Texas Senate Bill 1: The Impending Future of Voter Identification Laws

Texas Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), signed in response to the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, has been the subject of widespread controversy, shedding light on the broader national debate over the impact of voter identification laws. The bill, signed by Governor Greg Abbott, made several fundamental changes to Texas voting policy which its opposers argue have disproportionately impacted marginalized communities. Several civil rights organizations — including the American Civil Liberties Union and Brennan Center for Justice, as well as the United States Justice Department — have filed lawsuits over SB 1, arguing that clauses within the legislation violate the Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act. [1, 2] With the recent midterm elections, two fundamental questions are more salient than ever: is SB 1 viable under federal law, and what does it tell us about Voter ID laws in America at large? 

SB 1’s outstanding changes to state voting policy are manifold. It first requires the inclusion of either a driver’s license number or Social Security number on a mail-in ballot application and return envelope that matches what is listed in an individual’s voter record. This is a shift from the previous signature-based verification process. Citizens eligible to vote by mail include “those who are over age 65, out of the county on Election Day or have a disability or illness that prevents them from voting in person.”[3] In the March primary election, 1 in 8 mail-in ballots were rejected due to mismatched numbers or a voter failing to recognize the new policy and include the pertinent information on both forms. Civil rights organizations claim that these new protocols unfairly disenfranchise the elderly (65+) and disabled communities. [4, 5]  Meanwhile, the Justice Department’s suit argues that SB 1 is a violation of Section 101 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which states that “No person acting under color of law shall… deny the right of any individual to vote in any Federal election because of an error or omission on any record or paper relating to any application, registration, or other act requisite to voting…” [6] SB 1 did exactly what the Act forbids by disqualifying 1 in 8 ballots on account of error or omission in either the process of application, or on the ballot itself. In this case, SB 1’s process of rejecting ballots because of error and omission is a clear violation of the federal civil rights guaranteed to all Americans under federal law.

Lawsuits against SB 1 also argue that the disabled community is further disenfranchised by the Bill’s provision of new requirements for any individual assisting a disabled voter: they must submit a document including their name, address, relation to the voter, and a pledge to adhere to strict limitations in their interactions with the voter. [7]  The Justice Department’s lawsuit claims that this is a violation of Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act, which refers to voters needing assistance by reason of blindness, disability, or inability to read or write. Its parameters state that “Any such voter may be given assistance by a person of the voter's choice, other than the voter's employer or agent of the employer or officer or agent of the voter's union.” The language used here is significant — the Act does not specify requirements for the selection of an assistant for a voter and explicitly states it may be anyone the voter chooses, excluding a short list of people. SB 1’s clauses have created new limitations for voter assistants that illegally impede voters (protected under Section 208) from freely selecting individuals to serve as their assistant. [8]

SB 1 also bans 24-hour voting and drive-through voting in Texas. Opponents of the Bill argue that this was a political move targeted at the racially diverse Harris County, which offered both modes of voting in 2020 to accommodate its community members, many of whom are shift workers. A lawsuit filed by the NAACP argues that this form of racial discrimination is intentional and a violation of the First, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. They also claim that it conflicts with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits the implementation of voting procedures that discriminate on the basis of race. [9] Proving intentionality behind this claim is difficult, however, as Texas lawmakers assert that the decision deliberately espouses stricter enforcement to ensure that the opportunity for fraudulent voting will diminish. 

Ultimately, SB 1 violates federal law in many regards. In the most explicit sense, it does so under the two clauses presented by the Justice Department. Though the question of whether or not the intention was deliberate is unclear, SB 1 has, in effect, disenfranchised many minority communities. As such, the Bill stands to exclude thousands from the November 2022 midterm elections.

Grace Posorske is a junior at Brown University concentrating in International & Public Affairs and Classics. She is a staff writer for the Brown University Undergraduate Law Review and can be contacted at grace_posorske@brown.edu.