39 F.4th 297
5th Cir.2022Background
- Texas law allowed faxed voter-registration forms in 2013 if a hardcopy with the applicant’s original (wet) signature was mailed or delivered within four days; HB 3107 (2021) clarified that the mailed hardcopy must contain the voter’s original signature.
- Vote.org built a web app that assembled registration forms from user data and an electronic image of a signature, then used third-party vendors to fax the form to county registrars and mail a hardcopy.
- A 2018 pilot revealed design and transmission problems; the Texas Secretary of State advised that faxed forms with only an electronic image of a signature were incomplete and required cure under Tex. Elec. Code § 13.073.
- Vote.org sued four county election officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing the wet-signature requirement violates 52 U.S.C. § 10101(a)(2)(B) (§ 1971) and unduly burdens voting under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- The district court granted a permanent injunction for Vote.org; defendants sought a stay pending appeal, which the district court denied.
- The Fifth Circuit granted a stay pending appeal, concluding the defendants demonstrated entitlement to extraordinary relief (likelihood of success on the merits and favorable balance of stay factors).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing (organizational / third-party / statutory) | Vote.org claims organizational injury from diverted resources and invokes prospective users’ rights under prudential exception to third-party standing. | Vote.org lacks a sufficiently "close" relationship with individual voters; § 1983 does not permit suing to vindicate third parties’ rights (no statutory standing). | Court: Vote.org likely lacks third-party and statutory standing; defendants showed strong likelihood of prevailing on standing grounds. |
| § 1971 claim: deprivation & materiality | Wet-signature requirement is immaterial to voter qualification and therefore violates § 1971. | Fax-without-wet-signature applicants get notice and a ten-day cure opportunity; registration alternatives exist; wet signature is material under Texas law for fax submissions. | Court: Defendants likely to succeed—rule does not deprive voters of the right to vote (cure & alternatives) and the wet-signature requirement is material to qualification under state law. |
| Constitutional claim (Anderson–Burdick balancing) | The wet-signature rule unduly burdens voting; Texas offers inconsistent or inadequate justifications; the burden is meaningful for fax users. | The rule imposes at most a slight burden (affects small subset and cure/alternatives available) and furthers important/compelling state interests (attestation, fraud deterrence). | Court: Defendants likely to succeed—burden is at most slight and the State’s interests justify the requirement under Anderson–Burdick. |
| Stay factors (irreparable harm, injury to others, public interest) | Stay would delay relief to Vote.org and prospective users. | State suffers irreparable harm when courts enjoin statutes; stay preserves uniform election administration and causes minimal harm (users can comply or use alternatives). | Court: Irreparable harm to State, minimal injury to others, and public interest favor a stay; stay pending appeal GRANTED. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (stay factors for injunctions and appeals)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (Anderson–Burdick balancing for election regulations)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (Anderson–Burdick framework and level-of-burden analysis)
- Tex. League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Hughs, 978 F.3d 136 (5th Cir. 2020) (analysis that minimal burdens in registration schemes may not implicate severe scrutiny)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requirements)
- Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U.S. 125 (prudential third-party standing requires a close relationship)
- Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118 (statutory standing / scope of legislatively conferred causes of action)
- Voting for Am., Inc. v. Steen, 732 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. 2013) (state interest in election integrity supports prophylactic measures)
- Thomas v. Bryant, 919 F.3d 298 (5th Cir. 2019) (stay-pending-appeal standard as applied in this circuit)