The Supreme Court on Monday declined to review two challenges to Texas's ban on paid voter assistance, leaving in place a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that upheld restrictions included in Senate Bill 1.
Texas adopted the measure in 2021. It makes it a felony crime to compensate someone or receive compensation for assisting a voter with a mail-in ballot. The law directly conflicts with Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act, which guarantees voters who need help due to blindness, disability, or inability to read or write may receive assistance from "a person of the voter's choice."
What the Right Is Saying
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) defended Senate Bill 1, arguing that Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act protects who may assist voters but does not address whether assistants may be paid. That question, he contended, falls within a state's authority to regulate how elections are administered.
The state successfully argued before the Fifth Circuit that nothing in federal law prevents states from prohibiting payment for voter assistance services. The appeals court agreed, reversing the lower court's preemption ruling and allowing Texas's felony prohibition on compensated ballot help to stand.
Supporters of the Texas law say it protects election integrity by preventing potential abuse in mail-in voting, where ballots are completed outside the observation of election officials. They argue that paid voter assistants could theoretically influence how thousands of voters complete their ballots without detection.
What the Left Is Saying
Civil rights and voting rights organizations that brought the challenges said the ruling undermines protections for vulnerable voters. La Unión del Pueblo Entero (LUPE) and OCA-Greater Houston argued in separate lawsuits that Texas's ban makes it more difficult for voters of color, voters with disabilities, and voters with limited English proficiency to cast ballots because many rely on trained, paid staff for assistance.
"Petitioners ask this Court to hold that Congress, by enacting a one-sentence provision permitting voters to obtain assistance from a person of their choice rather than a person selected for them by the government, silently stripped every State of authority to regulate the financial conditions under which third parties provide mail-in-voter assistance," Paxton and others wrote in their brief.
LUPE, a nonprofit social services organization, said it has been forced to turn away members who seek help completing their mail-in ballots due to fear of prosecution. The group argued that community organizations cannot absorb the costs of providing ballot assistance without compensation, effectively shutting out voters who need support but lack personal networks capable of helping them.
A federal judge in the Western District of Texas initially ruled that the Texas ban was preempted by the Voting Rights Act and could not be enforced. Civil rights groups had urged the Supreme Court to reverse the Fifth Circuit's decision and reinstate that ruling.
What the Numbers Show
The Voting Rights Act's Section 208 has been federal law since 1965. The provision was designed to ensure voters with disabilities or literacy challenges can receive assistance from someone they trust.
Texas is one of several states that have moved to restrict voter assistance in recent years, following a surge in mail-in voting during the 2020 pandemic election. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, at least eight states have considered similar restrictions since 2021.
The Supreme Court's decision comes after it struck down Louisiana's second majority-Black congressional district earlier this year as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. That 6-3 ruling along ideological lines also weakened the scope of the Voting Rights Act, with conservative justices expressing skepticism about using the VRA to require race-based redistricting.
The Bottom Line
The Supreme Court's decision leaves in place restrictions that civil rights groups say will disproportionately affect voters who face barriers to casting ballots. With paid voter assistance now prohibited under Texas law, advocacy organizations must decide whether to absorb costs themselves, scale back ballot help programs, or stop offering such services entirely.
What happens next: Affected voters and community organizations in Texas will need to find alternative means of obtaining ballot assistance. Some may turn to unpaid volunteers, family members, or neighbors who qualify under Section 208's exemptions. Civil rights groups say those alternatives are insufficient for many vulnerable voters who lack personal networks capable of helping them navigate mail-in ballot procedures.
The decision also signals that courts remain skeptical of arguments that federal voting rights law preempts state restrictions on how voter assistance is delivered. Voting rights advocates had argued that prohibiting payment effectively nullifies Section 208's protections by making professional assistance unaffordable for community organizations serving low-income and minority voters.