## Facts

- Texas Election Code § 84.004 permitted eligible voters to vote early, including by mail, in specified circumstances such as being age 65 or older or having a disability preventing in-person voting on election day.
- To receive an early-voting-by-mail ballot, a voter had to submit an application that required the voter’s signature.
- If a voter could not sign the application because of disability or illiteracy, Texas law allowed another person to sign the application as a witness for the voter.
- The challenged provision made it a criminal misdemeanor for a person to sign as a witness for more than one early-voting-by-mail application, subject to limited exceptions.
- Willie Ray and other plaintiffs challenged multiple parts of Texas’s early-voting-by-mail scheme under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and federal voting-rights protections; after legislative amendments and pretrial narrowing, the remaining dispute centered on the misdemeanor limitation on witnessing multiple applications.
- Plaintiffs contended that threatening criminal liability for witnessing more than one application reduced the number of willing helpers, leaving elderly, disabled, and illiterate voters with fewer options for needed assistance in obtaining mail ballots.
- Texas defended the limitation as a fraud-prevention measure aimed at deterring manipulation in absentee voting.

## Issues

1. Whether Texas’s criminal misdemeanor scheme barring a person from signing as a witness for more than one early-voting-by-mail application conflicts with § 208 of the Voting Rights Act, which guarantees certain voters assistance from a person of the voter’s choice (with limited exceptions).
2. Whether Texas was entitled to summary judgment upholding the witness limit, or whether plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment on their challenge to the witness-limit provision.

## Decision

- The court denied Texas’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part.
- The court concluded that Texas’s misdemeanor limitation on witnessing more than one early-voting-by-mail application was not consistent with § 208 of the Voting Rights Act to the extent it restricted the federally protected right of eligible voters (such as disabled or illiterate voters) to receive assistance from a person of their choice.
- The court declined to grant all forms of declaratory relief plaintiffs requested and dismissed certain claims for relief, leaving plaintiffs with a partial victory focused on the § 208 conflict.

## Legal Principles

- Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act provides that a voter who requires assistance because of blindness, disability, or inability to read or write may receive assistance from a person of the voter’s choice, except the voter’s employer or union representative.
- A state election rule that materially limits or penalizes the assistance guaranteed by § 208 conflicts with federal law and cannot be enforced to the extent of that conflict.
- Courts may resolve election-related disputes on statutory grounds (such as the Voting Rights Act) without reaching broader constitutional questions when the statutory claim is dispositive.
- Fraud prevention is a legitimate state interest in election administration, but state methods used to address fraud may not negate rights granted by federal voting law.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; cross-motions may be granted in part where only some requested relief is warranted.

## Conclusion

In Ray v. Texas, the Eastern District of Texas ruled that Texas’s scheme making it a misdemeanor to sign as a witness for more than one early-voting-by-mail application conflicted with § 208 of the Voting Rights Act insofar as it deterred or limited assistance to voters covered by § 208, denied Texas summary judgment, and awarded plaintiffs partial summary judgment and limited declaratory relief while rejecting other requested relief.


Ray v. Texas, Civil Action No. 2-06-CV-385 (2008)