5th Circuit Upholds Texas Law Criminalizing Paid Ballot Harvesting
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit delivered a decisive victory for election integrity on Wednesday, upholding Texas’s ban on paid, in-person ballot harvesting and overturning a lower court’s attempt to block the law before it could take effect.
In a unanimous opinion authored by Judge Edith H. Jones, the three-judge panel ruled that Texas Senate Bill 1 — enacted in 2021 to strengthen election safeguards — passes constitutional muster. The court found the statute neither unconstitutionally vague nor in violation of the First Amendment. Moreover, the panel determined that the district court overstepped its authority by issuing an injunction against state officials in disregard of longstanding sovereign immunity protections.
“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 the center of the dispute is Section 276.015 of the Texas Election Code, which makes it a criminal offense to provide or offer “vote harvesting services” in exchange for compensation. The statute specifically targets paid operatives who conduct in-person interactions in the presence of a ballot with the intent to deliver votes for a particular candidate or ballot measure.
Left-leaning voting organizations had argued that the law was vague and chilled protected political speech. The Fifth Circuit firmly rejected that claim. Judge Jones explained that the statute “has a common-sense core of meaning” that any reasonable person can understand — namely, that paid political actors may not collect or attempt to influence mail-in ballots in person for profit.
Applying the Anderson/Burdick balancing test, the court concluded that Texas’s interests outweigh any minimal burden on political activity. The panel emphasized that the state has a compelling interest in safeguarding voters from fraud, coercion, and undue influence — especially within the context of mail-in voting, where chain-of-custody concerns are heightened.
“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 ruling makes clear that the law is narrowly tailored. Volunteer get-out-the-vote efforts remain fully protected. What Texas prohibits is compensation — ensuring that partisan operatives cannot turn ballot collection into a paid enterprise or business model.
The panel also sharply criticized the district court’s reliance on “vague hypotheticals” and “speculative scenarios,” including suggestions that volunteers offered snacks or water might somehow run afoul of the statute. “Ordinary citizens serving on a jury should be capable of understanding this statute’s common-sense core of meaning,” Jones wrote, underscoring the law’s clarity.
In an unusual development, the appellate court noted concerns about the district judge’s apparent reliance on artificial intelligence tools during deliberations. Citing a Wall Street Journal report in which the judge discussed using AI in election-law cases, the opinion stressed judicial responsibility. “AI must not be a substitute for legal judgment,” Jones noted, referencing remarks by Senator Chuck Grassley.
Ultimately, the Fifth Circuit held that Texas’s prohibition survives even the most demanding 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 court also concluded that the lower court violated sovereign immunity principles by enjoining state officials — including the Texas attorney general and secretary of state — absent a specific enforcement role that would justify such legal action under federal law.
Republican state leaders and party organizations, including the Republican National Committee, which intervened in the case, praised the ruling as a critical step toward restoring public trust in elections.
The decision reinforces a fundamental constitutional principle: states possess broad authority to regulate the “Times, Places and Manner” of elections to ensure their integrity. As the panel succinctly stated, “It should go without saying that a state may take action to prevent election fraud.”
With the injunction dissolved, Texas is now free to fully enforce its restrictions on paid ballot harvesting — sending a clear message that elections are not for sale and that the rule of law still governs America’s democratic processes.