La Union del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott
N/A (2024)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Purcell principle, federal courts should generally stay lower court injunctions that alter state election laws issued close to an election, especially when the law has been in effect for some time and the merits of the constitutional challenge are not 'entirely clearcut,' to avoid voter confusion and administrative burdens.
Facts:
- In 2021, the Texas Legislature enacted S.B. 1, known as the Election Protection and Integrity Act, in response to difficulties election officials faced in the 2020 election.
- S.B. 1 restricts 'paid vote harvesting services,' defined as interaction with voters in the physical presence of an official ballot or ballot voted by mail, intended to deliver votes for a specific candidate or measure, and makes it illegal to knowingly provide or offer such services for compensation or to offer compensation for such services.
- S.B. 1 clarifies that it does not restrict constitutionally protected political advocacy, such as activities where no compensation is earned, interaction occurs outside the voting process or ballot presence, or the activity is not designed to deliver votes for a specific candidate or measure.
- A coalition of organizations, including La Union del Pueblo Entero, facially challenged S.B. 1's vote harvesting provision on vagueness and First Amendment grounds.
Procedural Posture:
- La Union del Pueblo Entero and other plaintiff organizations filed suit in August 2021 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, facially challenging S.B. 1's vote harvesting provision on vagueness and First Amendment grounds and seeking injunctions against state officials.
- On September 28, 2024, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas enjoined the defendant state officials from enforcing the vote harvesting provision of S.B. 1.
- The State of Texas (Defendants-Appellants) appealed the district court's injunction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and moved to stay the district court’s order pending appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Should a federal appellate court stay a district court's injunction that alters a state election law, issued three weeks before early voting begins and three years after the law's enactment, when the constitutional challenge's merits are not 'entirely clearcut'?
Opinions:
Majority - James C. Ho
Yes, a federal appellate court should stay a district court's injunction that alters a state election law, issued close to an election, where the law has been on the books for years and the constitutional challenge's merits are not 'entirely clearcut,' to prevent voter confusion and preserve election integrity. The Supreme Court's Purcell principle instructs lower courts not to unduly delay ordering changes to election law until the eve of an election, particularly when an injunction impacts how ballots can be handled. The district court's injunction here, issued three weeks before voting begins and three years after S.B. 1 went into effect, falls squarely within the Purcell doctrine because it concerns an election law and was issued close to an election after mail-in ballots had already begun to be issued. The court found that such a late injunction risks confusing voters and unduly burdening election administrators, especially given that its practical effect varied by county. The conditions for overcoming Purcell—specifically, that the underlying merits are 'entirely clearcut' in favor of the plaintiff—were not met, as the plaintiffs' vagueness and First Amendment claims faced daunting standards for facial challenges and existing Supreme Court precedent supports state interests in protecting voter privacy and security in the voting process, whether in person or by mail.
Concurring - Irma Carrillo Ramirez
Yes, the injunction should be stayed because Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent dictates that courts should carefully guard against judicially altering the status quo on the eve of an election. This 'concern about confusion resulting from court changes to election laws close in time to the election should carry the day in the stay analysis,' even when a district court has issued a thorough order explaining its reasoning. The proximity of the injunction's issuance to the upcoming election aligns with prior holdings where stays were granted to prevent changes to election laws shortly before early voting began.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the stringent application of the Purcell principle, limiting federal judicial intervention in state election laws close to an election. It establishes a high bar for plaintiffs seeking injunctions on the eve of an election, particularly requiring the merits of their claims to be 'entirely clearcut.' The ruling underscores the judiciary's deference to state election administration and its concern for election integrity, voter confidence, and administrative stability. Future cases challenging election laws close to an election will likely face a significant hurdle in overcoming the Purcell stay standard, emphasizing the importance of timely litigation and clearly meritorious claims.
