Federal Judge Strikes Down Texas Anti-Ballot-Harvesting Provision

We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

Supporters, including Gov. Greg Abbott, say the measure helps prevent voter fraud, while critics contend that it amounts to ‘voter suppression.’

In a last-minute change before Americans head to the polls in November, a federal judge has struck down as unconstitutional a key anti-ballot-harvesting portion of Texas’s sweeping election reform law.

Supporters say the provision bolsters election integrity, while critics say it amounts to “voter suppression.”

In a Sept. 28 ruling, U.S. District Judge Xavier Rodriquez declared that Section 7.04 of Senate Bill 1 (S.B. 1), which made certain types of ballot harvesting a third-degree felony, violates the First and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

Known as the Canvassing Restriction, the provision made it a third-degree felony for individuals to earn “compensation or other benefit” by conducting in-person interactions to assist voters in filling out or submitting mail-in ballots.

This restriction applied specifically to assistance provided with the intent to deliver votes for a particular candidate or measure, effectively criminalizing activities such as door-to-door canvassing or providing voting assistance at public events where mail-in ballots are present, if any form of compensation—such as gas cards, meals, or stipends—was involved.

“The Canvassing Restriction is unconstitutional precisely because, by its plain text, it reaches beyond that narrow situation to protected speech in a substantial number of its applications,” Rodriguez wrote in his decision.

He later added: “It is unconstitutionally vague in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

Further, the judge permanently enjoined the Texas attorney general from initiating or pursuing investigations related to potential violations of the Canvassing Restriction, which was codified in Section 276.015 of the Texas Election Code. The ruling effectively blocks the attorney general’s office from investigating ballot harvesting claims.

The ruling, which only strikes down the Canvassing Restriction provision of S.B. 1 while leaving other portions of the law intact, drew sharp criticism from Texas Attorney Ken Paxton but was praised by one of the plaintiffs in the case, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC).

Paxton’s office vowed to appeal Rodriguez’s ruling while praising S.B. 1 for bolstering safeguards to prevent ballot harvesting and instituting other protections “ensuring free and fair elections.”

“I will immediately move to block this unacceptable ruling so Texas can continue to defend its elections from bad actors seeking to undermine the ballot box,” Paxton said in a statement issued on Sept. 30.

“A ruling—weeks prior to an election—preventing my office from investigating potential election violations is deeply troubling and risks undermining public trust in our political process.”

LULAC celebrated the ruling as a victory for voter rights in Texas, particularly for minority communities who, the group argued, were disproportionately targeted.

“The decision strikes down as unconstitutional a main TX statute that was used to try to intimidate Hispanic organizers & voters,” LULAC wrote in a series of posts on X. “For too long, certain politicians have used false claims to push abusive laws like this in campaigns of intimidation, and today’s decision blows a hole in those campaigns.”

S.B. 1, which Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed in 2021, made significant changes to the state’s election laws. In addition to the Canvassing Restriction, the law introduced new ID requirements for mail-in voting, limited early voting hours, and added restrictions on drive-thru voting.

Supporters of the law, including Abbott, said it was designed to prevent voter fraud. Bill author Republican state Sen. Bryan Hughes said the statute made it “easy to vote and hard to cheat.”

However, the law was met with strong opposition from Democrats and civil rights organizations, who argued that it disproportionately harmed minority, disabled, and elderly voters. Legal challenges were filed, with complainants arguing that the law’s restrictions violated federal law.

Despite the latest ruling, other provisions of S.B. 1 remain in place as Texas—and other states—gear up for the upcoming national election.