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.”
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 and providing voting assistance at public events where mail-in ballots are present, if any form of compensation—such as gas cards, meals, or stipends—is 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 strikes down only the canvassing restriction provision of S.B. 1 and leaves other portions of the law intact, drew sharp criticism from Texas Attorney General 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.”
“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.
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.
