AUSTIN — The Supreme Court of the United States has declined to hear a case brought by a Texas Democrats seeking to overturn Texas’s age-based restrictions on mail-in voting, bringing an end to a years-long legal battle. Attorney General Ken Paxton successfully defended the Texas law that limits voting by mail, ensuring its continuation.
Under Texas law, eligible voters are required to cast their ballots in person unless they meet specific exceptions, including being 65 years of age or older, disabled, out of the county during elections, about to give birth, or confined in jail. The case, initially backed by the Texas Democratic Party in 2020, alleged that such restrictions were unconstitutional as they discriminated against voters under the age of 65.
Despite an initial ruling in favor of the plaintiffs by a district court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overturned the decision, upholding Texas law during the 2020 election.
In subsequent years, all claims were dismissed by a federal district court in 2022, with the Fifth Circuit affirming the decision in 2023. Turning to SCOTUS, the plaintiffs' petition to hear the case was declined, thus supporting the Fifth Circuit's ruling in favor of Texas law.
Attorney General Paxton expressed satisfaction with the outcome, stating, “Many states irresponsibly and unconstitutionally changed their voting policies prior to the 2020 election. Fortunately, we did things differently in Texas: we fought hard to uphold Texas law and defend the integrity of elections in this State. We have worked tirelessly to keep our elections free and fair. There is nothing more important than protecting the integrity of every legal vote.”
Comments
"discriminated against voters under the age of 65"
Leave it to the democrats to find something to whine about. Hell, I'd like to go back to school on the public's dime but I believe you have to be 16 or less. Isn't that discrimination also??? I'm offended!
- Log in or register to post comments
PermalinkPost a comment to this article here: