Lack of immunity to the coronavirus does not qualify Texans to vote by mail, the state Supreme Court has ruled, while also declaring that voters should be given broad leeway to cite their excuse of choice when applying for an absentee ballot.
That decidedly split decision on Wednesday likely assures continued confusion and combat over voting rights this year in the second-most populous state — and one of the few where the state government is actively fighting calls to ease access to the polls because of the pandemic.
At first glance, the ruling seems to be a clear win for Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton, who maintains being physically sick or disabled are the only available health excuses for voting from home — and a loss for Democrats and voting rights groups, who are hoping a big urban and suburban turnout this year will push the state into purple territory after a quarter-century as deeply red.
"We agree with the state that a voter's lack of immunity to Covid-19, without more, is not a 'disability' as defined by the Election Code," Chief Justice Nathan Hecht said in his majority opinion.
The court refused the state's request, however, to compel county election offices to reject mail ballot requests from voters who fear contracting the coronavirus — signaling the people must be trusted to assess their own health and that officials need to rely on an honor system when processing applications.
When checking the disability box on the form, voters are not required to provide any more explanation and county officials are not authorized to investigate further.
"We agree, of course, that a voter can take into consideration aspects of his health and his health history that are physical conditions in deciding whether, under the circumstances, to apply to vote by mail because of disability," the court ruled.
Seven justices signed the majority opinion, and the other two concurred. All of them are Republicans who won statewide elections, and three are on the ballot in November. One of them, Debra Lehrmann, announced last week she has tested positive for Covid-19.
"This 'don't ask, don't tell' policy is a recipe for disaster," election law expert Richard L. Hasen wrote on Slate, because the state is now open to argue that "anyone who advises someone else to claim disability to vote by mail is engaged in a criminal conspiracy to commit voter fraud. Some voters may get in trouble because they could be accused of voting by mail while understanding that it is illegal."
A parallel dispute over the state's absentee voting rules is being fought in federal court. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals is reviewing a trial judge's ruling striking down the excuse requirement, saying it's unconstitutional to deny the right to vote to someone because they lack immunity to a disease.
The twin cases are playing out as Texans prepare for primary runoffs in seven weeks. The federal case could make it to the Supreme Court before November, when President Trump is a solid but not prohibitive favorite to secure the state's 38 electoral votes while the Democrats are in the hunt to pick up as many as five House seats.
Paxton nonetheless applauded the court's ruling and signaled he would keep an eye on any surge in requests to vote by mail, an option used by just 7 percent of voters statewide in 2018.
"Election officials have a duty to reject mail-in ballot applications from voters who are not entitled to vote by mail," he said. "In-person voting is the surest way to maintain the integrity of our elections, prevent voter fraud and guarantee that every voter is who they claim to be."
The state Democratic Party chairman, Gilberto Hinojosa, lambasted the court for providing "no guidance to voters about who can vote by mail during a pandemic." In a statement that listed the names of all the state's top jurists, he added: "Make no mistake, if the federal courts don't step in, here is the list of people making you stand in line during the middle of this pandemic."
U.S. President Donald Trump boards Air Force One on August 14, 2026 at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. Trump is traveling to Long Island to tour law enforcement facilities in Nassau County and rally support for local Republican candidates ahead of the upcoming midterm elections
Travel Far Enough, You Meet Yourself
Is it possible that our President has simply not traveled enough?
Born and raised in Queens and attending Fordham University in the Bronx, Donald Trump has no record of traveling outside New York until he was over 20, when he transferred to a college in the neighboring state of Pennsylvania. Were his formative years amiss, then, in his learning about other places and other people?
Is his view akin to the famous New Yorker cover by Saul Steinberg, an illustration of the United States with New York City as the epicenter of the country and the Hudson River the border of the known world? We can now at least add Washington, D.C., and Mar-a-Lago to the map of “the realm.”
Our President has now traveled some, but what we recommend is another kind of travel. Not a state-sponsored trip or a venture to scout locations for future Trump Towers. This would be a genuine travel experience, enriching and eye-opening, showcasing other cultures and ways of living.
It will extend far beyond viewing military parades, hobnobbing with such “understanding” world leaders as Kim Jong Un, or taking tea with the King.
WHERE, then, should the President go? As Elon Musk’s Starship spacecraft is not yet ready to take passengers to Mars, perhaps he could explore our own vast country?
Maybe he could travel to “flyover country,” the farming states, where his ying-yanging tariffs and trade restrictions have played havoc with rural economies. Or possibly to California, number one in homeless U. S. citizens, and while there, regale homeless veterans (approximately 32,500 nationwide) with tales of his brave exploits invading and bombing foreign countries.
Or he might tour the Great Lakes, and rename the other four?
WHEN should he go? This will be tough, as he is very busy building his ballroom and renaming bodies of water.
How about a trip in early November, around the midterm elections? Despite the long-discredited accusation of widespread voter fraud, it would be reassuring to know he might be so caught up divvying out ladles of soup in a soup kitchen somewhere that he wouldn’t remember to deploy the military for “election security.”
HOW will he travel? He should definitely not take his Qatari-donated, newly renovated 747, especially after last time, when he had to be smuggled off clandestinely in a catering truck. It’s unlikely any traveling companions, like the Secretary of State or of the Treasury, are going to fall for the ruse a second time. Besides, we may need those people. No more decoys!
Perhaps the President could fly commercially, although this likely would expose him to undue suffering. Without gold bathroom fixtures and maple wood floors, the trip will be no “Luxury Experience.” If only he still had his “Trump Shuttle,” bought with a massive loan he later defaulted on, saying then, “I’m smart. I got out at a good time.”
Considering the potential pitfalls, maybe it’s best the President travel incognito, disguised perhaps as an elderly woman wearing a lot of bronzer.
Wherever, whenever, however: our President needs a vacation.
Moreover, we need a vacation from him.
If the President refuses our travel suggestions, here’s another idea:
Let’s get him a pet! He has never owned a pet. As we know with our children, pets teach essential life lessons: compassion and empathy; they instill a sense of responsibility. There is a well-established connection between those who can care for a pet and those who can care for people.
So, which pet should we choose? A puppy? A kitten? A boa constrictor?
Imagine, the President may even decide he likes having a pet. After all, what is more obedient than a well-trained dog, besides possibly the Cabinet? And what is more docile than a sweet kitten, other than plausibly the Supreme Court?
The President may even become more mellow with a pet afoot and less likely to slap tariffs on our allies, or attempt to annex our neighbors, or bully our Congress. (Realizing, of course, a bully requires active participation from the bullied to maintain his status.)
Maybe we should do both: get the President a pet and devise a travel plan for him. (Do you think we could possibly convince him to leave his phone at home?)
Let’s go for it! After all:
Travel far enough, you meet yourself. (David Mitchell)
And for our President, that would likely be the most profound discovery of all.
Amy Lockard is an Iowa resident who regularly contributes to regional newspapers and periodicals. She is working on the second of a four-book fictional series based on Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice."