5th Circuit Upholds Texas Law Criminalizing Paid Ballot Harvesting
In a decisive victory for election integrity, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Wednesday upheld Texas’s ban on paid, in-person ballot harvesting — reversing a lower court’s injunction and allowing the law to take immediate effect.
The unanimous three-judge panel, led by Judge Edith H. Jones, ruled that Texas Senate Bill 1 — enacted in 2021 — is constitutional and does not violate the First Amendment. The court further determined that the district court improperly blocked enforcement of the statute in violation of longstanding 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.”
At issue is Section 276.015 of the Texas Election Code, which makes it a criminal offense to provide or offer compensated “vote harvesting services.” The statute defines such services as in-person interactions conducted in the presence of a ballot, with the intent to deliver votes for a particular candidate or ballot measure.
Left-leaning voting advocacy groups challenged the measure, claiming it was unconstitutionally vague and chilled protected political speech. The Fifth Circuit firmly rejected those arguments.
Judge Jones wrote that the law “has a common-sense core of meaning” that any reasonable person can understand — namely, that paid operatives may not collect or influence mail-in ballots in person for compensation.
The court applied the Anderson/Burdick balancing test, the standard used to evaluate election regulations affecting First Amendment activity. Under that framework, the panel concluded that Texas’s interests in preventing fraud and protecting voters from coercion are compelling and constitutionally sufficient.
“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.”
Importantly, the court emphasized that the statute targets only paid ballot harvesting operations — not volunteer get-out-the-vote efforts. By prohibiting compensation, the law ensures that partisan operatives cannot financially benefit from collecting ballots or exerting undue influence over voters.
The panel sharply criticized the district court’s reasoning, noting that the lower court relied on “vague hypotheticals” and “speculative scenarios” — including the suggestion that offering a volunteer water or snacks could somehow trigger criminal liability.
“Ordinary citizens serving on a jury should be capable of understanding this statute’s common-sense core of meaning,” Jones wrote.
In a striking aside, the appellate court also referenced concerns that the district judge may have relied on artificial intelligence in analyzing the case, citing a Wall Street Journal report in which the judge discussed using AI in election law matters. “AI must not be a substitute for legal judgment,” Jones noted, echoing remarks previously made by Senator Chuck Grassley.
The Fifth Circuit additionally ruled that the district court improperly enjoined state officials — including the Texas attorney general and secretary of state — in violation of sovereign immunity. Federal law bars such suits unless officials have a direct and specific enforcement role, the panel explained.
In upholding the statute, the court made clear that Texas’s ballot harvesting prohibition survives even the strictest 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 opinion reinforced a foundational principle of federalism: states retain broad authority to structure and safeguard their own election systems.
“It should go without saying that a state may take action to prevent election fraud,” the court stated.
Republican state leaders and national party organizations, including the Republican National Committee, praised the ruling as a major step forward in restoring trust in the electoral process.
With the lower court’s injunction vacated, Texas may now fully enforce its ban on paid ballot harvesting. The law carries criminal penalties for individuals who collect or handle mail-in ballots in exchange for compensation — a practice critics argue invites abuse and undermines confidence in election outcomes.
The Fifth Circuit’s decision sends a clear message: states have both the authority and the obligation to guard against fraud, coercion, and undue influence in their elections.