BALLOT HARVESTING BAN REINSTATED — Major WIN!

Person in suit giving thumbs up gesture.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a decisive blow to ballot harvesting schemes, reversing a lower court and reinstating Texas’ ban on paid operatives manipulating mail-in voters—a ruling that strikes at the heart of election fraud vulnerabilities leftist groups have exploited for years.

Story Highlights

Fifth Circuit unanimously overturned a district court injunction, allowing Texas to enforce its ban on paid ballot harvesting starting February 12, 2026
The ruling targets paid operatives who pressure voters while filling out mail ballots, preventing fraud and intimidation schemes
Judge Edith H. Jones criticized the lower court’s “judicial myopia” and reliance on speculative hypotheticals instead of documented fraud risks
This victory sets a national precedent, empowering states to protect election integrity against well-funded get-out-the-vote manipulation

Federal Court Reverses District Judge’s Overreach

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a unanimous 26-page opinion on February 12, 2026, reversing District Judge Xavier Rodriguez’s 2024 injunction blocking Texas Senate Bill 1. Judge Edith H. Jones, a Reagan appointee, authored the decision in case 24-50783, ruling the law constitutional and rejecting claims it violated First Amendment rights or federal disability statutes. The panel dismissed arguments the statute was unconstitutionally vague, noting terms like “physical presence” carry common-sense meanings. This reversal immediately reinstated enforcement authority for local district attorneys across Texas.

Who was against this? And, why? It's a mystery…

Fifth Circuit Upholds Texas Ban on Paid Ballot Harvesting in Major Election Integrity Win https://t.co/LdVQihAvxg

— Leftism Delenda Est (@old_take) February 13, 2026

Texas Law Targets Paid Influence Over Mail Voters

Texas SB1, enacted in September 2021 as part of post-2020 election reforms, criminalizes “vote harvesting services”—compensated in-person interactions with voters in a ballot’s physical presence intended to influence votes. Unlike broader ballot collection bans, this provision specifically targets paid door-to-door operatives who advise or pressure voters while they complete mail ballots. Unpaid volunteers remain exempt, preserving legitimate assistance while blocking schemes that incentivize fraud, vote-buying, and coercion. The law responded to documented vulnerabilities in mail-in voting, where officials cannot monitor ballot handling after mailing.

Supreme Court Precedent Backs State Authority

The Fifth Circuit anchored its decision in the Supreme Court’s 2021 *Brnovich v. DNC* ruling, which affirmed states possess broad latitude to prevent mail voting fraud. Judge Jones emphasized mail ballots carry “inherent vulnerability” to manipulation, citing Supreme Court recognition of risks like intimidation and vote-buying. The panel rejected the district court’s focus on hypothetical scenarios—such as providing water to volunteers—as speculative distractions from real fraud prevention needs. This deference to state election security measures aligns with conservative principles of federalism and limited judicial interference in legislative judgment.

Election Integrity Wins Despite Leftist Opposition

Voting rights groups filed the original lawsuit claiming the law imposed unconstitutional burdens on minorities, elderly voters, and disabled individuals requiring assistance. These plaintiffs argued the ban restricted ballot access and violated federal protections. However, the court found Texas narrowly tailored its law to combat documented fraud risks without broadly suppressing legitimate voting. Attorney General Ken Paxton and Secretary of State officials defended the measure as essential for restoring confidence in elections after 2020’s mail-in voting surge raised nationwide fraud concerns. The Republican Party of Texas hailed the decision as crucial for honest elections.

The ruling establishes precedent for other states seeking similar protections, reinforcing that preventing paid ballot manipulation serves legitimate government interests. While opponents claim the law harms voter assistance, the court distinguished between unpaid help and compensated operatives whose financial incentives create fraud temptations. This decision empowers states to close loopholes exploited by well-funded campaigns deploying paid canvassers to sway vulnerable voters, ensuring elections reflect genuine voter intent rather than outside pressure. With enforcement now active, Texas sets a model for protecting ballot integrity against schemes that undermine constitutional self-governance.