Texas: Federal appeals court restores restrictions on absentee voting and voter assistance

A panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday overturned a lower court's order and reinstated nine provisions of Texas's 2021 election law. The ruling was based primarily on the fact that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the provisions under two federal disability laws.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton hailed the decision as "a major win upholding election integrity and preventing voter fraud." In a post on X, he stated that his office "will continue to defend Texas’s critical laws safeguarding our elections."

According to a report by The Epoch Times, the reinstated measures include the requirement to include a driver's license number or the last four digits of a Social Security number—which must match state records—on both applications and mail-in ballots. Rules requiring those who assist a voter to take an oath of non-coercion, declare their relationship to the voter, and report any compensation received from candidates or political committees are also being reinstated.

What SB 1 established

The law, known as the Election Protection and Integrity Act or SB 1, was passed following the 2020 election with the aim of strengthening the security of the process, particularly regarding mail-in voting and the practice of collecting completed absentee ballots for delivery to polling places.

Several groups argued that these requirements discriminated against voters with disabilities and violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. A district judge had issued a permanent injunction blocking the nine provisions.

The court's ruling

The Fifth Circuit panel, in the case La Union del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott, unanimously overturned that order. Judge Andrew Oldham wrote that "it has long been established that mail-in ballots are prone to fraud" and added: "That is why voting by mail jeopardizes election integrity and democracy itself."

Oldham criticized the fact that a federal judge had overruled the will of the state legislature with "sweeping facial injunctions" and compared the appeals process to "an exhausting game of Whac-A-Mole to correct the district court's mishandling of the case." "Today we do it again," he concluded.

None of the claims, Oldham wrote, justifies "interference with the State Legislature’s efforts to prevent voter fraud and to protect election integrity."