(The Center Square) – A panel of three judges on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has handed Texas another win on election integrity. They also chastised U.S. District Court Judge Xavier Rodriguez in their ruling.
The case dates to 2021 when the Texas legislature enacted SB 1, which expanded requirements for mail ballots, assisted voter requirements and established penalties for voter harvesting. Multiple groups sued, arguing the law is illegal.
The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals again ruled that it is not. It’s the latest ruling the court has issued on SB 1 and Texas election law, each time ruling in Texas’ favor. The Texas Supreme Court and U.S. Supreme Court have also ruled several times on Texas election law, in each case, ruling in favor of Texas.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Rodriguez’s ruling in its entirety, saying, “the bulk of the plaintiff’s claims fail for lack of standing” and “one fails on the merits. But none justifies interference with the State Legislature’s efforts to prevent voter fraud and to protect election integrity.”
Judge Andrew Oldham in an 11-page opinion said, “It has long been established that mail-in ballots are prone to fraud. That is why voting by mail jeopardizes election integrity and democracy itself.”
He also chastised Rodriguez, stating, after the legislature enacted SB 1, “As so often happens in modern America, a federal district judge then countermanded the Legislature with sweeping facial injunctions. We have been staying, vacating, and reversing those injunctions ever since.”
Oldham listed multiple court rulings to support his point. In a lengthy footnote, he wrote:
“The above list does not tell the full story. Across the appeals from this consolidated lawsuit, we have reversed the district court on everything – from denials of motions to intervene, to denials of legislative privilege, to denials of motions to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds.
“In short, we have been playing an exhausting game of Whac-A-Mole to correct the district court’s mishandling of this case,” he said.
The footnote also includes a list of reversals with citations.
With this ruling’s reversal, Oldham said, “we do it again. In this case, the district court held that nine provisions of S.B. 1 were inconsistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. We disagree and reverse.”
The ruling critiques each of the plaintiffs’ arguments, stating the court previously rejected them. It also repeatedly states their arguments are “foreclosed.”
The bill was at the center of Texas House Democrats absconding to prevent legislative business from occurring in the summer of 2021. It eventually passed in August 2021, which Gov. Greg Abbott signed into law, The Center Square reported.
SB 1, filed by Sen. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola, created a series of reforms. Among other provisions, it requires voters to provide more information on their mail ballot application and ballot carrier envelope and for the information to match their registration record.
It also requires those assisting voters who claim they are disabled and need assistance to take an oath and sign a form that no coercion occurred, the voter requesting assistance qualifies for assistance, and to disclose the assister’s relationship to the voter. It also criminalizes “vote harvesting” by prohibiting assistors from receiving compensation.
SB 1, which is in effect, has not prevented voter fraud, Democrats in border communities argue. Those assisting voters are signing the forms and taking the oaths but there is nothing to stop them from assisting dozens of voters, driving them to polling locations, and requesting assistance themselves, according to several lawsuits that have been filed.
In one lawsuit, Democrat Martha Morales, a Zapata ISD school board member who’s challenging the outcome of her county judge race, argues she would have won if assisted voter fraud had not occurred, The Center Square reported.
In Zapata County, hundreds of voters requested assistance, including those who swore oaths to assist them. Several assistors took the oath and signed the form attesting to the requirements in the bill. They not only claimed they were disabled and needed assistance voting but that they were capable of assisting dozens of voters each. At least one assistor signed an avadavat claiming he was paid to bring assisted voters on behalf of the incumbent judge, The Center Square exclusively reported. The judge and others deny the allegations.
Morales, and candidates in other races who’ve made similar allegations, filed complaints with the Secretary of State and Attorney General’s Office.
