The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Wednesday upheld Texas’s prohibition on paid in-person ballot harvesting, reversing a lower court injunction and allowing the law to take effect immediately.
Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, Judge Edith H. Jones concluded that Senate Bill 1, enacted in 2021, is neither unconstitutionally vague nor in violation of the First Amendment. The opinion also held that the lower court erred by issuing an injunction against state officials in violation of sovereign immunity principles.
“The district court erred in facially striking down this provision and entering an injunction against state officials in violation of their sovereign immunity,” Judge Jones wrote. “Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is reversed.”
The decision reinstates enforcement of Section 276.015 of the Texas Election Code, which makes it a crime to provide or offer “vote harvesting services” for compensation. The statute defines those services as in-person interactions conducted in the presence of a ballot, with the intent to deliver votes for a particular candidate or measure.
The court rejected claims by left-leaning voting groups that the law was vague or chilled political speech. Judge Jones found that the statute “has a common-sense core of meaning” that any reasonable person can understand — namely, that paid operatives cannot collect or influence mail-in ballots in person.
The panel ruled that the law meets constitutional standards under the Anderson/Burdick balancing test, which applies to election regulations affecting First Amendment activity. The court found that Texas has a compelling interest in protecting voters from fraud and coercion, particularly in mail-in voting.
“Fraud is a real risk that accompanies mail-in voting,” Jones wrote, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee. “Texas has a compelling interest in preventing the pressure and intimidation common in third-party ballot collection.”
The ruling emphasized that the law applies narrowly to paid ballot harvesting operations and does not prohibit volunteer get-out-the-vote activity. The court noted that prohibiting compensation ensures that partisan operatives cannot profit from collecting ballots or influencing votes.
The opinion also took the district court to task for relying on “vague hypotheticals” and “speculative scenarios,” such as volunteers being offered water or snacks, to claim the law was unclear. “Ordinary citizens serving on a jury should be capable of understanding this statute’s common-sense core of meaning,” Jones wrote.
The panel also criticized the district court judge for appearing to rely on artificial intelligence during his deliberations, citing a Wall Street Journal report in which the judge discussed using AI in cases involving election law. “AI must not be a substitute for legal judgment,” Jones noted, referencing remarks by Senator Chuck Grassley.
In upholding the statute, the court held that Texas’s prohibition on paid ballot harvesting survives even the highest level of constitutional scrutiny. “This statute serves multiple compelling state interests,” Jones wrote. “A state has a compelling interest in protecting voters from confusion and undue influence and in ensuring that an individual’s right to vote is not undermined by fraud.”
The Fifth Circuit also concluded that the district court violated sovereign immunity by enjoining state officials such as the Texas attorney general and secretary of state. Under federal law, such officials cannot be sued unless they have a specific and active role in enforcing the statute.
Republican state officials and party organizations — including the Republican National Committee, which joined the case as an intervenor — hailed the decision as a victory for election integrity.
The ruling underscores that states have broad authority to regulate their election processes and prevent fraud in mail-in voting. “It should go without saying that a state may take action to prevent election fraud,” the opinion stated.
With the district court’s injunction lifted, Texas can now fully enforce its ballot harvesting restrictions, which carry criminal penalties for paid operatives who collect or handle voters’ mail-in ballots.