Preview
9/7/2021 11:34 AM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 56856098
2021-57207 / Court: 189 By: Monica Jackson
Filed: 9/7/2021 11:34 AM
CAUSE NO
TEXAS STATE CONFERENCE OF
THE NAACP, COMMON CAUSE
TEXAS, DANYAHEL NORRIS, 8 IN THE DISTRICT COURT
HYUN JA NORMAN, FREDDY
BLANCO, MARY FLOOD NUGENT,
and PRISCILLA BLOOMQUIST,
Plaintiff,
HARRIS COUNTY TEXAS
JUDICIAL DISTRICT
GREG ABBOTT, in his official
capacity as the Governor of Texas;
JOHN or JANE DOE, in his or her
official capacity as the Secretary of
State of Texas; JOE ESPARZA, in his
official capacity as the Deputy Secretary
of State of Texas, KEN PAXTON, in
his official capacity as the Attorney
General of Texas,
Defendant
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION
Plaintiffs TEXAS STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP, COMMON CAUSE
TEXAS, DANYAHEL NORRIS, HYUN JA NORMAN, FREDDY BLANCO, MARY FLOOD
NUGENT, and PRISCILLA BLOOMQUIST, acting by and through their counsel, file this
Complaint against Defendants, GOVERNOR GREG ABBOT, SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN
OR JANE DOE, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE JOE ESPARZA, and ATTORNEY
GENERAL KEN PAXTON, and for their cause of action would respectfully allege as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1 “The right to vote is fundamental, as it preserves all other rights.” Andrade v.
NAACP of Austin, 345 S.W.3d 1, 12 (Tex. 2011) (quoting Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370
(1886)). “Any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and
meticulously scrutinized.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 562 (1964).
2 Perhaps no event in recent memory symbolized this ideal as much as the 2020
election cycle, when record numbers of Texans turned out to vote in the midst of chaos, confusion,
and personal tragedies. Thanks to election administrators who introduced alternative, lawful
methods of voting to allow more voters to cast a ballot without physically entering a crowded
polling place; poll workers who diligently staffed extra early voting days and extended early voting
hours; and civic engagement organizations that helped voters navigate Texas’s complex voting
processes during a global pandemic, more than 11 million Texans cast votes—the highest level of
voter participation in Texas history
3 For voters of color, in particular, the 2020 election was an unquestionable success
Though Texas’s voting restrictions are notoriously strict, the pandemic demanded an opening up
of the democratic process. Some alternative methods of voting became available across the State,
including increased access to early in-person voting and the use of drop boxes to collect mail-in
ballots. In Harris County—the largest county in Texas and one of the most racially and ethnically
diverse counties in the State—local election officials welcomed the opportunity to expand access
to the franchise. Through a series of lawful, innovative initiatives that included offering drive-thru
voting, returning mail-in ballots at drop boxes, overnight voting, and sending mail-in-ballot
applications directly to voters over sixty-five years of age, Harris County’s voter turnout
skyrocketed to 66.1%, its highest in more than thirty years.
4 When the Texas legislature convened two months later, Governor Greg Abbott
announced that “election integrity” was one of his top priorities, designating it as an “emergency
item” so lawmakers could vote on it within the first sixty days of the session. Governor Abbott
and lawmakers used the term “election integrity” interchangeably with “voter fraud” and “election
security.”
5 There is absolutely no evidence of widespread fraud and virtually no evidence of
even minor voting irregularities in Texas, facts that have been communicated to the Texas
legislature on numerous occasions. Indeed, the Director of the Elections Division within the
Secretary of State’s office testified during a legislative hearing on March 4, 2021 that in 2020
“Texas had an election that was smooth and secure.” Nevertheless, on March 11 and March 12,
legislators introduced two omnibus voter bills, designed to make it more difficult for voters—
particularly voters of color—to vote, supposedly to address the “fraud” of the 2020 election
6 During the 87th Regular Legislative Session, Senate Bill 7 (“SB 7”) and House Bill
6 (“HB 6”) were released amid a sea of smaller election bills taking aim at ID requirements, early
voting, and voter registration. Media and local advocates observed that SB 7 and HB 6 were a
direct response to both Harris County’s efforts to expand voter participation and increased turnout
by voters of color across the State.
7 Since their introduction in mid-March, both Bills were rushed through a legislative
process marred by middle-of-the-night votes, minimal public input, last-minute procedural
maneuvers, and bad-faith negotiations. Black and Hispanic legislators were almost completely
locked out of the process, and the Bills’ drafters refused to discuss the disproportionate impact the
provisions would have on communities of color, paying little to no attention to the repeated pleas
by members of the public and legislators to conduct a disparate impact analysis before hastily
acting on the Bills. At the eleventh hour before the end of the 87th Regular Legislative Session on
May 31, Conference Committee members added brand new provisions to the final SB 7 Bill
without giving members of the General Assembly or the general public adequate time to review
those provisions
8 Given these procedural irregularities, SB 7 failed to pass during the Regular
Session, with House Democrats walking out and refusing to vote on the Bill. A few weeks later,
Governor Abbott retaliated by vetoing a portion of the State budget that funds the Legislature, its
staffers, and several legislative agencies. The veto potentially threatens the livelihoods of 2,165
legislative staffers and individuals working at legislative agencies, who earn a median salary of
$52,000 per year.
