Texas Supreme Court: Lack of Immunity to COVID-19 Alone Does Not Qualify Citizens to Vote by Mail
Despite the Texas Supreme Court siding with Attorney General Paxton, state Democrats are optimistic that the ruling will allow voters to assess their own health and determine if they meet the state's requirements, which could allow additional votes by mail.
May 29, 2020 at 06:36 PM
5 minute read
On May 27, Republican officials in Texas declared victory as the Texas Supreme Court unanimously declared a lack of immunity to COVID-19 does not qualify as a valid qualification to vote by mail. Texans are currently eligible to apply if they are 65 years of age or older, disabled, imprisoned, or will be absent from the county during an election.
The court agreed with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton that a voter's lack of immunity to COVID-19, without more, is not a "disability" as defined by the Election Code, which defines a disability as a "sickness or physical condition" that blocks a voter from voting in person without risking their health. "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," the court wrote.
"In no sense can a lack of immunity be said to be such an incapacity," Chief Justice Nathan Hecht wrote in an opinion. "Accordingly, we conclude that a lack of immunity to COVID-19 is not itself a physical condition for being eligible to vote by mail."
But despite their refusal to expand vote-by-mail eligibility, the court ruled 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."
This means that it is up to voters to assess their own condition to determine if they meet the state's requirements, which could allow voters to decide for themselves whether they qualify and give officials very little ability to question their evaluation. Additionally, the Supreme Court denied Paxton's appeal to block local election officials from delivering mail-in ballots to Texans citing fear of contracting COVID-19 as a disability.
Under Texas law, when filling out an application for an absentee ballot, voters are not required to explain or identify their disability. They simply mark the field indicating they have a disability, and assuming the rest of the application has been properly completed, they are mailed a ballot. The Supreme Court decided that this was in fact lawful, and election officials have a duty to send out ballots to applicants that meet state guidelines.
And while the ruling states applicants do not qualify if they are in perfect health (and simply not immune to COVID-19), nobody is truly in perfect physical condition, putting the decision more or less in the voters' hands to decide for themselves whether they should qualify.
Texas Democrats have criticized the ruling as "reflective of Texas Republican leadership that long ago failed to serve Texans' needs and interests," noting that the decision came after oral arguments held over videoconference in lieu of the Austin courtroom due to COVID-19 concerns. "Now, it is up to the federal court to ensure basic constitutional rights still exist in Texas," said state party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa, "and to ensure that Texans have a right to vote safely and not put their health at risk."
Meanwhile, Paxton praised the decision, saying "Election officials have a duty to reject mail-in ballot applications from voters who are not entitled to vote by mail. 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."
Despite this, studies have found little evidence of voter fraud connected to voting by mail and no clear advantage for either party. Meanwhile, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission reports around one-quarter of all voters in the 2018 midterm elections voted by mail-in ballot, representing around 30 million citizens.
This issue has now been fought in multiple courtrooms across Texas, but is likely headed for the U.S. Supreme Court as the pandemic continues, and Texas Republicans continue to deny expansion of mail-in ballot eligibility. Proponents of expansion argue Americans have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and anything that impedes participation in that process, including laws limiting constitutional voting rights, should be contested. As it currently stands, COVID-19 could help accelerate the process of modernizing Texas voting by calling into question issues that have hindered Texas voters for years.
The Supreme Court, in addition to canceling in-person oral arguments, has been under an emergency order since Tuesday which has extended requirements for the majority of lower-court hearings to be held remotely. Jury trials have also been postponed until Aug. 1 at the earliest.
Brett Cain is a trial lawyer who has tried over 50 jury trials and has resolved hundreds more disputes by mediation since 2006. He is the owner of the Cain Firm, a partner of The Law Center, a national network of top law firms with decades of experience in advocating for those who have suffered from personal injury, asbestos-related diseases, motor vehicle accidents and more. Cain is proud to stand up for those who cannot stand for themselves, and, as a result, has recovered millions of dollars for clients after insurance companies initially wouldn't pay.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAkin, Baker Botts, Vinson & Elkins Are First Texas Big Law Firms to Match Milbank Bonuses
4 minute readAnticipating a New Era of 'Extreme Vetting,' Big Law Immigration Attys Prep for Demand Surge
6 minute readRevenue Up at Homegrown Texas Firms Through Q3, Though Demand Slipped Slightly
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-68
- 2Friday Newspaper
- 3Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 4Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 5NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250