Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Gov. Abbott signs Texas elections overhaul into law, and the voting rights lawsuits begin

Greg Abbott

GOP Gov. Greg Abbott on Tuesday signed into law a major overhaul of Texas' election and voting rules.

Lynda M. Gonzalez/Getty Images

Gov. Greg Abbott on Tuesday signed into law the GOP-backed package overhauling Texas' elections, solidifying some of the most severe limits to voting access proposed this year.

The Texas GOP's efforts to pass this legislation were twice thwarted by Democratic lawmakers who fled the state and prevented the bill from moving forward due to lack of a quorum. However, once enough Democrats returned to the state in mid-August, Republicans resumed advancing the election changes.

The election overhaul legislation largely limits voting by mail, empowers partisan poll watchers and rolls back local initiatives that promoted voter access. Voting rights advocates say these changes will make it harder for Texans — in particular people of color, disabled individuals and those with limited English language proficiency — to vote.


What will the new law change?

The massive 76-page law, known as Senate Bill 1, makes several changes to Texas' election and voting rules. Abbott and Republican state lawmakers say the new law will bolster election integrity and make it "harder to cheat" — despite no evidence of widespread voter fraud during the 2020 election in Texas or elsewhere in the country.

The law bans drive-thru voting, which allows voters to drive up to an official voting location (usually under large tents), show photo ID and then remain in the car while filling out their ballot. This was a popular voting option during the 2020 election with 1 in 10 Texans casting an early ballot this way.

Another way SB 1 limits early voting availability is by banning 24-hour voting centers. The new law sets the early voting hours to be from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., prohibiting the all-day voting centers offered in Harris County, the state's most populous county.

However, the law does require more counties to provide at least 12 hours of early voting on each weekday of the last week of the early voting period. Previously, only counties with populations of 100,000 or more were required to do so, but SB 1 lowers the threshold to counties with a population of 55,000 or more.

Under this law, it is now a state jail felony for local election officials to send mail ballot applications to voters who do not request them. This is in response to Harris County's unsuccessful attempt to proactively send all 2.4 million registered voters in the county a mail ballot during last year's election.

Texans who wish to vote by mail will now be required to provide their driver's license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number on their mail ballot applications and then the completed ballot's envelope. This will be used to verify the voter's identity; previously, the state used a signature matching process.

Establishing a ballot cure process is one of the provisions in the new law that garnered support from Democratic state lawmakers. Voters will be able to track their mail ballot online and will be notified of any technical errors, such as a mismatching signature. Voters will then be able to fix, or "cure," their ballots.

Apart from altering mail voting rules, SB 1 also gives more authority to partisan poll watchers by allowing them "free movement" within a polling place. Previously, poll watchers were instructed to sit or stand "conveniently near" election workers during observation of the ballot counting process. Poll watchers are also required to undergo training and can be removed from the premises for violating the state Penal Code — two additions pushed by Democratic lawmakers.

Under SB 1, the secretary of state will be required to conduct routine checks of Texas' voter rolls to identify and remove any noncitizens. The law also creates new rules for those who assist voters, including those with disabilities, in filling out their ballot.

How voting rights advocates are responding

Days before Abbott gave his final approval of SB 1, voting rights groups had already taken this fight to the courts. On Friday, the League of Women Voters of Texas and other state advocacy groups filed a lawsuit in federal court. The Brennan Center for Justice and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed a separate suit also on Friday.

Both lawsuits claim multiple provisions in SB 1 violate the Voting Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the U.S. Constitution.

Sean Morales-Doyle, acting director of the voting rights and elections program at the Brennan Center, said SB 1 undermines equal access to the ballot box in Texas.

"The myriad restrictions in their legislation will be felt most by Latino, Black and Asian American voters, voters with disabilities and elderly voters," Morales-Doyle said. "These new impediments to voting have no legitimate purpose in keeping Texas elections fair and secure. The court must strike down this shameful legislation."