9 Governor Abbott convened the first special session on July 8, and once again, the
purported concern for “election integrity” remained at the top of the leadership’s agenda. The
Senate and House introduced new Bills that differed somewhat from the original SB 7 and HB 6
Bills but kept most of the provisions intact. These new Bills were renamed—SB 7 became SB 1
and HB 6 became HB 3. After twenty-four hours of hearings in both houses during which
opponents to the legislation stayed at the Capitol throughout the night to voice their opposition to
SB 1 and HB 3, the House Elections Committee and the Senate State Affairs Committee passed
the Bills. Soon after, the Senate voted out SB 1 and the Bill headed to the House for consideration.
When the Bill reached the House Floor, a majority of House Democrats left the State in protest of
continuing irregularities and the anti-voter nature of the Bills. Thus, no legislation passed during
the 30 days of the first special session—from July 8 to August 7—because the House did not have
a quorum.
10. As the end of the thirty days neared, Governor Abbott announced the convening
of a second special session on August 7. The seventeen items on the agenda included “legislation
strengthening the integrity of elections in Texas.” The Senate and the House both took up SB 1
again, which was identical to the previous version of SB 1 introduced by the senators during the
first special session. After a final flurry of hearings and Floor debates, and a brief conference
committee process, the final version of SB 1 passed the House and the Senate on August 31 and
was signed into law on September 7 by Governor Abbott. The Bill makes considerable changes to
various Sections of the Texas Election Code governing poll watchers, voting by mail, voter
assistants, and methods of voting, all of which make it harder for voters—particularly voters of
color—to vote.
11. SB 1 impermissibly expands the ability of poll watchers to harass and intimidate
voters in polling places—tactics that are designed primarily to impact voters of color. By
threatening election judges with criminal penalties for exercising their statutory right under current
law to keep the peace within polling locations, SB 1’s vague provisions take away the power from
election judges to protect voters and clerks from uncomfortable and disruptive behavior by poll
watchers. Ultimately, these provisions threaten to stifle community engagement and chip away at
the confidence of election judges as well as voters. SB 1 threatens to transform the polling place
from its community-oriented culture to a hyper-partisan, toxic, and fearful space where
emboldened poll watchers challenge voters, tell election judges how to do their jobs, and intimidate
voters, particularly voters of color.
12. SB 1 also bans county election officials from soliciting vote-by-mail requests and
distributing unsolicited vote-by-mail applications to voters directly and to third parties like civic
engagement organizations. The impact will be acutely felt by Organizational Plaintiffs, who work
closely with county officials to help eligible vote-by-mail voters request mail-in ballots. Plaintiffs’
members also rely on local election officials to distribute vote-by-mail applications or leave them
at local post offices.
13 SB 1 also requires election officials to reject any application to vote by mail if the
same voter cannot be identified when an election clerk matches the voter’s identification
information on the registration application in the statewide voter registration database against the
voter’s vote-by-mail application/ballot (i.e, matching the driver’s license number, election
identification certificate number, personal identification card number, partial Social Security
number, or a statement indicating the applicant has none of the above). The new provision says
that if the two documents do not identify the same voter, a clerk must reject the application and/or
ballot. Thus, the new Law creates additional barriers to voting by mail by introducing a new error-
prone matching process that gives early voting ballot boards and/or signature verification
committees discretion to reject applications and ballots if a matching process that involves voter
registration files fails to identify the same voter.
14 The Law also makes it more difficult for voters with physical disabilities or a
limited understanding of English to vote in person at the polls or by mail by imposing significant
burdens on those assisting them. Voter assistants give voters confidence, empower voters—
especially those who cannot read or write in English—to vote in person, and make the franchise
accessible to all American citizens regardless of their backgrounds. Many of Organizational
Plaintiffs’ members rely on assistants to help them vote. By heightening administrative
requirements and imposing onerous and vague oaths, all under the penalty of perjury, SB 1 chills
the ability of voter assistants to help others and thereby reduces constitutionally protected speech.
15. Further, by effectively prohibiting drive-thru voting, extended voting hours
(including overnight voting), and return of mail-in ballots to ballot drop boxes, SB 1 strips power
from local election officials to implement lawful ways for more voters to be able to cast ballots,
as Harris County election officials did in 2020. These provisions remained in place in the Bill even
after Keith Ingram, top elections official at the Secretary of State’s office, testified during Special
Session hearings that the State did not “have any evidence of actual fraud” in connection with
drive-thru voting or overnight voting.
16. Equally troubling is a provision in SB 1 that requires at least twelve hours of
Saturday early voting but only requires six hours of Sunday early voting during the final weekend
of the early voting period, despite the fact that early voting on the final Sunday before Election
Day is a mainstay of Souls to the Polls programs, primarily run by Black voter engagement
organizations across the State.
