Federal judge strikes down more rules from Texas’ SB1 election law

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization covering voting access and election administration in the United States Sign up for the free Votebeat Texas newsletter here.

Certain provisions of the 2021 Texas comprehensive election law that limit voter assistance violate federal voting rights law and cannot be enforced, a federal judge in Texas ruled Friday.

The rules struck down by U.S. District Judge Xavier Rodriguez included a ban on compensation for anyone who assists a voter and a requirement that anyone who assists a voter sign an oath, under penalty of perjury, that the voter is entitled to to receive help.

Rodriguez also blocked provisions that require aides to make certain disclosures about their relationship with the voter they are helping, as well as a provision that limits voter assistance in door-to-door voter campaigns.

Rodriguez based his decision on the section of the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 that guarantees voters with disabilities or limited literacy the right to receive assistance from anyone of their choice.

“This decision will have the greatest impact on voters with disabilities, voters with limited English proficiency, voters with literacy challenges and the people who support them,” said Sean Morales-Doyle, voting rights program director at the Brennan Center for Justice.

Although the judge has blocked any prosecution under these provisions, the rules and instructions on the forms requiring poll workers to sign an oath are still technically in effect for the upcoming November 5th presidential election, as it is scheduled to take place Shortly before the choice is to change the forms themselves.

“It is a shame that we are now witnessing another election where people’s rights continue to be violated because of the actions of the Texas Legislature,” Morales-Doyle said. “But this is still a big win for Texas voters.”

Last year, the state argued that the provisions did not violate the Voting Rights Act and that it “allows for state law restrictions on who can serve as an assistant that go beyond the restrictions provided under federal law.”

The sweeping election law called Senate Bill 1 — which changed the way some Texans vote and how election officials administer elections — was championed by Republican lawmakers in Texas in 2021 to prevent the law from moving forward. Democrats in Texas and across the country accused Republicans of basing the new rules on unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud in the November 2020 election.

Shortly after Gov. Gregg Abbott signed the bill, more than 20 state and national organizations filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the new law. The lawsuits have been consolidated in this case. The groups claimed that provisions of the new law violate federal laws, including the Voting Rights Act, the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act and the U.S. Constitution.

In his ruling Friday, Rodriguez laid out some scenarios that would put voters at risk under the law’s voter assistance provisions:

“A man helps his blind wife of 20 years vote in the election without first obtaining assurances from her that she is ‘eligible for assistance.'” Even if he cast her ballot exactly like hers If he fills out instructions, he could face up to two years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000,” he noted.

“During a meeting with a client about his tax return, an employee of a community organization that provides free income tax services agrees to help translate the man’s mail-in ballot,” Rodriguez wrote. “The customer fills out their ballot paper themselves, with the help of the employee’s precise translation. Even if the ballot reflects the client’s wishes, the employee could face up to two years in prison, she and her employer may be fined up to $10,000, and the client’s ballot may not be counted.”

The two-month trial began in September 2023. Attorneys later presented closing arguments in February 2024.

The plaintiffs challenged dozens of provisions, including a ban on 24-hour and drive-thru voting; a ban that prohibits election officials from distributing absentee ballot applications to voters who have not requested them and provisions that expand poll watcher access, among other things. Rodriguez still has to decide on the rest. The second phase of the trial, which will address whether the law was intended to discriminate against voters of color, is still moving through the courts and will not begin until Rodriguez rules on all remaining challenges to the law’s provisions in its current phase .

The plaintiffs said these provisions of the law make it harder for voters of color, voters with disabilities and voters who don’t speak English to cast their ballots.

In addition, the plaintiffs said the law makes it more difficult for some voting rights organizations and forces them to divert resources from other programs to expand voter education efforts.

The state, for its part, claimed that Senate Bill 1 was passed to address “irregularities during the 2020 elections caused by the COVID-19 pandemic,” overturning the decision by Harris County, the state’s most populous of the state, to offer drive-thru voting, and several issues with Harris County’s election.

The list of plaintiffs includes several organizations that advocate for Latino, Black and Asian American voters, including the League of United Latin American Citizens, or LULAC, and OCA–Asian Pacific American Advocates, as well as groups that advocate for voters with disabilities.

To support their claims, the parties relied on 52 witnesses during the trial, including county election officials from across the state, voters, lawmakers, representatives of the Texas Secretary of State, and political science and voting rights experts.

The judge had previously struck down other key provisions.

For example, the legislation created new requirements for Texans who qualify to vote by mail. They must now provide either a driver’s license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number on their absentee ballot application and the envelope used to return their completed ballot, whichever number matches the number the state has in its voter registration file. Last year, Judge Rodriguez declared that the provision was unlawful, although it would remain in effect pending an appeal in the courts.

Earlier this month, Rodriguez blocked a provision that effectively criminalized door-to-door canvassing for ballot initiatives.

Natalia Contreras handles election administration and voting access for Votebeat in collaboration with the Texas Tribune. Contact Natalia at [email protected]