Reported / Citable
Background
Texas enacted Senate Bill 1 in 2021 to impose new requirements on mail-in voting, voter assistance, and compensation for certain election-related activities. Among other measures, the law requires mail voters to provide identifying information matching state records, establishes procedures for curing defective applications and ballots, requires voter assistants to make specified disclosures and attestations, and restricts compensation for certain electioneering activities.
Organizations representing or assisting voters challenged provisions of S.B. 1 under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. After a bench trial, the district court permanently enjoined the Texas Secretary of State and several local officials from enforcing nine provisions, concluding that they unlawfully burdened voters with disabilities. The defendants appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit reversed the permanent injunction in its entirety. It held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the identification provisions because they had not identified a member facing a substantial risk of future injury. Past problems experienced by individual voters had been resolved or were unlikely to recur, and the organizations could not establish standing merely by choosing to divert resources toward voter education and assistance.
The court likewise held that its prior decision involving the same plaintiffs and record foreclosed standing to challenge the voter-assistance provisions. As to the compensation provisions, alleged injuries were not traceable to local election officials, the attorney general, or the secretary of state because those officials could not prosecute violations. Although circuit precedent recognized standing to seek relief against local prosecutors, that claim failed on the merits because prosecutors do not administer voting services; the plaintiffs therefore could not show that those defendants denied a voting service or benefit because of disability.
Key Takeaways
- Past difficulty complying with mail-ballot identification rules did not establish standing for prospective relief without a substantial risk that the problem would recur.
- An organization’s voluntary diversion of resources in response to a challenged law did not create organizational standing.
- ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims against local prosecutors failed because prosecutors enforce election laws but do not provide or administer voting services.
Why It Matters
The ruling eliminates the district court’s disability-law injunction against all nine challenged provisions of Texas S.B. 1. It also reinforces demanding standing requirements for organizations seeking prospective relief against election rules, including the need to identify an imminent injury traceable to an official who can enforce the particular provision.
For disability-based election claims, the decision further limits which government actors may be proper defendants: authority to prosecute election-law violations does not, by itself, make an official responsible for providing voting services under the ADA or Rehabilitation Act.