Federal Appeals Court Revives Key Parts of Texas Voter Law Found to Harm Voters With Disabilities

For Texans who rely on mail-in voting—particularly those over the age of 65 or living with disabilities—the administrative rules for casting a ballot just reverted to a significantly stricter standard. A federal appeals court has reinstated key provisions of the state's sweeping 2021 election overhaul, meaning voters must once again navigate precise identification-matching requirements and strict limits on who can help them fill out their ballots. The decision fundamentally alters the landscape for absentee voting in the state, shifting the burden back onto the voter to ensure their paperwork perfectly aligns with decades-old state records before their vote can be counted.[1][2]

The structural shift came Wednesday when the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court's injunction that had blocked nine provisions of Texas Senate Bill 1. The reversed ruling, issued by a federal district judge in March 2025 following a six-week trial, had found that the state's mail-in voting restrictions violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by disproportionately burdening disabled voters. The lower court had concluded that the law's complex requirements effectively disenfranchised voters who required physical assistance or struggled with the new paperwork mandates, causing humiliation and a loss of privacy.[1][2][4]

In its reversal, the appellate panel did not definitively rule on whether the law actually violates federal disability protections. Instead, the court dismantled the case on procedural grounds. Writing for the unanimous panel, Judge Andrew Oldham determined that the coalition of civil rights organizations and disability advocacy groups challenging the law largely lacked the legal standing to bring the suit in the first place. By finding that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated the specific, individualized, and ongoing harm required to sue in federal court, the appellate judges effectively shielded the legislation from substantive federal disability-law scrutiny.[1][2]

"The bulk of the plaintiffs' claims fail for lack of standing. One fails on the merits," Judge Oldham wrote in the 11-page opinion. "But none justifies interference with the State Legislature's efforts to prevent voter fraud and to protect election integrity." The judge also took an unusually broad and combative stance against absentee voting itself, writing that "it has long been established that mail-in ballots are prone to fraud" and asserting that the practice "jeopardizes election integrity and democracy itself"—a claim that voting rights advocates argue goes far beyond what empirical evidence supports.[1][2]

The revived provisions center heavily on the mechanics of mail-in voting. Texans voting by mail must now provide a driver's license number or a partial Social Security number on both their ballot application and the return envelope. Crucially, that number must exactly match the identification the voter used when they originally registered to vote. When the law was first implemented, this matching requirement caused widespread confusion across the state, as many elderly voters could not recall which specific document they had used to register decades prior, leading to thousands of rejected ballots.[1][3]

The ruling also revives strict regulations on individuals who help disabled or limited-English voters cast their ballots. Assistors are now required to sign an oath under penalty of perjury swearing they did not coerce the voter, and they must formally disclose their relationship to the voter. Furthermore, the law places strict limits on paid voter assistance and canvassing, measures that advocacy groups argue criminalize standard voter outreach and make it legally dangerous for community organizations to help marginalized voters navigate the electoral process.[1][2][5]

Texas officials have consistently defended Senate Bill 1 as a necessary structural measure to secure the state's elections and prevent illegal ballot harvesting. Following the appellate ruling, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton celebrated the decision as a "major victory" for the state. Paxton stated that voter identification is one of the most crucial tools in the battle against election fraud, praising the court for affirming the state's fundamental right to defend the integrity of its democratic processes against federal interference and activist judges.[2]

Voting rights advocates, however, argue the law creates a maze of administrative traps that disproportionately ensnare eligible voters. During the first election after the law took effect—the March 2022 primary—a study found that roughly one in seven mail-in voters had their applications or ballots rejected, largely due to the new identification-matching requirements. Advocates argue that these rejections represent thousands of legitimate voters who were disenfranchised over minor paperwork errors rather than actual fraud, fundamentally undermining the democratic process.[2]

The 5th Circuit opinion countered this narrative by pointing to the law's longer-term trajectory and the adaptability of the electorate. The court noted that the rejection rate for mail-in ballots due to identification errors dropped from 11% to 2.7% within eight months of the law's implementation. From the court's perspective, this sharp decline suggests that voters quickly learned how to comply with the new system, undermining the plaintiffs' claims of ongoing, insurmountable harm and justifying the reinstatement of the identification rules.[1][2]

For now, the 5th Circuit's ruling means the Senate Bill 1 provisions are fully enforceable as Texas approaches the November 2026 general election. While the plaintiffs may attempt to appeal the decision to the full 5th Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court, county election administrators must immediately revert to enforcing the strict identification and assistance rules for all mail-in ballots. The decision ensures that Texas will conduct its upcoming elections under some of the most stringent absentee voting regulations in the country, setting a precedent that could influence election laws nationwide.[1][2][6]