17. Viewed individually or collectively, these provisions of SB 1 gravely threaten the
fundamental right to vote of all Texans, but they will hit hardest in communities of color. This is
precisely what the legislature intended. It is no accident that SB 1 was rushed through the Texas
Legislature on the heels of an election in which voters of color turned out in record numbers, after
a decade in which Black, Hispanic, and Asian population growth has soared. It is no accident that
SB 1 targets the very methods of voting that were used disproportionately by minority voters. And
it is no accident that repeated pleas to assess the Bill’s impact on communities of color were
repeatedly ignored. This Court should declare SB 1 unlawful and unconstitutional, and
permanently enjoin its implementation
DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN
18 Discovery is intended to be conducted under Level 3 of Rule 190.4 of the Texas
Rules of Civil Procedure.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
19. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter of election law under Texas Election
Code § 273.081 and other laws. Plaintiffs do not seek damages and therefore make no statement
under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 47. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, which
are within the jurisdiction of this Court.
20. Venue is proper in Harris County under Sections 15.002(a)(1) of the Texas Civil
Practices and Remedies Code because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to
Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in Harris County
PARTIES
21 Plaintiff TEXAS STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP (“Texas NAACP”)
is a subsidiary organization of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People,
Inc. (“NAACP”), a national non-profit, non-partisan organization founded in 1909, which has
more than 2,200 units across the nation and is powered by more than two million activists. The
NAACP works to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of all persons
and to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination, including by removing all barriers of racial
discrimination through democratic processes.
22. The Texas NAACP is the oldest and one of the largest and most significant
organizations promoting and protecting the civil rights of people of color in Texas. The first Texas
branches of the NAACP were formed in 1915, and the Texas State Conference was formally
organized in 1937. Since then, the Texas NAACP has used litigation, policy advocacy, community
organizing, and public education to ensure the political equality of all Texans. To achieve its
mission, the Texas NAACP engages in voter education, registration, mobilization, and other civic
engagement activities.
23 The Texas NAACP is headquartered in Austin and has more than sixty local branch
units, college chapters, and youth councils across the State, with members in almost every county
in Texas. A large portion of the Organization's more than 10,000 members are residents registered
to vote in Texas. The Texas NAACP's membership consists largely of Black Americans, and it
considers its constituents to be people of color and/or members of other underrepresented and
vulnerable populations, such as those with disabilities. The Texas NAACP's members and
constituents are more likely than other populations to live in poverty. A large segment of Texas
NAACP’s membership lives in Harris County.
24. In 2020, Texas NAACP held virtual town halls to prepare members to vote during
the COVID-19 pandemic, assisted members directly with voter registration and voting processes,
trained volunteers to serve in its election protection program, and participated in litigation to make
underlying conditions to COVID-19 a basis for obtaining mail-in ballots. During the 2020 election,
Texas NAACP’s membership voted early in person and by mail; overnight in Harris County and
on Election Day; and by using drop boxes if returning vote-by-mail ballots, curbside if physically
disabled, and drive-thru in Harris County. Many Texas NAACP units also helped voters eligible
to receive assistance to vote by providing assistance at the polls or driving voters to the polls
through its Souls to the Polls Program, which organizes transportation to the polls on Sundays
during early voting.
25. Texas NAACP members have routinely experienced voter intimidation by poll
watchers, during the 2020 election and long before it. Intimidation encompasses a wide range of
behavior, including hovering close to voters, talking to voters, talking to or directing election clerks
while voters are being checked in or are at voting stations, challenging voters’ eligibility, and much
more. Texas NAACP members and leaders are concerned that the powers given to partisan poll
watchers by SB 1 will allow poll watchers to engage in even more intimidating conduct toward
Texas NAACP members. If these provisions stand, Texas NAACP will have to commit significant
time and resources to develop and run know-your-rights trainings for the public and for its
membership and to work with individual members to ensure they feel comfortable and safe
exercising their right to vote. By allocating time and resources to these priorities, Texas NAACP
will be unable to commit to its other programming.
26. The provisions forbidding election officials from soliciting vote-by-mail requests
from voters or distributing vote-by-mail applications will burden the right to vote of many Texas
NAACP members who are elderly or disabled and count on solicitation and distribution from local
election officials to follow complex vote-by-mail procedures. In 2020, Texas NAACP members
over sixty-five years old who were registered to vote in Harris County received mailed vote-by-
mail applications from Harris County. Many of these members who were more accustomed to
voting in person would not have voted at all for fear of contracting COVID-19 if they had not
received mailers from the County. These practices have also proved crucial for those members of
Texas NAACP who do not have easy access to a computer or a printer or do not know how to use
a computer. If these provisions are left in place, Texas NAACP will have to divert significant time
and resources to filling education and resource gaps among its membership, including by
developing a vote-by-mail phone-banking campaign and spending funds to print out mail-in ballot
applications to ensure voters are aware of vote-by-mail requirements and deadlines.
