In a significant win for Texas Republicans, a federal appeals court has reinstated the state’s controversial ban on paid ballot harvesting, overturning a lower court’s decision that had temporarily blocked the law just before the 2024 election.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on February 12, 2026, that Texas can enforce provisions in Senate Bill 1 making it a crime to provide compensated ballot collection services while in the physical presence of an official ballot. The unanimous three-judge panel reversed a district court’s injunction, writing that the lower court erred “in facially striking down this provision and entering an injunction against state officials in violation of their sovereign immunity.”
What exactly is ballot harvesting?
Ballot harvesting involves third-party operatives collecting and submitting mail-in ballots on behalf of voters. When these collectors are paid and interact with voters as they complete their ballots, Texas lawmakers contend it creates opportunities for voter intimidation, coercion, and potential fraud.
The ban specifically targets compensated harvesting activities performed in the physical presence of ballots — not volunteer efforts or broader voter outreach. It’s part of a sweeping election law passed by Texas Republicans in 2021 amid national debates over voting access and security.
“Texas will not allow our election system to be exploited with paid ballot harvesting schemes that threaten ballot secrecy and invite coercion and fraud,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton declared following the ruling. “This is a huge win for Texas voters and for secure, honest elections.”
Constitutional questions resolved
The 26-page opinion, authored by Judge Edith Jones, dismissed arguments that the law was unconstitutionally vague. The panel determined that terms like “compensation or other benefit” and “physical presence” have commonly understood meanings that juries could reasonably interpret.
Critics had argued the law violated First Amendment rights by restricting political speech and association. But the court wasn’t buying it.
“A federal district court’s intrusion on a state’s constitutional prerogative cannot be supported by mere speculation,” Judge Jones wrote for the panel, which found the law narrowly tailored to prevent specific harms while allowing ample alternative channels for political engagement.
The court also cited Supreme Court precedent recognizing the unique risks associated with mail-in voting, including the 2021 Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee decision, to support Texas’s “compelling interest” in maintaining election integrity.
Political fallout and implementation
Texas Governor Greg Abbott quickly celebrated the victory on social media. “I signed a law criminalizing paid in-person ballot harvesting in elections. A trial court ruled against me,” Abbott noted. “Today the Federal Court of Appeals overturned that erroneous ruling and allowed the law to take effect.”
The ruling means Texas can enforce the ban during the 2026 primary elections, though opponents could still appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court’s interpretation specifically endorsed applying the statute to “prevent paid partisans from haranguing Texas citizens while they fill out their mail ballots,” finding such application neither vague nor unconstitutional.
Former Election Division Director Keith Ingram’s testimony proved crucial, as he explained that the law targets situations where paid operatives might pressure voters while ballots are being completed — not broader assistance efforts or education campaigns.
The three-judge panel, which included Judges Edith Jones, Jerry Smith, and Andrew Oldham, unanimously concluded that the law “curtails various activities that incentivize vote fraud and intimidation” while respecting constitutional boundaries.
As the 2026 election season approaches, Texas now joins a growing list of states implementing stricter rules around ballot collection — though few have gone as far as criminalizing paid harvesting specifically. Whether this represents necessary election security or, as critics contend, another barrier to voting access, may ultimately depend on which side of the political aisle you’re standing on.
