Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Unfettered voting by mail in Texas stopped by federal appeals court

Texas voters

Texas is among the very few states not making absentee voting easier during the pandemic. Turnout in places like San Antonio, above on primary day in March, is key to Democrats' hopes.

Edward A. Ornelas/Getty Images

A federal appeals court has joined the Texas Supreme Court in deciding that fear of exposure to the coronavirus is not an acceptable reason to vote by mail in the second most-populous state.

The back-to-back decisions, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday and the state's highest court a week ago, end the possibility for Texans to legally cite a lack of immunity to the virus as a "disability" excuse in requesting an absentee ballot — at least for the July primary runoffs.

There is still a chance the U.S. Supreme Court will step in before the presidential election, when recent polling suggests the state could be genuinely competitive for the first time in four decades. It's also the case that vote-by-mail applications are on an honor system and people should be trusted to assess their own health, the state's top court has made clear.


The fight over making absentee balloting easier in Texas is highly significant to both voting rights groups and the Democrats.

Only 16 states require a precise excuse to use the system, and Texas is among just a handful that have not voluntarily relaxed those rules at least for primaries during the public health crisis. The Republicans who run the state assert widespread fraud would result. There's no solid evidence for the claim, and democracy reform groups see voter suppression as the real motive.

Only 7 percent used absentee ballots in 2018, when they were used by 25 percent of voters nationwide, and Democrats came within a whisker of winning a statewide race (Beto O'Rourke's bid for the Senate) for the first time in a quarter-century. The party is banking on a huge turnout in the cities and suburbs, where the fear of Covid-19 is greatest but the Latino and white-collar professional voting blocs have grown fast, to deliver the state's 38 electoral votes to Joe Biden.

But three judges on the 5th Circuit agreed Thursday to block a trial judge's order last month allowing all 16.2 million registered Texans to vote by mail during the pandemic.

Texans who are older than 65, away from home on election day or in jail may vote absentee — along with those who have a "sickness or physical condition," state law says, that prevents them from appearing at a polling place without the risk of "injuring the voter's health."

Last week the state Supreme Court ruled without dissent that, while lack of immunity alone does not meet that standard, it is up to voters to assess their own health and should not be challenged by county election administrators if they decide they meet the definition of disability.

GOP Attorney General Ken Paxton then pursued his parallel case in federal court, arguing that a late switch of the rules would cause confusion and open up the voting process to abuse — and was the state's decision to make, in any case. The 5th Circuit panel agreed and cited the U.S. Supreme Court's precedent that lower federal courts should "ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election."

The opinion was by Judge Jerry Smith, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan. He was joined by James Ho, an appointee of President Trump, and Gregg J. Costa, an appointee of President Barack Obama.

Paxton hailed their decisions as protecting a system designed "to aid those with an actual disability or illness." He did not explain why he supports the laws's elimination of excuse requirements for everyone 65 and older.

"The Constitution prohibits divvying up our rights by our age, gender, or race — and the 5th Circuit decision of today would allow voters of a certain age different voting rights than the rest of us," chairman Gilberto Hinojosa of the Texas Democratic Party, the plaintiff in the case, said in a statement vowing an appeal.

The last Republican to lose Texas was President Gerald Ford in 1976. But a Quinnipiac poll this week showed Trump, who carried the state by 9 points in 2016, in a statistical tie with Biden — and 6 in 10 voters supporting the availability of mail-in voting for everyone during the pandemic.

Four of the state Supreme Court justices who ruled against that idea are seeking re-election this fall.

July 2 is the last day to apply to vote absentee in runoffs 12 days later.


Read More

A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

Keep ReadingShow less
People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stickers with the words "I Voted Today."

Virginia is on its way to be the 19th jurisdiction to adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, bringing the U.S. closer to electing presidents by the national popular vote.

Getty Images, EyeWolf

Virginia On The Path to Join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

NPVIC is an agreement among U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the overall popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is considered a pragmatic, voluntary state-based initiative because it aims to ensure the winner of the national popular vote wins the presidency without requiring a constitutional amendment, operating instead within the existing Electoral College framework by utilizing states' constitutional authority to appoint electors. If enough states join the NPVIC to reach a total of 270 electoral votes, the United States will effectively shift from a winner-take-all (WTA) regime to a national popular vote system for electing the President.

With Virginia's adoption, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will be adopted by eighteen states and the District of Columbia, collectively holding 222 electoral votes. The compact requires 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 total) to take effect. It currently needs forty-eight more electoral votes to become active.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less