10
27. Texas NAACP members who rely on vote-by-mail will be further burdened by
provisions of SB 1 that require a match between the identifying information in a voter’s mail-in
ballot application and the identifying information on the voter’s registration application. Without
a match that indicates to an election clerk that the two documents identify the same voter, the
election clerk has the power to reject the voter’s vote-by-mail application and/or ballot. Notice and
opportunity to cure are also entirely dependent on timing and discretion of election officials and
access to computers. Many Texas NAACP members do not have computer or internet access that
would enable them to timely cure using an online tool. These provisions will result in some Texas
NAACP members—especially those who are elderly and disabled—being arbitrarily
disenfranchised. Texas NAACP will have to expend its limited resources on helping voters make
sure their vote-by-mail applications and ballots are not wrongly rejected based on these provisions
28 Texas NAACP also has members who require assistance with the voting process
either because of physical disabilities or because of discomfort reading, writing, or understanding
English, the primary language of the ballot. Some members receive assistance requesting vote-by-
mail ballots, and others receive assistance at the polling place while voting in person. If these
provisions that make it harder for voter assistants to help others are upheld, then Texas NAACP’s
core programs—including election protection, election assistance, and Souls to the Polls—will
suffer because some members will be unwilling to assist others at the risk of being criminally
investigated. As a result, these provisions will ultimately reduce the ability of Texas NAACP’s
members to receive the help they need to vote. Texas NAACP will also have to prepare new voter
trainings for voters requiring assistance and for voter assistants, and will have to spend a
considerable amount of its limited time and resources revising its in-house voter engagement and
education programs.
11
29. Many Texas NAACP members, including those who live in Harris County, used
alternative, lawful forms of voting during the 2020 election held under the pall of a global
pandemic, including drive-thru voting, overnight early voting, and returning mail-in ballots at drop
boxes. In 2020, some Texas NAACP members took advantage of drop box voting and drive-thru
voting in particular because they wished to protect their health and safety or the health and safety
of family members. For immunosuppressed individuals, individuals with comorbidities, or
individuals living and/or working with someone particularly vulnerable to COVID-19, these
options offered a safe and efficient way to vote. Several members of Texas NAACP also used
overnight early voting because they were working night shifts or other irregular hours, and
overnight early voting provided an opportunity to vote during their free time, without which they
may not have voted at all. Texas NAACP is concerned that the surges in COVID-19 infections
because of the new variants and their rapid spread will result in another lockdown. With Texas’s
vaccination rates lagging behind the national average at 47% and with 16,474 new cases being
reported every day as of August 30, Texas NAACP is concerned that SB 1’s prohibitions on
alternative, lawful methods of voting and returning vote-by-mail ballots will burden the right to
vote of its members, especially for members seeking to vote in the November 2021 and March
2022 elections as the pandemic continues. Texas NAACP’s members rely on election officials
who know and understand the community to be able to exercise their discretion in implementing
lawful methods of voting that increase access. SB 1 takes away this discretion from local election
officials. As a result, many of Texas NAACP’s members may not be able to vote safely in future
elections. Furthermore, Texas NAACP will have to divert time, money, and resources from their
other activities to help these voters access the ballot despite new restrictions.
12
30. If SB 1 stands, thousands of NAACP members across the State will be burdened
by the portions of SB 1 that grant poll watchers significant power within the boundaries of the
polling place; ban distribution and solicitation of vote-by-mail applications by election officials;
institute match requirements for voters requesting vote-by-mail applications and ballots;
complicate voter assistance by threatening assistants with perjury and investigation; and ban
lawful, alternative voting methods. Texas NAACP has already diverted significant time and
resources towards actions and testimony against SB 1, including by testifying on multiple
occasions about the disproportionate harm that SB 1’s restrictions would inflict on voters of color
and voters from historically disenfranchised communities. If SB 1 is permitted to stand, Texas
NAACP will be forced to allocate even more time and resources to educating its members on SB
1’s restrictions and ensuring its members feel safe with increased poll watcher activity in place of
its other core activities
31 Plaintiff COMMON CAUSE TEXAS (“CC Texas”) is a grassroots, democracy-
focused non-profit organization, dedicated to promoting equal rights and empowering all people
to make their voices heard in the political process. CC Texas is a state chapter of Common Cause
National, which has 1.2 million members and supporters nationwide and chapters in thirty states.
32. CC Texas’s mission is to build a more equitable democracy and ensure free, fair,
and accessible elections in Texas. To that end, CC Texas engages in voter protection, advocacy,
education, and outreach activities to ensure that voters are able to register to vote, vote without
intimidation, and have their votes counted as cast. CC Texas also conducts legislative advocacy
on various issue areas of importance to CC Texas and its constituents and works as a part of
coalitions with other groups to mobilize and educate voters.
13
33. CC Texas has more than 52,000 members and supporters spread across nearly every
county in Texas, a substantial number of whom are registered to vote in Texas. CC Texas has more
than 7,500 members in Harris County; more than 6,200 members in Travis County; more than
5,700 members in Dallas County; more than 4,000 members in Bexar County; and more than 3,800
members in Tarrant County. CC Texas’s membership is diverse in race and ethnicity, age,
disability status, and citizenship status. During the 2020 election, CC Texas’s members used a
variety of voting methods: some members voted early in person, while others voted in person at
the polls on Election Day; many voted by mail and returned their ballots via drop boxes; and some
members who voted in person used curbside and drive-thru voting if voting in Harris County. CC
Texas was active throughout the 2020 election cycle. Its three full-time staff members and five
paid fellows ran an in-house election protection program, recruited and trained poll monitors,
assisted voters with Texas’s registration and voting processes, and educated voters on the
mechanics of voting through digital advertising. CC Texas fielded many calls, requests, and
questions from prospective voters, many of whom were members, who had difficulty navigating
the voting process in 2020.
