vote collection services” for payment or other incentives is committing an offense. These services include interacting with voters in the presence of an official ballot to facilitate votes directed toward specific candidates or policies.

This regulation primarily affects paid political workers who approach voters at their homes to assist with mail-in ballot requests, completion, and collection, while sometimes applying pressure or advice on their voting decisions.

Supporters of the law argue that paid ballot collection opens the door to coercion and fraud, notably in mail-in voting situations where election officials aren’t supervising. Meanwhile, opponents view organized voting assistance as a valid method to enhance voter turnout, believing these restrictions may disproportionately harm elderly and minority voters who often require help with ballot submission.

Justice Edith H. Jones stated that the lower courts unfairly invalidated the law prematurely, relying on speculative conclusions. The district court had ruled the law unconstitutional, vague, and in violation of the First Amendment, thus issuing an injunction against enforcement by state officials.

The Fifth Circuit disagreed with this assessment.

On the matter of ambiguity, the court mentioned that terms like “compensation or other benefit” and “physical presence” are widely understood and thus clear enough for juries. They also stressed that the law specifies “knowing” actions, which limits its breadth.

For instance, the law is designed to prevent paid party representatives from using abusive tactics with voters completing their mail-in ballots.

The court dismissed First Amendment objections, invoking a balancing test used frequently in election law cases. They noted Texas’ significant interest in curbing voter intimidation and fraud while preserving public confidence in elections.

The ruling also circled back to the Supreme Court’s decision in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, which previously upheld similar restrictions in Arizona, recognizing that mail-in voting comes with unique risks of fraud.

The Fifth Circuit concluded that Texas’ law is narrowly focused, affecting only paid, in-person activities directly linked to ballots, and does not apply to unpaid contributions or general political campaigning.

Additionally, procedural matters were addressed, determining that the Texas Attorney General and Secretary of State shouldn’t be defendants under sovereign immunity principles. However, local district attorneys showing intent to enforce the law can remain involved in the case.

This ruling represents a notable achievement for Texas officials supporting recent election reforms and signals a larger trend of federal courts permitting states broad authority to manage their election processes.