Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Extends Block on Mail-in Ballot Expansion in Texas
The appellate panel's decision effectively eliminates the possibility that all Texas voters will be able to legally request mail-in ballots merely due to a lack of immunity to COVID-19.
June 12, 2020 at 05:09 PM
4 minute read
On June 4, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit extended its order blocking a lower court ruling that would have allowed all Texas voters to qualify as eligible to vote by mail during the COVID-19 pandemic. In extending its order, The Fifth Circuit found a "great likelihood that the state officials will ultimately succeed on the merits." And while the circuit court will set the case at some point in the future, it appears the fight to expand voting-by-mail in Texas will not have any impact on the July elections.
The Texas Supreme Court, which is composed of nine Republican justices, had previously ruled that a lack of immunity to the novel coronavirus does not qualify a voter to apply for a mail-in ballot. This decision came in advance of the primary runoff elections and with the approval of President Donald Trump, who tweeted in support of the court's decision: "Texas Supreme Court: Lack of immunity to COVID-19 alone not enough to vote by mail … Big win in Texas on the dangerous Mail In Voting Scam!"
For now, Texas voters are eligible to apply for mail-in-ballots if they cite a disability or illness, are 65 years or older, or if they will be absent from the country or in jail during an election.
Under Texas law, a disability is defined as a sickness or physical condition that prevents a voter from voting in person without serious risk to their health, but voters are not required to describe their disability when requesting a mail-in ballot. Applicants simply check a box on their application, and according to the Texas Supreme Court, if everything is filled out correctly, local officials are required to send a ballot.
The Texas Supreme Court also found that it is up to voters to assess their own health and physical conditions to determine if they meet the election code's definition for disability. Some experts believe this leaves the door open for an expansion in who qualifies to apply for mail in ballots. "We all have something we can look at," says the top election lawyer in Houston, Harris County attorney Douglas Ray. "And it's really up to the voter to decide based on his or her personal situation whether he would qualify or not. And the clerk basically has no authority or ability to question him."
Plaintiffs had previously argued successfully to a district judge in Travis County that a lack of immunity to COVID-19 should qualify voters to apply for a mail-in ballot. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals agreed with the ruling and rejected Attorney General Ken Paxton's assertion that fear of contracting COVID does not qualify as a disability. "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," Paxton said, despite evidence showing mail-in voting systems do not substantially increase the risk of voter fraud compared to in-person voting.
Now, the battle will continue in federal court and could end up in front of the U.S. Supreme Court after runoff elections. According to a recent Pew Research Center poll, 70% of adults support, "allowing any voter to vote by mail if they want to." Democrats were much more likely to support vote by mail expansions (87%), while Republicans were more divided (49% in favor, 50% against). Additionally, 38 states have some sort of "no excuse necessary" form of mail-in ballot option, and if Democrats are successful in the U.S. Supreme Court, Texas could be next.
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 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 AllUber Not Responsible for Turning Over Information on 'Dangerous Riders' to Competitor, Judge Finds
5 minute readInfant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
4 minute read'Something Really Bad Happened': J&J's Talc Bankruptcy Vote Under Attack
7 minute readMass. Judge Declares Mistrial in Talc Trial: 'Court Can't Accommodate This Case'
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Commission Confirms Three of Newsom's Appellate Court Picks
- 2Judge Grants Special Counsel's Motion, Dismisses Criminal Case Against Trump Without Prejudice
- 3GEICO, Travelers to Pay NY $11.3M for Cybersecurity Breaches
- 4'Professional Misconduct': Maryland Supreme Court Disbars 86-Year-Old Attorney
- 5Capital Markets Partners Expect IPO Resurgence During Trump Administration
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