28 F.4th 649
5th Cir.2022Background
- Texas’s mail-in voting process: voters apply to the early voting clerk, receive ballot materials, sign a carrier-envelope certificate, and return the ballot.
- Signature verification and initial processing are performed by local officials—the Signature Verification Committee (SVC) and the Early Voting Ballot Board (EVBB); the Secretary of State does not perform local ballot verification.
- Plaintiffs (individual voters and organizations) sued claiming the signature-verification system violated the Fourteenth Amendment, the ADA, and the Rehabilitation Act; the district court granted partial summary judgment to plaintiffs and issued a detailed injunction aimed at the Texas Secretary of State.
- A Fifth Circuit motions panel stayed that injunction and expressed skepticism about the district court’s merits analysis; the Secretary appealed.
- The Fifth Circuit majority held Ex parte Young does not permit injunctive relief against the Secretary because she lacks the required enforcement connection to the challenged verification provisions; the injunction was vacated and the case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Secretary of State is a proper defendant under Ex parte Young (sovereign immunity) | Secretary’s general statutory duties to oversee elections make her responsible for enforcing the mail-in verification scheme | Secretary lacks enforcement authority over local officials who actually verify signatures; Ex parte Young requires a direct enforcement connection | Secretary not a proper defendant; sovereign immunity bars injunction against her |
| Whether the Secretary’s general duty to ‘‘maintain uniformity’’ in election law creates enforcement connection | That broad duty means the Secretary enforces the challenged procedures and can provide the requested relief | ‘‘General duties’’ are insufficient; Ex parte Young requires a duty tied to the specific statute at issue | General supervisory duties do not establish the requisite enforcement connection |
| Whether advisories, guidance, or form-prescription by the Secretary amount to ‘‘enforcement’’ | Secretary’s advisories and role in prescribing forms show compulsion or control over local officials | Advice/guidance and occasional form-design do not compel local officials; plaintiffs didn’t challenge form content here | Guidance and form-design do not constitute enforcement for Ex parte Young purposes |
| Whether injunctive relief against the Secretary would afford plaintiffs redress | Enjoining the Secretary (e.g., changing forms or issuing directives) could remedy the alleged constitutional and statutory defects | The relief plaintiffs seek targets local verification practices; enjoining the Secretary cannot directly change local officials’ verification conduct | Injunction against Secretary would not redress plaintiffs’ complaint because local officials perform verification |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (allows suits against state officers enforcing unconstitutional state law)
- Richardson v. Texas Secretary of State, 978 F.3d 220 (5th Cir. 2020) (prior motions-panel opinion addressing merits and injunction stay)
- Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott, 978 F.3d 168 (5th Cir. 2020) (distinguishes when Secretary’s form-creation can create enforcement connection)
- City of Austin v. Paxton, 943 F.3d 993 (5th Cir. 2019) (Ex parte Young requires connection to enforcement of the specific statute)
- Mi Familia Vota v. Abbott, 977 F.3d 461 (5th Cir. 2020) (relief that would not redress plaintiffs’ harms cannot make a state official a proper defendant)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (Anderson/Burdick balancing for election-law burdens)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (standard for evaluating burdens on voting rights)
- Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225 (1972) (discusses § 1983, Ex parte Young, and federal courts’ role in protecting federal rights)