Federal court upholds Texas' ban on paid ballot harvesting

A federal appeals court will allow Texas to enforce restrictions on paid ballot harvesting, reversing a lower court ruling that deemed the measure unconstitutional.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday said the district court had "erred in facially striking down" part of the state's 2021 election law, Senate Bill 1.

The law makes it a crime if a person knowingly provides "vote harvesting services" in exchange for money or another benefit if the practice is intended to deliver votes for a specific candidate or measure. SB1 defines the practice as being conducted in person and in the physical presence of an official ballot or mail ballot.

The law targets paid political operatives who go door to door to help voters request mail ballots and then collect those ballots. Texas argues that those interactions can lead to pressuring voters to cast their ballot for a specific candidate.

Just before the 2024 election, a district court called the section of SB1 on vote harvesting unconstitutional. The decision was then challenged in federal appeals court, which found the law does not have unconstitutionally vague provisions.

While supporters of the bill say it will reduce fraud, those seeking to challenge the provision say helping with mail ballots and going door-to-door are parts of get-out-the-vote campaigns.

What they're saying:

"Texas will not allow our election system to be exploited with paid ballot harvesting schemes that threaten ballot secrecy and invite coercion and fraud," Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said. "This is a huge win for Texas voters and for secure, honest elections. We fought hard to keep common-sense protections in place, and I will continue to do everything in my power to defend the integrity of our elections." 

Judge Edith Jones said the district court was wrong to block the law before it had a chance to take effect and that without any way to know how it would be enforced, it relied on "vague hypotheticals conjured by the district court."

"A federal district court's intrusion on a state's constitutional prerogative cannot be supported by mere speculation," Jones wrote.

The court also shot down the idea that the terms "compensation or other benefit" and "physical presence" were constitutionally vague.

Jones noted that ordinary citizens sitting on a jury should be able to understand the meaning of those terms.

Texas' voting law is narrowly tailored

The court also rejected a First Amendment challenge to the law, citing the state has a compelling interest in preventing voter intimidation and fraud to preserve confidence in elections.

They ruled the law was narrowly tailored because it only applies to paid, in-person conduct directly involving a ballot and not unpaid volunteers or general advocacy.