Texas law permits a voter at the polls to bring an interpreter to the polls. However, the law says the interpreter must live in the same county. On June 8, the Fifth Circuit heard arguments in a lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of the law. The case is Organization of Chinese Americans-Greater Houston v State of Texas, 16-51126. The individual voter-plaintiff, Mallika Das, brought her son to the polls with her in order to translate. However, he was not permitted to be the interpreter because he lived in a next-door county.
The U.S. District Court had invalidated the law. The three judges on the Fifth Circuit panel are James E. Graves, Jr. and Stephen A. Higginson (Obama appointees), and Patrick E. Higginbotham (a Reagan appointee). The state defends the law mostly by saying the plaintiffs lack standing. The only voter-plaintiff died before the U.S. District Court ruling, although there are some organization plaintiffs in the case as well. Thanks to Rick Hasen for news about this case.
UPDATE: anyone can hear the 28-minute oral argument at this link. One of the most interesting facts brought out in the oral argument is that the law not only prohibits residents of other counties from acting as interpreters; it also bans any interpreter who is not a registered voter in the same county. This means that elderly persons who rely on their teen-age grandchildren to interpret for them can’t use their grandchildren to interpret for them at the polls, because someone under age 18 can’t be a registered voter.
The first 36 seconds are silent, so if you choose to listen, just wait for the first 36 seconds to pass, and then you will hear the argument.
What a jackass law.
I’d like to see Texas legislators not be able to accept campaign donations from outside their district.
The case is a lot more nuanced. The primary chapter regarding voter assistance places no restriction on who may be an assistant, and assistance can include presenting a ballot to someone who can not read or mark a ballot.
There is another chapter that provides for translation between an election worker and a voter. If a voter can not speak English, an election worker may use a language understood by the voter. If no election worker is available who speaks the language of the voter, the voter may provide his own assistant.
Local election officials in Williamson County misapplied the second chapter.
The State of Texas argues that the first chapter complies with the Voting Rights Act (there is not a constitutional issue per se, other than the VRA purports to enforce the 14th and 15th Amendments). The federal district judge ruled that the second chapter encompassed a broader sense of voting.
HB 4131, a bill that would have clarified that assistance encompasses interpretation, and provided more comprehensive regulation, died to chubbing at the end of the regular session. It might be revived during the called session in July.