34. CC Texas’s members have experienced harassment and intimidation by poll
watchers in the past, including during the 2020 election. Members have had poll watchers
challenge their eligibility to vote at the polls, experienced aggressive behavior by poll watchers in
and around polling sites while waiting to vote, witnessed poll watcher intimidation of other voters
while volunteering at polling sites, and witnessed voters requiring assistance being repeatedly
questioned by poll watchers during the process. CC Texas is concerned that the provisions of SB
1 that grant poll watchers free movement throughout polling places will dissuade many of CC
Texas’s members—particularly young voters, Black voters, Hispanic voters, Asian voters,
14
disabled and elderly voters, limited-English-speaking voters, and newly naturalized American
citizens—from voting at the polls altogether, the only method of voting available to CC Texas’s
members who are not eligible to vote by mail. CC Texas will also have to devote significant time
and resources away from its current initiatives to educate its membership and the broader public
to help them to determine the safest way to vote without harassment and intimidation, including
by developing an in-house program to equip voters with know-your-rights trainings and to protect
voters against the expanded rights of poll watchers.
35 A significant percentage of both CC Texas’s members and the voters it supports
during the election process are eligible to vote by mail under Texas law, typically due to age,
illness, and/or mental and/or physical disability. CC Texas’s members and constituents rely on
election officials for solicitation and distribution of vote-by-mail applications, and CC Texas staff
rely on election officials to provide members and the general public with accurate, specific
information about various voting processes. Voting by mail is not easy in Texas. It requires eligible
voters to jump through a multi-step process starting with the request for an application. Many
prospective voters, including many of CC Texas’s members, do not know that they have to apply
to receive a vote-by-mail ballot, and some do not have access to computers, internet, or printers to
be able to access an official application and apply to vote by mail. In the past, these individuals
have relied on their local election officials to distribute unsolicited vote-by-mail applications. In
2020, some CC Texas members who are registered voters over the age of sixty-five received vote-
by-mail applications from Harris County. This was extremely beneficial and made voting by mail
accessible to CC Texas’s older members. As an organization, CC Texas also relies on county
election officials as experts to inform voters about their voting options and to provide official
materials for voters to understand the voting process better, including vote-by-mail applications
15
Because SB 1 generally prohibits county election officials from soliciting vote-by-mail
applications and distributing such applications, CC Texas is concerned that county election
officials will not partner directly with their Organization for fear of being subjected to criminal
penalties under SB 1’s ambiguous provisions. As a result, CC Texas will now have to devote its
limited resources towards additional vote-by-mail education and awareness, instead of towards
other types of programming, such as its high school voter registration program and its local and
state policy-advocacy efforts on civic education, redistricting, and campaign finance issues.
36. CC Texas members who rely on voting by mail will be further burdened by
provisions of SB | that require a match between the identifying information in a voter’s mail-in
ballot application and the identifying information on the voter’s registration application and ballot
Without the possibility of a match that indicates to an election clerk that the two documents identify
the same voter, the election clerk has the power to reject the voter’s vote-by-mail application and/or
ballot. Notice and opportunity to cure are also largely dependent on the timing of the application
or ballot, the discretion of election officials, and voters’ access to computers. Many CC Texas
members do not have computer or internet access that would enable them to timely cure using an
online tool. These provisions will result in some members—especially those who are elderly and
disabled—being arbitrarily disenfranchised, and CC Texas will have to expend its limited
resources on helping voters make sure their applications and/or vote-by-mail ballots are not
wrongly rejected based on this provision.
37. CC Texas’s membership also includes voters who need assistance at the polls or at
home if they are voting by mail, as well as individuals who assist voters in various ways. Some
CC Texas members who require assistance cannot read English well, and others have physical
disabilities that prevent them from seeing and/or marking ballots. CC Texas is concerned that the
16
provisions of SB | requiring voter assistants to provide detailed information under oath will deter
assistants from helping voters, thereby making it more difficult for voters to receive the assistance
they need from someone of their choice. CC Texas also connects voters to a number of other
organizations that provide free transportation to the polls for those who have a physical disability
and who need to vote curbside, but do not have access to transportation. These organizations may
not operate as they have previously, given the provisions in SB 1 that make providing seven or
more such voters with transportation to the polls more cumbersome. With these changes in place,
CC Texas expects it will have to devote significant time and resources away from its current
initiatives to educate its membership and the broader public about these provisions and ensure they
understand the nuances of voter assistance. CC Texas will also have to field requests from voters
asking CC Texas volunteers and staff to assist them at the polls. This would significantly increase
CC Texas’s workload, forcing CC Texas to divert its limited staff time away from its other
important initiatives.
