In 2021, the Texas Legislature enacted S.B. 1, the Election Protection and Integrity Act, which restricts paid vote harvesting services. These services are defined as interactions with voters in the physical presence of a ballot intended to deliver votes for a specific candidate in exchange for compensation. The law aims to protect the privacy of voters, similar to existing protections at in-person voting booths. A coalition of civil rights organizations challenged the law, arguing it was unconstitutionally vague and violated the First Amendment. While the lawsuit was filed in August 2021, a district court did not issue an injunction against the law until September 28, 2024, just three weeks before the 2024 general election. The district court's injunction applied only to specific counties where the plaintiffs had sued, creating a patchwork of enforcement across the state just as mail-in ballots were being mailed out.
Circuit Judge James C. Ho, writing for the panel, focused on the timing of the district court's injunction. The court emphasized that the Supreme Court has instructed lower courts not to unduly delay ordering changes to election laws until the eve of an election. This is known as the Purcell principle, derived from Purcell v. Gonzalez. The Fifth Circuit noted that the district court's injunction fell squarely within the period close to an election, as Texas had already begun issuing mail-in ballots. The court rejected the district court's attempt to limit the Purcell principle to only the mechanics of voting, clarifying that the principle applies to any election law that impacts the voting process, including protections for voter privacy in mail-in voting. The court reasoned that late judicial alterations to election laws can confuse voters, burden election administrators, and sow distrust. Because the injunction would result in different rules for different counties depending on where a voter cast their ballot, the court found that the potential for confusion and disruption was significant. Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiffs' constitutional claims were not clear-cut enough to justify the disruption. The court noted that facial vagueness challenges are difficult to prove in pre-enforcement review and that the Supreme Court has previously upheld voter privacy protections at the voting booth as a compelling state interest.
The stay reinstates the enforcement of Texas S.B. 1's restrictions on paid vote harvesting services across the state pending the outcome of the appeal. This means that the law remains in effect for all voters in Texas, preventing the confusion that would arise from having different rules in different counties. The decision leaves the underlying constitutional questions regarding the vagueness and First Amendment implications of the law unresolved, as the case is now remanded for further proceedings on the merits. The court did not rule on the ultimate validity of the law, only that the timing of the injunction was inappropriate.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download