A federal appeals court on Thursday upheld a Texas law that prohibits paid ballot harvesting, overturning a lower court’s decision that had previously blocked the measure as unconstitutional. The ruling now allows Texas to enforce the controversial restriction.

In a detailed 26-page opinion, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that a district court had erred when it struck down a key provision of Texas’ 2021 election law, Senate Bill 1. The provision in question criminalizes being paid to interact with voters in person while they complete mail ballots with the intent to influence their voting choices.

Under the statute, a person commits a crime if they knowingly provide “vote harvesting services” in exchange for compensation or other benefit. The law specifically defines these services as in-person interaction with voters in the physical presence of an official ballot, intended to deliver votes for specific candidates or measures.

The legislation targets paid political operatives who engage in door-to-door activities, assisting voters with requesting or completing mail ballots and then collecting those ballots—sometimes while attempting to influence voters’ choices as they mark their ballots.

Judge Edith H. Jones, writing for the panel, criticized the lower court for invalidating the law before it had even taken effect and relying on what she characterized as speculative hypothetical situations. The district court had previously ruled the statute was unconstitutionally vague and violated First Amendment protections, issuing an injunction that prevented Texas officials from enforcing it.

The 5th Circuit disagreed with this assessment. On the question of vagueness, the panel determined that terms such as “compensation or other benefit” and “physical presence” have commonly understood meanings that juries can reasonably interpret. The court emphasized that the statute requires a person to act “knowingly,” which significantly narrows its application.

The ruling stated the law clearly applies to “prevent paid partisans from haranguing Texas citizens while they fill out their mail ballots,” addressing concerns about voter coercion.

The court also rejected the First Amendment challenge. Applying a balancing test typically used in election law cases, the panel ruled that Texas has a compelling interest in preventing voter intimidation and fraud while preserving confidence in elections. The opinion heavily referenced the Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, which upheld Arizona’s restrictions on ballot collection and acknowledged that mail-in voting presents unique fraud risks.

Even applying the highest standard of constitutional review, the 5th Circuit concluded that Texas’ law is narrowly tailored because it only applies to paid, in-person conduct directly involving a ballot—not to unpaid volunteers or general political advocacy activities.

The ruling addressed procedural questions as well, determining that while the Texas attorney general and secretary of state were not proper defendants under sovereign immunity principles, local district attorneys who indicated they would enforce the law could remain parties to the case.

Supporters of the law argue that paid ballot collection creates opportunities for voter coercion or fraud, particularly with mail-in voting where election officials are not present to supervise the process. They contend these restrictions are necessary safeguards for election integrity.

Opponents, however, maintain that organized ballot assistance is a legitimate strategy for increasing voter participation and that such restrictions disproportionately affect elderly and minority voters who often rely on assistance to return their ballots.

This decision represents a significant victory for Texas officials defending the state’s post-2020 election reforms and reinforces a broader trend in federal courts granting states considerable latitude to regulate election procedures. The ruling aligns with similar decisions across the country as states implement various voting restrictions following the contentious 2020 election.

Voting rights groups involved in the lawsuit may seek a rehearing or petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case, though the high court has recently shown reluctance to overturn state election laws.