## Facts

- The Texas Secretary of State certified the “eSlate” direct-recording electronic (DRE) voting system for use in Texas elections under the Texas Election Code’s certification process (examiners’ report, public hearing, and Secretary review).
- After certification, local political subdivisions could adopt the system; Travis County used eSlate beginning in 2003.
- eSlate was “paperless,” producing no contemporaneous voter-verifiable paper record of each vote; votes and totals were stored electronically, with required diagnostic and public logic-and-accuracy testing.
- A civil-rights organization and individual voters sued the Secretary of State seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prohibit use of paperless DREs unless paired with an independent paper-ballot mechanism.
- Plaintiffs alleged that certifying and allowing paperless DREs violated the Texas Election Code and the Texas Constitution and created a risk that votes would be inaccurately recorded or counted, burdening or diluting the right to vote.
- The Secretary filed a plea to the jurisdiction and a motion for summary judgment, asserting lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (including standing) and immunity.
- The trial court denied the plea and the motion; the court of appeals affirmed in a divided decision.
- The Texas Supreme Court reversed and rendered judgment dismissing the case.

## Issues

1. Whether voters and an advocacy organization had standing to challenge certification and use of a paperless electronic voting system based on asserted risks to election accuracy and integrity.
2. Whether any claims that were sufficiently concrete stated violations of the Texas Election Code or the Texas Constitution requiring a contemporaneous paper record or similar mechanism.

## Decision

- The Texas Supreme Court held that most allegations presented nonjusticiable generalized grievances about the lawfulness of government conduct and therefore did not establish standing.
- The Court held that asserted harms based on possible future machine malfunction or fraud were speculative and did not constitute a concrete, particularized injury.
- Assuming certain narrower statutory complaints were justiciable, the Court concluded they failed on the merits because the Election Code did not require a contemporaneous voter-verifiable paper record for DRE systems.
- The Court rejected constitutional claims that paperless DREs, by themselves, violated the right to vote or mandated a specific voting technology.
- The court of appeals’ judgment was reversed, and judgment was rendered dismissing the case.

## Legal Principles

- Standing is a component of subject-matter jurisdiction and requires a concrete, particularized injury distinct from a generalized interest shared by the public.
- Generalized objections to election administration or disagreement with an official’s policy choices and statutory interpretation, without a personal and concrete injury, are not justiciable.
- Allegations of potential future harm in election technology, without a showing of actual or imminent injury, are too speculative to support standing.
- Courts apply the Election Code as written and will not add requirements (such as a voter-verified paper trail) absent statutory text.
- The Texas Constitution does not, without more, mandate a particular voting method or require a paper record for electronic voting systems.

## Conclusion

The Texas Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to paperless electronic voting machines because the plaintiffs largely asserted generalized, speculative concerns rather than a concrete injury, and any remaining statutory and constitutional theories failed because Texas law did not require a contemporaneous paper record for DRE voting.


Andrade v. NAACP of Austin, 345 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2011)