609 F.Supp.3d 515
W.D. Tex.2022Background
- Vote.org operated a web app that auto-populated Texas voter-registration forms; users uploaded a photo of their signature and the app faxed the form to county registrars.
- In 2021 Texas amended Tex. Elec. Code § 13.143(d-2) (HB 3107 §14) to require that for registrations submitted by telephonic facsimile a copy of the original registration application containing the voter’s original (wet) signature be mailed or personally delivered and received within four business days (the “Wet Signature Rule”).
- Vote.org sued under 52 U.S.C. § 10101(a)(2) (Section 1971 of the Civil Rights Act) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging the Wet Signature Rule unlawfully denies/risks denial of the right to vote and imposes an undue burden under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- Defendants argued lack of standing, that a wet signature is material to qualification to vote (fraud prevention/attestation), and that any burden is minimal because alternative registration methods exist and cure notices are available.
- The county registrars’ deposition testimony showed they do not use wet signatures to verify identity, store electronic signature images (e.g., DPS submissions), and do not routinely compare wet and electronic signatures; registrars can reject illegible or incomplete submissions regardless of medium.
- The Court (W.D. Tex.) denied Texas’s summary-judgment motions, granted Vote.org summary judgment on both claims, permanently enjoined enforcement of § 13.143(d-2)’s wet-signature copy requirement for fax submissions, and limited declaratory relief (declared § 13.143(d-2) unlawful but declined to invalidate all wet-signature requirements statewide).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing | Vote.org has organizational standing to sue under §1971 and §1983 | Texas argues Vote.org lacks concrete injury and statutory cause of action | Court: Vote.org has standing; summary judgment denial to Texas on standing grounds (issue previously resolved) |
| §1971 materiality: Is a mailed wet signature "material" to voter qualification? | Wet signature is not material to statutory qualifications; electronic image suffice; registrars don’t use wet signatures for qualification or fraud checks | Wet signature requirement is material because signatures help prevent fraud and attest to accuracy | Court: Wet Signature Rule is not material to qualification under §1971; Vote.org wins on Civil Rights Act claim |
| Constitutional undue-burden (1st/14th): Does the rule unduly burden the right to vote? | Rule imposes an added printing/postage/delivery step, risks missed 4-day deadline, effectively nullifies fax advantage and burdens voters (esp. low-propensity) | Burden is minimal; alternative registration routes exist; cure notices prevent disenfranchisement; state interest in election integrity is weighty | Court: Rule imposes more-than-minimal burden and is not justified by the asserted state interests; Vote.org wins on undue-burden claim |
| Scope of declaratory relief sought by Vote.org | Seeks invalidation of §13.143(d-2) and any other wet-signature requirements statewide | Opposes expansive declaration beyond §13.143(d-2) | Court: Grants declaratory relief as to §13.143(d-2) but denies broader declaration invalidating all wet-signature provisions |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (registration rules that affect access to ballot analyzed under balancing framework)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (level of scrutiny depends on character and magnitude of burden on voting rights)
- Crawford v. Marion Cty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (even slight burdens must be justified by relevant and sufficiently weighty state interests)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary-judgment standard requiring genuine dispute of material fact)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (party moving for summary judgment must show absence of genuine issue of material fact)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (nonmovant must present more than mere allegations to defeat summary judgment)
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) (elements required for permanent injunction)
- Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997) (state interests justify certain reasonable restrictions on elections)
- Voting for Am., Inc. v. Steen, 732 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. 2013) (applying Anderson/Burdick in Fifth Circuit)
- Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) (importance of public confidence and stability in election procedures)
- Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989) (state’s compelling interest in preserving election integrity)
- Mi Familia Vota v. Abbott, 497 F. Supp. 3d 195 (W.D. Tex. 2020) (contextual precedent on voter-registration burdens)