The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted a stay barring constitutional challenges against a controversial Texas law criminalizing “vote-harvesting” until after the November 5 presidential election.
The court suspended an injunction from the lower court, allowing the ballot harvesting provision in Senate Bill 1 (SB-1) to remain in effect for the presidential election. The court reasoned that this stay of proceedings is necessary to avoid confusing voters, unduly burdening election administrators or sowing chaos or distrust in the electoral process. To support its reasoning, the court also relied on the fact that the issuance of the injunction took place after counties had already started to mail absentee ballots and the difference in election law across counties caused by the injunction. After the stay, the law will remain in effect but may continue to be challenged after the election.
In August, US District Judge Xavier Rodriguez found that the prohibition on “vote-harvesting” violated the voters’ First Amendment right to free speech and Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. Accordingly, the court enjoined Texas from implementing the prohibition.
The law in question, Senate Bill 1 (SB-1) criminalizes “vote-harvesting,” where an individual provides and collects mail-in ballots without a clear chain of ownership for the ballots, and the solicitation of ballots to individuals who did not request them. Within its provisions, the law also requires ID as a criterion for voting, and that identification numbers, such as drivers license numbers, match those provided in voter registries.
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 specific third parties from aiding in mail-in voting and requiring pre-registration of parties, the provision infringed disabled Americans the right to assistance “by a person of the voter’s choice,” pursuant to section 208 of the Voting Rights Act. Second, the group also argued that rejecting applications and ballots for failure to provide ID numbers–information immaterial in determining voters’ qualifications–violated section 101 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Last, the group also challenged that the provision is vague and overbroad for targeting any speeches “in the physical presence of the ballot” without limiting the restriction to instances of voter fraud or coercion, and during active voting. The group argued that this violated the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution.
