Today, a federal district court judge in Texas struck down portions of the state’s sweeping restrictive voting law, S.B. 1, for violating federal law, including the Americans with Disabilities Act. The judge’s ruling struck down multiple provisions, one of which is a requirement for those assisting voters with disabilities to sign an oath, under the penalty of perjury, that the voter they’re assisting represented that they are eligible to receive assistance.
The judge’s ruling, however, is stayed until after the state’s May 2025 elections. Previous decisions by the same judge against S.B. 1 are currently on appeal before the Fifth Circuit.
Leah Tulin, senior counsel in the Brennan Center’s democracy program, had the following reaction:
“Today a federal court sided with Texas voters, striking down provisions in state law that interfere with voters’ access to the polls. Since 2021, voters in the state have been subject to these illegal restrictions. Texans deserve better. We will continue to push back against restrictive voting laws to ensure that every eligible voter in the state has an equal opportunity to vote.”
Background
The ruling came in LUPE v. Texas, a consolidated federal lawsuit challenging voting restrictions in S.B. 1 under federal law and the U.S. Constitution. The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) are among the attorneys representing voters, election workers, community groups, civil rights and voting organizations, and faith-based groups.
Today’s ruling also struck down provisions of the law that imposed additional form requirements on vote assistors, banned compensating those who provide mail ballot assistance, and that established criminal penalties for volunteers who receive “compensation or other benefit” when interacting with a voter in the presence of a mail ballot. These provisions were previously struck down by the court under the Voting Rights Act as well as the 1st and 14th Amendments. The Fifth Circuit is considering appeals to those rulings.
###
