Judge blocks Texas governor’s order closing remote ballot drop sites

Pitman’s 46-page ruling issuing a preliminary injunction at the request of civil rights groups did not speculate on why Abbott mandated the closure of the remote drop-off sites, but the judge clearly did not buy the state’s claims that allowing multiple locations presented any threat to the integrity of the Nov. 3 election.

“The State’s proffered reason of ballot security is a pretext,” Pitman wrote. “The Court finds that the October 1 Order does not promote ballot security.”

Pitman noted the Supreme Court has repeatedly signaled that, because of the potential for voter confusion, federal courts should rarely grant relief that alters voting procedures in the weeks leading up to Election Day.

But the judge said Abbott was the one disrupting the status quo and said his actions were most likely to cause confusion.

“The October 1 Order is the true source of confusion and disparate treatment among voters,” Pitman wrote.

“Governor Abbott’s unilateral decision to reverse his July 27 Order after officials already began sending out absentee ballots and just days before the start of early voting in Texas has caused voter confusion,” the judge added. “It is apparent that closing ballot return centers at the last minute would cause confusion, especially when those centers were deemed safe, authorized, and, in fact, advertised as a convenient option just months ago.”

Within hours of Pitman’s ruling, Texas Secretary of State Ruth Hughs appealed to the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

That appeal quickly bore fruit Saturday afternoon, as a panel of three Trump-appointed 5th Circuit judges temporarily halted Pitman’s order while the court considers whether to grant a stay that could nullify his directive through next month’s election.

Lawyers from the Texas attorney general’s office had also urged Pitman to abstain from taking action in the case because of parallel state court lawsuit challenging Abbott’s move. But the judge said the urgency of the issue made it unwise to wait for the state court to act.

“The need for adjudication of Plaintiffs’ claims is immediate; any delay risks irreparable violation of the a right that the Supreme Court has called ‘the essence of a democratic society,’” wrote Pitman.

XL subscribe to our newsletter banner

Get the latest news and advice on COVID-19, direct from the experts in your inbox. Join hundreds of thousands who trust experts by subscribing to our newsletter.

Send your news and stories to us news@climaxradio.co.uk or newstories@climaxnewsroom.com and WhatsApp: +447747873668.

Before you go...

Democratic norms are being stress-tested all over the world, and the past few years have thrown up all kinds of questions we didn't know needed clarifying – how long is too long for a parliamentary prorogation? How far should politicians be allowed to intervene in court cases? To monitor these issues as closely as we have in the past we need your support, so please consider donating to The Climax News Room.