On Tuesday, just after Abbott signed the bill into law, a third federal lawsuit was filed by Marc Elias, a prominent voting rights lawyer, on behalf of LULAC Texas, Voto Latino, Texas Alliance for Retired Americans and Texas American Federation of Teachers. This suit argues certain provisions in the law violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as the Voting Rights Act.

"Not only are we filing suit to protect the right to vote for all people of color, and the additional 250,000 young Latino Tejanos who will reach voting age in 2022, but to protect every Texan's right to vote. A thriving, healthy democracy demands maximum participation by all eligible voters," said Maria Teresa Kumar, CEO of Voto Latino.

A fourth lawsuit was also filed on Tuesday after the governor's signing. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund and The Arc, a disabilities advocacy organization, are suing on behalf of several Texas-based groups, arguing the new law violates the U.S. Constitution and the Voting Rights Act by "intentionally targeting and burdening methods and means of voting used by voters of color." This suit also claims SB 1 violates the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 by imposing barriers that discriminate against voters with disabilities.


Read More

Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

US Capitol and South America. Nicolas Maduro’s capture is not the end of an era. It marks the opening act of a turbulent transition

AI generated

Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

The U.S. capture of Nicolás Maduro will be remembered as one of the most dramatic American interventions in Latin America in a generation. But the real story isn’t the raid itself. It’s what the raid reveals about the political imagination of the hemisphere—how quickly governments abandon the language of sovereignty when it becomes inconvenient, and how easily Washington slips back into the posture of regional enforcer.

The operation was months in the making, driven by a mix of narcotrafficking allegations, geopolitical anxiety, and the belief that Maduro’s security perimeter had finally cracked. The Justice Department’s $50 million bounty—an extraordinary price tag for a sitting head of state—signaled that the U.S. no longer viewed Maduro as a political problem to be negotiated with, but as a criminal target to be hunted.

Keep ReadingShow less
Red elephants and blue donkeys

The ACA subsidy deadline reveals how Republican paralysis and loyalty-driven leadership are hollowing out Congress’s ability to govern.

Carol Yepes

Governing by Breakdown: The Cost of Congressional Paralysis

Picture a bridge with a clearly posted warning: without a routine maintenance fix, it will close. Engineers agree on the repair, but the construction crew in charge refuses to act. The problem is not that the fix is controversial or complex, but that making the repair might be seen as endorsing the bridge itself.

So, traffic keeps moving, the deadline approaches, and those responsible promise to revisit the issue “next year,” even as the risk of failure grows. The danger is that the bridge fails anyway, leaving everyone who depends on it to bear the cost of inaction.

Keep ReadingShow less
White House
A third party candidate has never won the White House, but there are two ways to examine the current political situation, writes Anderson.
DEA/M. BORCHI/Getty Images

250 Years of Presidential Scandals: From Harding’s Oil Bribes to Trump’s Criminal Conviction

During the 250 years of America’s existence, whenever a scandal involving the U.S. President occurred, the public was shocked and dismayed. When presidential scandals erupt, faith and trust in America – by its citizens as well as allies throughout the world – is lost and takes decades to redeem.

Below are several of the more prominent presidential scandals, followed by a suggestion as to how "We the People" can make America truly America again like our founding fathers so eloquently established in the constitution.

Keep ReadingShow less
Money and the American flag
Half of Americans want participatory budgeting at the local level. What's standing in the way?
SimpleImages/Getty Images

For the People, By the People — Or By the Wealthy?

When did America replace “for the people, by the people” with “for the wealthy, by the wealthy”? Wealthy donors are increasingly shaping our policies, institutions, and even the balance of power, while the American people are left as spectators, watching democracy erode before their eyes. The question is not why billionaires need wealth — they already have it. The question is why they insist on owning and controlling government — and the people.

Back in 1968, my Government teacher never spoke of powerful think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, now funded by billionaires determined to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Yet here in 2025, these forces openly work to control the Presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court through Project 2025. The corruption is visible everywhere. Quid pro quo and pay for play are not abstractions — they are evident in the gifts showered on Supreme Court justices.

Keep ReadingShow less