38. CC Texas also has members, primarily in Harris County, who used drive-thru
voting and overnight early voting and returned vote-by-mail ballots via drop boxes during the 2020
election for various reasons. Many members used drive-thru voting because they had underlying
health conditions that left them more vulnerable to contracting COVID-19, they were caretakers
of individuals with comorbidities who were more vulnerable to COVID-19, or they were simply
afraid to vote in person at polling places during the pandemic. Other members voted overnight to
accommodate their work hours or other obligations. Still other members were able to drop off their
vote-by-mail ballots at drop box locations because even though they might have timely requested
vote-by-mail ballots, they received them too late and were concerned that their ballots would not
be delivered in time due to delayed postal service delivery times. CC Texas is concerned that the
17
surges in COVID-19 infections because of new variants and their rapid spread will result in another
lockdown. With Texas’s vaccination rates lagging behind the national average at 47% and with
16,474 new cases being reported every day as of August 30, CC Texas is concerned that SB 1’s
prohibitions on alternative, lawful methods of voting and returning vote-by-mail ballots will
burden the right to vote of CC Texas’s members, especially during exigent circumstances like the
pandemic that will present challenges for members seeking to vote in the November 2021 and
March 2022 elections. CC Texas will have to devote significant time and resources away from its
current initiatives to educate its membership and the broader public about these provisions, to
answer questions about alternative voting methods, and to ensure their members are not relying on
alternative voting methods that have been banned.
39. If SB 1 is allowed to stand, the votes of thousands of CC Texas’s members will be
in jeopardy as voters encounter frequent voter intimidation by newly empowered poll watchers;
new hurdles to access vote-by-mail ballots and voter assistance; and restrictions on early voting,
drop box voting, and drive-thru voting. Moreover, members who assist voters may not feel safe
doing so in the face of potential criminal investigation. If SB 1 remains, CC Texas’ other programs
and priorities will suffer, including its high school voter registration program and its local and state
policy-advocacy efforts on civic education, redistricting, and campaign finance because it will
have to devote significant staff time and resources towards mitigating the pernicious effects of the
new Law.
40. Plaintiff DANYAHEL NORRIS has lived the majority of the last twenty-three
years in Harris County. He is a registered voter and votes regularly. Norris is African American.
41. Norris is a member of the Houston Chapter of the Texas NAACP and a past
President of the Houston Lawyers’ Association, where he led a robust voter education initiative to
18
teach voters about the implications of SB 14, Texas’s photo ID law. During these educational
sessions, he helped voters understand and comply with the new ID requirements. Norris also led
initiatives to register prospective voters to vote. Over the past several years, Norris has regularly
volunteered for election protection with local organizations, fielding calls from voters who have
questions about the voting process
42. The 2020 election cycle presented several challenges for Norris and his family
Norris’s wife has high blood pressure, a known comorbidity that makes a person more susceptible
to contracting and potentially dying of COVID-19, and he felt the need to remain cautious
throughout the year for her health and safety and those of his children.
43 Voting in person at the polls posed significant hurdles to Norris, so when Harris
County implemented drive-thru voting in the 2020 general election—by allowing voters to cast
their ballots while in their cars—Norris immediately took advantage. Without the option of drive-
thru voting, Norris’s and his wife’s right to vote would have been significantly burdened during
the pandemic
44 Norris is now concerned about the surges in COVID-19 infections because of the
new variants and their rapid spread. He is worried about voting in person given that his children
are unvaccinated, especially in a State where the vaccination rate remains at 47% and more than
16,400 new cases are being reported daily. He plans to vote in the upcoming elections in
November, but feels that his right to vote will be burdened if his county election clerks are unable
to offer him and fellow voters safe voting options as they did in 2020
45 Norris is also extremely concerned about the provisions of SB 1 that expand the
rights of poll watchers at polling places and limit the power of election officials to protect voters
from the disruptive, uncomfortable, and intimidating behavior of watchers. He believes these
19
provisions will impact his ability to vote peacefully, free of any disturbance, encumbrance, or
potential embarrassment. Norris finds these provisions intimidating both for himself and his wife,
and for other Black voters.
46. Plaintiff HYUN JA NORMAN isa registered voter who has lived in Harris County
for the majority of the last twenty years. Since becoming a naturalized citizen of the United States
in 2005, Norman has voted regularly.
47. Norman believes that it is her civic duty to help others access the franchise. For this
reason, she has volunteered with the Korean American Association of Houston (“KAAH”) since
2014, when KAAH visited her church to register prospective eligible voters.
48 Approximately 35,000 to 40,000 Korean Americans live in Harris County. The
largest concentration of Korean Americans is in the Spring Branch West neighborhood of Houston,
also colloquially known as Little Korea because of its many Korean churches and businesses
Many Korean Americans who live in Spring Branch and across Harris County are limited-English
proficient in speaking, reading, and writing. Many are also older and have physical disabilities that
affect their ability to read or write. This is particularly so for the seniors who attend the Korean
senior center in Spring Branch for its day program or who live in the low-income senior apartments
tun by the City of Houston.
49. Harris County does not provide ballots in Korean. For that reason, many in the
Korean American community in Houston cannot vote unless they receive language assistance.
Norman devotes a large amount of time to providing these voters with such assistance.
50. Before every major election, Norman and her fellow volunteers designate one day
of early voting—usually a Saturday or a Sunday—as Korean American Early Voting Day. On that
day, they spend several hours providing language assistance to Korean American voters.
