Victory in Lawsuit Against Texas Anti-Voter Law S.B. 1
SAN ANTONIO, Texas - A federal district court ruled Friday, October 11, in a victory for voting rights, that a key provision of Texas’ anti-voter law violates federal law. Specifically, the court ruled that the provision, which criminalizes compensated mail-ballot assistance, violates Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA).
The lawsuit, filed in 2021 by the , American Civil Liberties Union, the , , , and the law firm , challenged numerous provisions of the bill, including that its criminalization of compensated mail-ballot assistance to people with disabilities and limited English proficiency violated Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act, which guarantees qualified voters the right to vote with an assistor of their choice. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the and .
This ruling follows a decision two weeks ago that impacted S.B. 1’s provisions on canvassing.
"This ruling is a victory for voter service organizations like the League whose mission is to empower all voters, especially those with disabilities, first-time voters, and non-English speakers, to fully participate in our democracy,” said Joyce LeBombard (she/her), president of the League of Women Voters of Texas. “Voter engagement is a key part of our work to ensure all Texans can have their voices heard at the ballot box."
“For the last three years, S.B. 1 has prevented us from providing our members and the community with language voting assistance, making it near-impossible to ensure that AAPI voices are equally represented at the ballot box,” said Deborah Chen (she/her), OCA-Greater Houston’s civic engagement programs director. “We look forward to resuming our historical practices and ensuring that the AAPI community is able to fully participate in our democracy.”
“REVUP is extremely pleased with the court’s ruling holding that S.B. 1’s restrictive assistance provisions violate the Voting Rights Act,” said Bob Kafka (he/him), state coordinator for REV UP Texas. “The ruling protects the rights of Texas voters with disabilities to get the assistance they need without fear of prosecution. Due to S.B. 1, voters with disabilities faced the impossible choice of either exposing themselves and their assistors to state-jail felony charges or forgoing the assistance they need to exercise the most fundamental of rights, the right to vote. This is a big win for democracy and for the disability community.”
“This ruling confirms why it was critical to stop the law that harmed voters who need our assistance the most,” said Celina Stewart, CEO of the League of Women Voters of the United States. “Laws like SB1 are egregious and threaten our voter engagement work to ensure that all Americans have equal and fair access to the ballot. The League remains committed to fighting anti-voter laws that place unnecessary barriers on voters that limit their ability to participate in our democracy"
“This is a victory for democracy in Texas– proof that the fight for voting rights is far from over, but we’re making progress.,” said Rochelle Garza (she/her), president of the Texas Civil Rights Project. “Voting should be accessible for every eligible Texan, and today, we’re a step closer.”
“S.B. 1’s criminalization of compensated mail-ballot assistance clearly violates the Voting Rights Act’s guarantee that qualifying voters are entitled to voter assistance from the person of their choice,” said Zach Dolling (he/him), senior supervising attorney, Voting Rights Program at the Texas Civil Rights Project. “This victory preserves that important right, which is necessary to ensure that voters with disabilities or with limited English proficiency have equal access to the ballot box.”
“The law is clear: voters who need assistance can choose who they get it from,” said Dayton Campbell-Harris (he/him), staff attorney, ACLU Voting Rights Project. “Voters–not the state–make that choice. The court’s ruling confirms that Texas can’t stop voters from exercising their right to choose a grandchild, caregiver, roommate, or other trusted individual to help them vote.”
“Since its passage, S.B. 1 has instilled fear in voters requiring assistance and those who graciously offer help, imposing harsh criminal penalties due to restrictive limitations on who can provide that assistance,” said Ashley Harris (she/her), staff attorney, ACLU of Texas. “We are grateful that the district court acknowledged these limitations as violations of the Voting Rights Act, affirming that S.B. 1 should never restrict voters’ rights to receive assistance to engage in their most fundamental right.”
“Mail-in ballots and getting help from a family member or someone else you trust are critical for older voters, disabled voters, and voters with limited English ability, which includes many Asian American immigrants,” said Patrick Stegemoeller (he/him), staff attorney for voting rights at the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF). “S.B. 1 has already created a devastating anti-voter chill among community organizations like OCA Greater Houston threatened with punishment for simply helping people, but we hope this win helps thaw that fear and empowers Asian Americans and other marginalized communities to vote — whether by mail or at the polls.”
View the ruling .
Voting Rights
OCA-Greater Houston v. Paxton
Voting Rights
OCA-Greater Houston v. Paxton
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Voting Rights
Election Day is Over. Why is the Electoral College Voting Now?Election Day is Over. Why is the Electoral College Voting Now?
The Electoral College meets December 17th to certify the results of the 2024 election, but why? The ACLU breaks down if the process is worth keeping. -
New York Supreme CourtDec 2024
Voting Rights
New York Communities for Change v. Nassau CountyNew York Communities for Change v. Nassau County
This case in New York state court centers on the landmark John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA) and the New York Municipal Home Rule Law (MHRL). The NYVRA, like several other state voting rights acts enacted in recent years, expands upon the federal Voting Rights Act’s protections against racial vote dilution. The MHRL prohibits racial discrimination and partisan gerrymandering in local-level redistricting. The ACLU’s Voting Rights Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the New York Civil Liberties Union, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Steptoe LLP filed a lawsuit on behalf of voters of color in Nassau County, New York alleging that a redistricting plan implemented in 2023 for Nassau County’s legislative districts dilutes the voting strength of Black, Latino, and Asian residents and is gerrymandered for partisan advantage in violation of the NYVRA and the MHRL. -
ArizonaNov 2024
Voting Rights
American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona v. RicherAmerican Civil Liberties Union of Arizona v. Richer
We sued elections officials in Arizona to extend the mail ballot “cure” deadline after ballot processing delays threatened to disenfranchise thousands of voters without notice. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
Voting Rights
Civil Rights Groups Respond to Flawed Trial Court Opinion on New York Voting Rights ActCivil Rights Groups Respond to Flawed Trial Court Opinion on New York Voting Rights Act
ORANGE COUNTY, Calif. — On November 7, a New York State Supreme Court trial judge issued an opinion striking down the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA). Today, the Legal Defense Fund, American Civil Liberties Union, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, New York American Civil Liberties Union, and Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law issued the following statement in response to the ruling: “The NYVRA is unquestionably constitutional, and protects the freedom to vote for all New Yorkers by helping to ensure voters are not subjected to discrimination when participating in the political process. “The Nov. 7 decision by a state trial judge is deeply flawed and plainly incorrect. We fully expect the decision to be reversed on appeal. It flies in the face of basic legal principles and constitutes a stunning overreach in striking down the entire law, including provisions that are not at issue in the case. “To put it simply, the NYVRA does not discriminate, it bans discrimination – and in doing so protects New Yorkers’ most fundamental right. “New York is stronger when everyone has an equal opportunity to vote.”