Texas Mail Ballot Harvesting Ban Likely Lawful, Judges Say

A Texas ban on paid campaign canvassers assisting voters in filling out and submitting mail-in ballots received a friendly reception from a federal appeals court during oral arguments Tuesday.

Appearing to reject concerns that the ban on vote harvesting is vague and violates First Amendment protections, all three judges from a Fifth Circuit panel suggested it’s a lawful extension of a prohibition on electioneering at polling places.

In Texas, engaging in-person voters is banned within 100 feet of a polling place. In 2021, the state took that a step further by outlawing interactions in the presence of a mail-in ballot in exchange for compensation.

The state has been able to enforce the criminal statute after a panel on the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stayed a trial court injunction shortly before the November 2024 election. In May, Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) announced a grand jury had returned indictments against six people, including five current or former public officials, in a scheme to collect and submit mail-in ballots.

“You know, there’s a lot I disagree with in the way the district court handled this,” Judge Edith Jones said.

Jones continued saying she sees no constitutional problem with Texas trying to weed out “obnoxious appeals” from canvassers visiting the homes of Texans eligible to vote by mail, which are generally elderly or disabled.

“Are you saying that that’s OK because they’re within a home while the person has their ballot in front of them?” she asked a lawyer for voting rights groups.

The law, S.B. 1, makes it a third-degree felony to provide or offer vote harvesting services in exchange for compensation or another benefit. That particular ban is among roughly 30 provisions in the law facing legal challenges.

In their challenge, the voting groups say the statute is vague because it’s not always apparent when a voter they’re speaking with is in possession of a mail-in ballot. Plus, that voter can always tell a canvasser to leave their home if they aren’t interested in what they have to say, Zachary Tripp of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP argued.

“The government doesn’t get to tell you who to talk to,” Tripp said.

But the canvassers also don’t have a right to go to a private home to encourage a voter to fill out a ballot in a certain way, US District Judge Robert Summerhays of the Western District of Louisiana said.

“There’s no right, or a very limited right, under the First Amendment on private property,” said Summerhays, sitting by assignment on the appeals court.

Judge Kurt Engelhardt interrupted an argument from Tripp, who said the definition of compensation is unclear and could sweep in volunteers who receive a campaign t-shirt or ballcap.

Those items are available to any campaign volunteer and thus are “not compensation,” Engelhardt said.

Texas is represented by the state attorney general’s office. Several Republican groups that intervened in the cases are represented by Jones Day.

The case is La Union del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott, 5th Cir., No. 24-50783, 12/2/25.