5th Circuit SHUTS DOWN Ballot Harvesting Ban Injunction — Texas Election Integrity WINS

Quick Overview

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's injunction against Texas's voter harvesting ban, finding that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague and that the district court erred in granting a facial, pre-enforcement challenge based on hypothetical scenarios rather than concrete controversies.

Key Points: The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's injunction against Texas Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), which criminalized certain vote harvesting activities. The court found that the district court erred by entertaining a facial challenge based on hypothetical concerns rather than actual, concrete evidence of unconstitutional application. The opinion heavily relies on Federalist No. 10, quoting James Madison to emphasize the need to guard against the 'vicious arts' of election corruption. The court noted that the statute, which prohibits paying individuals to collect and deliver multiple ballots, survives strict scrutiny because it targets fraud and intimidation, which are compelling state interests. The court cited its own precedent, stating that a state law is unconstitutional only if a substantial number of its applications are unconstitutional, which was not proven here. The statute's provisions prohibiting campaign workers from operating within 100 feet of a polling location were upheld because they survived strict scrutiny, as the state demonstrated a compelling interest in preserving ballot secrecy and preventing intimidation. The court also addressed the vagueness challenge, noting that the district court improperly relied on speculative hypothetical applications instead of concrete facts.

Context: The video features attorney Andrew Branca discussing a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision concerning Texas Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), a 2021 law enacted to enhance election security. The core of the discussion revolves around the court's decision to lift an injunction against the law, specifically focusing on provisions related to mail-in ballot harvesting and campaign speech near polling places, analyzed under the First Amendment using the Anderson/Burdick balancing test.