Texas’s new voting rules were challenged in two lawsuits before the law was signed

Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to date on the most important news from Texas.

The chief electoral officer in Harris County and a variety of organizations serving Texans of color and Texans with disabilities have fired the opening volleys in what is expected to be a major legal battle over Texas’s new electoral rules.

In separate federal lawsuits filed in Austin and San Antonio, the Coalition of Groups and Harris County sued the state over Senate Act 1 before it even went into effect, arguing that it creates new hurdles and restrictions that oppress voters and Unconstitutionally discourage officials and prevent organizations from helping Texans exercise their franchise.

The lawsuits allege that the law violates a variety of federal laws – the Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act 1973 – and the First, 14th, and 15th Amendments.

“Outrageously, SB 1 specifically targets voters with disabilities, voters with limited English language skills – who in Texas are also predominantly colored voters – and the organizations that represent, support and support those voters,” the plaintiffs in the Austin lawsuit wrote in their complaint.

Plaintiffs in the San Antonio lawsuit, which includes Harris County, also allege that lawmakers deliberately discriminated against colored voters in enforcing the law.

SB 1 is a far-reaching revision of the state’s electoral law that further tightens the rules for postal voting, restricts local efforts to expand voting options, strengthens access for partisan election observers, and sets new rules – and possible criminal penalties – for these voters support the voting. The move, awaiting Governor Greg Abbott’s signature, was pushed by the Texas Republicans in the name of “electoral integrity” and the protection of elections from fraud.

Plaintiffs attack the lack of evidence that fraud is a widespread problem in the Texas elections.

In the San Antonio lawsuit, they argue that the “additional burdens and limitations” of SB 1 cannot be justified by invoking “unspecified and unproven voter fraud” unless there is evidence that there is “except for the very few Examples that have already been identified through the pre-existing processes in Texas “gives and procedures.”

“Rather … SB1 is a response to the changing electorate in Texas, who are now more racially diverse and younger than ever,” they wrote in their complaint.

The claims made jointly in both proceedings are as extensive as the legislation is far-reaching.

They include entitlements to SB 1’s new restrictions on electoral assistance, including assistance to voters with disabilities and those with limited English proficiency. The plaintiffs refer to the revised oath that a voter must now take under threat of perjury, which no longer explicitly includes answering the voter’s questions. Instead, they must commit to limiting their support to “reading the ballot to the voter, instructing the voter to read the ballot, marking the voter’s ballot, or instructing the voter to mark the ballot”.

As part of its allegations of willful discrimination, the lawsuit, which includes Harris County as a plaintiff, also cites SB 1’s ban on the drive-through and 24-hour voting initiatives used by the diverse, Democratic county in the 2020 election – both District officials said they were disproportionately used by colored voters.

SB1 also makes it a crime in the state prison for local election officials to submit unsolicited requests to vote by mail. Several counties were proactively sending requests to voters 65 and over who would automatically qualify through the mail, but Harris County tried last year to mail them out to all 2.4 million registered voters with specific instructions to see if they were eligible.

In banning these electoral initiatives, Republican lawmakers made it clear that they were targeting the most populous county in the state, even though other counties used similar voting methods.

“My first and only priority is educating voters and helping them legally cast their ballots,” Harris County’s election officer Isabel Longoria said in a statement. “Postal voting is not just another option – for many high-ranking voters and voters with disabilities, it is the only option. SB1 makes it a crime for me to encourage voters to do so, which makes it virtually impossible to fulfill my sworn duty as an electoral administrator. “

Both lawsuits also argue the constitutionality of a section of SB 1 that newly creates a “vote stealing” offense, which is defined as face-to-face interactions with voters “in the physical presence of an official or postal ballot” for a specific candidate or vote The lawsuits argue that the language in this section – and the associated criminal penalties – is unconstitutional, too broad and vague, and could be used to suppress legitimate voter initiatives.

The lawsuits also question provisions of SB 1, which strengthen the protection for partisan election observers in polling stations and new identification requirements for postal votes.

In a statement Friday, an Abbott spokesman defended the move – and the two special sessions the governor called to get it across the finish line – as an effort to protect the integrity of the elections.

“Texas is making it easier to vote and cheat by extending early voting times, creating more transparency in the electoral process, securing every ballot and ensuring uniform statewide rules,” said Renae Eze, press secretary for Abbott. “Senate Bill 1 will cement confidence and confidence in the outcome of our elections.”

The Texas Attorney General, who represents the state in court, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Abbott is named as a defendant in the San Antonio lawsuit and Attorney General Ken Paxton in both cases.

The battle for SB 1 should be shifted from the state capitol to the federal courts.

Behind the lawsuits are civil rights groups who have repeatedly warned lawmakers during the legislative process that their proposals could violate federal laws and protections for colored voters and voters with disabilities.

The San Antonio plaintiffs are represented by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the Brennan Center for Justice. Attorneys for the Austin plaintiffs include the national and Texas armies of the American Civil Liberties Union and the Texas Civil Rights Project.

The long list of plaintiffs includes campaign groups like the League of Women Voters and REV UP Texas, which focus on voters with disabilities; Advocacy groups whose work focuses on colored voters such as the Texas Organizing Project, La Unión del Pueblo Entero, and the larger Houston Chapter of the OCA-Asian Pacific American Advocates; as well as religious entities like the Friendship-West Baptist Church, which serves a predominantly black congregation in Dallas, and Texas Impact, a faith-based advocacy group.

Join us for the 2021 Texas Tribune Festival from September 20-25. Tickets are now available for this multi-day celebration of big, bold ideas about politics, public order and the news of the day, curated by award-winning journalists at the Texas Tribune in the sale. Learn more.