Appeals court revives key parts of Texas voter suppression law found to harm voters with disabilities

A federal appeals court Wednesday overturned a ruling that had blocked key parts of Texas’ sweeping voter suppression law, allowing those provisions to remain in effect despite a lower court’s finding that they violated federal protections for voters with disabilities.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision in full, delivering another win for anti-voting Texas Republicans in the yearslong legal fight over Senate Bill 1 (SB 1).

The ruling affects several restrictions on mail-in voting and voter assistance. Among them are rules requiring some voters to provide an identification number that matches state records, requirements for people who help voters cast ballots and limits on paid voter assistance and canvassing.

The opinion opened with an unusual and extraordinary attack on mail-in voting, portraying the practice itself as a threat to democracy.

“It has long been established that mail-in ballots are prone to fraud,” Judge Andrew Oldham wrote. “That is why voting by mail jeopardizes election integrity and democracy itself.”

The sweeping claim goes well beyond what the evidence shows. Fraud involving mail-in ballots is exceedingly rare, and research has not found evidence that mail-in voting produces widespread voter fraud as anti-voting activists have suggested over the years. 

Election officials also use safeguards including ballot tracking and other security measures to detect improper ballots.

Oldham cited a 2014 federal district court opinion stating that mail-in ballots are “not secure,” a decision the Fifth Circuit later affirmed in relevant part. But his broader assertion that mail-in voting itself jeopardizes democracy was the court’s characterization, not a finding that widespread mail-ballot fraud had occurred.

A federal district court blocked nine provisions of SB 1 in March 2025 after finding that they violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, two federal laws that protect people with disabilities from discrimination.

Wednesday’s ruling wipes away that decision.

But in most of the case, the appeals court did not decide whether the challenged provisions actually violate those disability laws. Instead, it ruled that the groups challenging the law had not shown the kind of direct, ongoing harm needed to bring those claims in federal court.

For the mail-in ballot identification rules, the court said the plaintiffs had not shown that a specific voter was likely to be harmed again in a future election. The opinion pointed to voters who had previously struggled with the new requirements but had since learned how to comply with them.

The court also noted that the share of mail-in ballot applications or ballots rejected because of missing or mismatched identification numbers had dropped from 11% or 12% to 2.7% within eight months.

The appeals court used similar reasoning to reject challenges to SB 1’s voter assistance rules, saying earlier Fifth Circuit decisions had already undercut the plaintiffs’ claims.

Only one part of the case was decided directly on the substance of the disability discrimination claims. The court ruled that local prosecutors could be sued over restrictions on paid voter assistance, but it ultimately sided with the state because prosecutors enforce election laws rather than provide voting services.

That means the practical effect of Wednesday’s ruling is broader than the legal reasoning behind it. The lower court’s block on all nine provisions is gone even though the appeals court did not rule that every provision is lawful under federal disability protections.

Oldham also took an unusually combative tone toward the lower court and the groups challenging SB 1.

“In short, we have been playing an exhausting game of Whac-A-Mole to correct the district court’s mishandling of this case,” Oldham wrote.

The decision is the latest blow to voting rights and civil rights groups that have spent years challenging SB 1, a sweeping 2021 law that imposed new restrictions on mail-in voting, voter assistance and other election activity. Different parts of the law have been challenged under the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, the First Amendment and federal disability laws.

“The bulk of the plaintiffs’ claims fail for lack of standing,” Oldham wrote. “One fails on the merits. But none justifies interference with the State Legislature’s efforts to prevent voter fraud and to protect election integrity.”

With Wednesday’s decision, the Fifth Circuit erased the lower court’s order blocking the nine provisions, clearing another major legal obstacle to enforcement of one of the country’s most restrictive voting laws.