The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has granted a stay on a constitutional challenge to a controversial Texas law criminalizing “vote harvesting” until after the Nov. 5 presidential election.
The court blocked a lower court injunction and confirmed that Senate Bill 1 (SB-1)’s vote-harvesting provisions remain in effect in the presidential election. The court reasoned that this suspension of proceedings was necessary to avoid confusing voters, unduly burdening election officials, and creating confusion and distrust in the electoral process. To support that reasoning, the court also cited the fact that the issuance of the injunction occurred after the county had already begun mailing absentee ballots and the differences in election laws between counties caused by the injunction. relied on. The law will remain in effect after the stay, but it could still be challenged after the election.
In August, U.S. District Judge Xavier Rodriguez ruled that the ban on “vote harvesting” violated voters’ First Amendment rights to free speech and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process. was lowered. Therefore, the court enjoined Texas from enforcing the ban.
The law in question, Senate Bill 1 (SB-1), defines “vote harvesting,” where an individual provides and collects a mail-in ballot without clear ownership of the ballot; It is a crime to solicit. Please request them. The law requires identification as a criterion for voting, and also requires that an identification number, such as a driver’s license number, match the number listed on the voter registry.
In September 2021, the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas (ACLU) challenged this provision on three grounds. First, the group argues that by criminalizing the assistance of certain third parties to vote by mail and requiring pre-registration of parties, this provision would allow Americans with disabilities to receive “voter’s choice” assistance. He claimed that his rights were being violated. Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act. Second, the group also notes that denying an application or ballot for failure to provide an ID number (information that is not critical to determining voter eligibility) is prohibited under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was argued that this violates Article 101. Finally, the group notes that the provision is ambiguous, covering any speech “in the physical presence of the ballot,” without limiting the restriction to cases of voter fraud or coercion, and conduct during voting. They objected that it was too broad. The group argued that this violates the First and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.