20
51. Norman typically assists voters at the polls through in-person assistance and drives
to the polls. On Korean American Early Voting Day, she waits outside the 100-foot polling place
boundary at Trini Mendenhall Community Center and greets Korean Americans with the words
“anyo haseo,” a Korean phrase meaning “hello,” letting Korean American voters know that she is
a community member and that she speaks Korean. Some voters are afraid of getting in trouble for
accepting assistance or doing something wrong during the voting process, so Norman takes care
to explain that voters who do not speak or understand English are eligible for assistance under the
law. When a voter requests her assistance, Norman enters the polls with the voter and explains to
the greeter or the election judge that the voter needs her assistance because he or she does not
speak English. At the check-in desk inside the polling place, Norman checks in as a voter assistant
and provides her name, address, and other identification information next to the voter’s
information, usually in an e-poll book. Some voters who have never voted before and do not speak,
read, or write in English do not know anything about the voting process—therefore, sometimes
the voter will have questions about the layout of the polling place, how machine voting works, or
where to go after the election clerk checks the voter in. Norman answers these questions in Korean
Norman then accompanies the voter to the voting machine to help him or her read and understand
the ballot by verbally translating all contents of the ballot in Korean. If the voter does not know
how to mark a machine, she shows the voter how to “select” options. Norman does not mark the
voter’s ballot unless specifically asked to do so; she prefers that a voter mark his or her own ballot
if physically able to do so. Once the voter completes and submits an electronic ballot, Norman
walks out with the voter and congratulates the voter on successfully navigating the process and
completing an important civic duty.
21
52. SB 1 will make it harder for Norman to help others, increasing the administrative
burden on Norman and other assistants, thus chilling her ability to help voters, deterring people
from choosing to provide assistance, and ultimately making it more difficult for voters who need
such language assistance to vote. Norman is particularly concerned that the oath provision, which
requires her to swear, under penalty of perjury, that she will not “pressure” a voter to choose her
to provide assistance will prevent her from effectively helping voters. Norman is accustomed to
having to convince Korean American voters to accept the help that they are guaranteed under law.
She often has to explain that voters have a right to assistance and should accept help if they need
it. Asa result of this provision, she fears that she will punished for engaging in these conversations,
holding up signs outside the polling place, or encouraging community members to come to the
Trini Mendenhall Center where she provides assistance
53 Though Norman has not yet transported curbside voters, she regularly transports
multiple voters who need language assistance to the polls and she expects she may have to transport
curbside voters in the years to come as many in her community are elderly and/or physically
disabled. She usually visits the Korean American Senior Center and makes an announcement,
explaining that she is available to drive voters who cannot drive themselves and need to vote.
Many are elderly Korean Americans who do not speak, read, or write English. As Covid-19
variants continue to threaten many Texas communities, Norman anticipates that more voters who
are eligible to vote curbside but do not will now choose to vote curbside because of comorbidities
that make entering a polling place dangerous to their health. By requiring Norman to sign a form
each time she drives seven or more voters to the polls, including requiring her to state whether she
has also provided in-person assistance at the polls and then requiring election officials to make the
form available to the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, SB 1’s new provisions present
22
an administrative nightmare for Norman. She expects that these provisions will dissuade voters
from seeking her help, and she knows that these provisions will chill her ability to drive voters and
help them at the polls for fear that she may be investigated or held accountable for statements about
the voter’s eligibility to receive assistance.
54. Norman also assists eligible vote-by-mail voters, typically over the age of sixty-
five and typically those who attend her church and ask for help. She assists these voters by
explaining the vote-by-mail process to them, including how to request a vote-by-mail ballot. Most
elderly community members do not have access to the internet or even if they do, they do not know
how to use a computer or read instructions in English. If Norman helps anyone navigate the vote-
by-mail ballot, she includes her name, address, and other information as required. If a community
member asks her to witness a ballot, she tries to make sure that she only acts as a witness for one
ballot, providing the information required.
55 As for vote-by-mail applications, Norman usually calls the Harris County clerk’s
office and asks them if she can pick up multiple mail-in ballot applications for individuals eligible
to vote by mail. In the past, Harris County has accommodated Norman’s requests and distributed
applications to her so that she may share them with the wider community. Norman takes these
applications and she gives them to church members and other community members who are
typically sixty-five years or older or have physical disabilities preventing them from voting in
person, making these individuals eligible to vote by mail under Texas law. If SB 1 goes into effect
and prohibits the Harris County clerk’s office from distributing unsolicited mail-in ballot
applications, Norman does not know how eligible Korean American community members who do
not own a computer, do not know how to use a computer, or have limited English proficiency will
23
be able to access vote-by-mail applications. Norman herself does not have the funds to print out
many vote-by-mail ballot applications for distribution.
