Greg Abbott, in His Official Capacity as Governor of Texas And Ruth Hughs, in Her Official Capacity as Texas Secretary of State v. the Anti-Defamation League Austin, Southwest, and Texoma Regions Common Cause Texas And Robert Knetsch, 610 S.W.3d 911

Background

In 2020 Governor Greg Abbott, under the Texas Disaster Act, issued proclamations expanding the early-voting period and enlarging the time window for hand-delivery of mail‑in (absentee) ballots to a seven‑week period ending on election day.
The Texas Election Code otherwise requires mail‑in ballots be hand‑delivered only "while the polls are open on election day," and the Code’s single‑location language is understood to include satellite locations for the early voting clerk.
The Governor’s proclamations inverted the Election Code’s delivery rules during the expanded period: hand‑delivery was permitted across multiple days but limited to a single designated early‑voting office in each county (whereas election‑day delivery could occur at multiple county locations).
Respondents (Anti‑Defamation League Austin, Common Cause Texas, Robert Knetsch, etc.) challenged the scheme as constitutionally infirm, arguing the proclamations do not go far enough to protect ballot access because they limit delivery locations during the expanded period.
The parties treated the Governor’s proclamations as effective law; plaintiffs sought relief compelling more delivery locations (not enforcement of the Election Code as written).
Justice Guzman (joined by Justice Lehrmann) concurred with the Court’s judgment, emphasizing that the proclamations expand, rather than restrict, voting options and therefore do not abridge the right to vote; judicial policy‑making to alter those choices is improper.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Governor’s expanded hand‑delivery period that limits delivery to one county location abridges the right to vote	The limitation on delivery locations during the expanded period burdens voting access and risks disenfranchisement; courts should require more delivery points	The proclamations expand voting opportunities overall and do not make voting harder; courts should not substitute policy judgments for the executive/legislature	The expansion increases options and does not abridge the right to vote; no constitutional violation shown
Whether the court may order additional hand‑delivery locations during the proclamation period	Court should order multiple delivery points to prevent unequal access	Such relief would substitute judicial policy preferences for executive/legislative pandemic response and is unnecessary because access was expanded	Court declined to impose additional delivery‑location requirements; injunctive relief inappropriate
Whether the judiciary should reweigh pandemic‑era policy tradeoffs embedded in the proclamations	Plaintiffs urge judicial correction of what they view as inadequate pandemic accommodations	Defendants stress separation of powers; policy tradeoffs are for elected branches	Courts should not reweigh policy; judicial role is to enforce law as written, not to craft alternative election rules

Key Cases Cited

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) (judicial duty is to say what the law is)
City of Laredo v. Laredo Merchants Ass’n, 550 S.W.3d 586 (Tex. 2018) (courts should not resolve policy questions reserved to other branches)
Greene v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 446 S.W.3d 761 (Tex. 2014) (legislature establishes public policy)