Better (very) late than never.
Certain provisions of Texas’ sweeping 2021 voting law that restrict voter assistance violate the federal Voting Rights Act and cannot be enforced, a federal judge in Texas ruled Friday.
Among the rules struck down by U.S. District Judge Xavier Rodriguez was a ban on compensation for anyone who assists a voter and a requirement for anyone who assists a voter to sign an oath under penalty of perjury that the voter qualifies to receive help.
Rodriguez also blocked provisions that require assisters to make certain disclosures about their relationship to the voter they are helping and a provision that restricts voter assistance given during door-to-door voter outreach operations.
Rodriguez based his decision on the section of the 1965 federal Voting Rights Act that guarantees voters with disabilities or literacy limitations the right to receive assistance from whoever they choose.
“This ruling will be most impactful for voters with disabilities, voters who have limited English proficiency, voters with literacy issues and the people who assist them,” said Sean Morales-Doyle, voting rights program director at the Brennan Center for Justice.
Although the judge has blocked any type of prosecution under these provisions, the rules and instructions on forms about requiring voter assisters from signing an oath are technically still in place for the upcoming Nov. 5 presidential election, because it is too close to the election to change the forms themselves.
[…]
In his Friday ruling, Rodriguez laid out a few scenarios that would put voters at risk under the law’s voter assistance provisions:
“A man helps his blind wife of 20 years cast her ballot at the polls without first securing a representation from her that she is ‘eligible for assistance.’ Even if he completes her ballot according to her exact instructions, he faces up to two years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000,” he noted.
“While meeting with a client about his tax return, a staff member for a community organization that provides free income tax services agrees to help translate the man’s mail-in ballot,” Rodriguez wrote. “The client fills out his own ballot, with accurate translation assistance from the staff member. Even though the ballot reflects the client’s wishes, the staff member faces 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. Lawyers later presented closing arguments in February 2024.
Plaintiffs challenged dozens of provisions, including a ban on 24-hour and drive-through voting; a prohibition stopping election officials from distributing mail-in ballot applications to voters who did not request them and provisions that expand poll watchers’ access, among others. Rodriguez has yet to rule on the remainder of those. Phase two of the trial, over whether the law’s intent was to discriminate against voters of color, is still making its way through the courts, which won’t begin until Rodriguez rules on all the remaining challenges to the provisions of the law in its current phase.
This is the same lawsuit on which Judge Rodriguez had ruled that the vote harvesting provision was illegal about two weeks ago. As you can see, there’s still a lot more of this to be decided on, and then there will be the appeals. The timeline is still in years, not months. But so far so good, even if the benefits will have to wait until the next election. A copy of the ruling is here and Democracy Docket has more.