Texas Voting-Law Claims Appear to Divide Fifth Circuit Judges

A Fifth Circuit appellate panel on Wednesday appeared somewhat divided on claims that a Texas election law could discourage people from assisting disabled voters.

Judge Kyle Duncan in particular seemed skeptical of an argument that requiring voters’ assistants to take a more detailed oath would put them in fear of prosecution.

Attorney Victor Genecin of the NAACP, arguing for advocacy groups including Delta Sigma Theta Sorority and Arc of Texas, said that the district court “credited that the ‘penalty of perjury’ language is intimidating and threatening” when Duncan interrupted.

“Shouldn’t it be?” he asked. “When someone swears an oath, shouldn’t they be somewhat concerned about whether they’re swearing truthfully?”

Judge James Graves Jr. appeared more receptive to the claims. The new oath makes clear, he said, that a violation puts the so-called “assister” at risk of felony persecution and jail.

“You don’t think that has a chilling effect on who is willing to be an assister?” he asked attorney John Gore of Jones Day, who argued on behalf of various Republican groups.

Gore responded that plaintiffs would need to show an actual credible threat of prosecution.

“But if there are no prosecutions because there are people who are afraid to be assisters, then you have the effect of the statute,” Graves said.

The case involves challenges by advocacy groups who claim that parts of a sweeping Texas election-reform law violate the Voting Rights Act by imposing several new requirements on people with disabilities and the assistants who help them cast ballots.

After a lengthy trial, a district court judge agreed, finding that certain provisions deter people from providing voting assistance. That shrinks the circle of eligible people who are willing to help disabled voters cast a ballot, the court found.

The law remained in effect, however, through the November 2024 election.

‘Assistance’ Scope

Attorney William Cole of the Texas attorney general’s office noted that the federal voting rights law in question was intended to prevent states from requiring disabled voters to get assistance only from election workers.

“It grants blind, disabled and illiterate voters the right to voting assistance by a person of their choice, but not any person under any conditions at any time,” he said.

Nina Perales of the Mexican-American Legal Defense & Educational Fund, arguing for La Union del Pueblo Entero, called that “a very small interpretation.”

The law “says that the voter has the right to vote with the assistance of a person of their choice, and that is of course much broader than simply restraining states from designating who the assister will be,” she said.

The section of the Texas law that prohibits assisters from getting economic compensation poses an improper categorical ban on a whole group of people, Perales said.

It would bar, she said, a paid staffer at a community organization from helping someone with their ballot, or a blind person who buys his friend lunch in exchange for helping him vote.

But, Duncan asked, would the same logic apply if the state wanted to ban people convicted of voter intimidation from acting as assisters?

“The state is allowed to have rules and regulations about what unlawful assistance is, what coercion is,” Perales said. “But the state cannot layer on categories of individuals that impair the voter’s choice.”

Judge Jerry Smith also sat on the panel. Eric J.R. Nichols of Butler Snow argued for the Harris County District Attorney’s office. Zachary Dolling of the Texas Civil Rights Project argued for OCA-Greater Houston.

The case is La Union del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott, 5th Cir., No. 24-50826, oral arguments 4/30/25.