56. Finally, Norman is extremely concerned about SB 1’s expansion of poll watchers’
rights. Norman has encountered many intimidating figures in her work at the polls, some of whom
have caused election judges to remove her from the polls even though she did nothing wrong, as
detailed in the allegations below. Since then, Norman has felt afraid to help her community as she
normally does. But she still chooses to because without her help and without a Korean-language
ballot, many Korean Americans would be co
Preview
9/7/2021 11:34 AM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 56856098 2021-57207 / Court: 189 By: Monica Jackson Filed: 9/7/2021 11:34 AM CAUSE NO TEXAS STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP, COMMON CAUSE TEXAS, DANYAHEL NORRIS, 8 IN THE DISTRICT COURT HYUN JA NORMAN, FREDDY BLANCO, MARY FLOOD NUGENT, and PRISCILLA BLOOMQUIST, Plaintiff, HARRIS COUNTY TEXAS JUDICIAL DISTRICT GREG ABBOTT, in his official capacity as the Governor of Texas; JOHN or JANE DOE, in his or her official capacity as the Secretary of State of Texas; JOE ESPARZA, in his official capacity as the Deputy Secretary of State of Texas, KEN PAXTON, in his official capacity as the Attorney General of Texas, Defendant PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Plaintiffs TEXAS STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP, COMMON CAUSE TEXAS, DANYAHEL NORRIS, HYUN JA NORMAN, FREDDY BLANCO, MARY FLOOD NUGENT, and PRISCILLA BLOOMQUIST, acting by and through their counsel, file this Complaint against Defendants, GOVERNOR GREG ABBOT, SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN OR JANE DOE, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE JOE ESPARZA, and ATTORNEY GENERAL KEN PAXTON, and for their cause of action would respectfully allege as follows: INTRODUCTION 1 “The right to vote is fundamental, as it preserves all other rights.” Andrade v. NAACP of Austin, 345 S.W.3d 1, 12 (Tex. 2011) (quoting Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)). “Any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 562 (1964). 2 Perhaps no event in recent memory symbolized this ideal as much as the 2020 election cycle, when record numbers of Texans turned out to vote in the midst of chaos, confusion, and personal tragedies. Thanks to election administrators who introduced alternative, lawful methods of voting to allow more voters to cast a ballot without physically entering a crowded polling place; poll workers who diligently staffed extra early voting days and extended early voting hours; and civic engagement organizations that helped voters navigate Texas’s complex voting processes during a global pandemic, more than 11 million Texans cast votes—the highest level of voter participation in Texas history 3 For voters of color, in particular, the 2020 election was an unquestionable success Though Texas’s voting restrictions are notoriously strict, the pandemic demanded an opening up of the democratic process. Some alternative methods of voting became available across the State, including increased access to early in-person voting and the use of drop boxes to collect mail-in ballots. In Harris County—the largest county in Texas and one of the most racially and ethnically diverse counties in the State—local election officials welcomed the opportunity to expand access to the franchise. Through a series of lawful, innovative initiatives that included offering drive-thru voting, returning mail-in ballots at drop boxes, overnight voting, and sending mail-in-ballot applications directly to voters over sixty-five years of age, Harris County’s voter turnout skyrocketed to 66.1%, its highest in more than thirty years. 4 When the Texas legislature convened two months later, Governor Greg Abbott announced that “election integrity” was one of his top priorities, designating it as an “emergency item” so lawmakers could vote on it within the first sixty days of the session. Governor Abbott and lawmakers used the term “election integrity” interchangeably with “voter fraud” and “election security.” 5 There is absolutely no evidence of widespread fraud and virtually no evidence of even minor voting irregularities in Texas, facts that have been communicated to the Texas legislature on numerous occasions. Indeed, the Director of the Elections Division within the Secretary of State’s office testified during a legislative hearing on March 4, 2021 that in 2020 “Texas had an election that was smooth and secure.” Nevertheless, on March 11 and March 12, legislators introduced two omnibus voter bills, designed to make it more difficult for voters— particularly voters of color—to vote, supposedly to address the “fraud” of the 2020 election 6 During the 87th Regular Legislative Session, Senate Bill 7 (“SB 7”) and House Bill 6 (“HB 6”) were released amid a sea of smaller election bills taking aim at ID requirements, early voting, and voter registration. Media and local advocates observed that SB 7 and HB 6 were a direct response to both Harris County’s efforts to expand voter participation and increased turnout by voters of color across the State. 7 Since their introduction in mid-March, both Bills were rushed through a legislative process marred by middle-of-the-night votes, minimal public input, last-minute procedural maneuvers, and bad-faith negotiations. Black and Hispanic legislators were almost completely locked out of the process, and the Bills’ drafters refused to discuss the disproportionate impact the provisions would have on communities of color, paying little to no attention to the repeated pleas by members of the public and legislators to conduct a disparate impact analysis before hastily acting on the Bills. At the eleventh hour before the end of the 87th Regular Legislative Session on May 31, Conference Committee members added brand new provisions to the final SB 7 Bill without giving members of the General Assembly or the general public adequate time to review those provisions 8 Given these procedural irregularities, SB 7 failed to pass during the Regular Session, with House Democrats walking out and refusing to vote on the Bill. A few weeks later, Governor Abbott retaliated by vetoing a portion of the State budget that funds the Legislature, its staffers, and several legislative agencies. The veto potentially threatens the livelihoods of 2,165 legislative staffers and individuals working at legislative agencies, who earn a median salary of $52,000 per year. 9 Governor Abbott convened the first special session on July 8, and once again, the purported concern for “election integrity” remained at the top of the leadership’s agenda. The Senate and House introduced new Bills that differed somewhat from the original SB 7 and HB 6 Bills but kept most of the provisions intact. These new Bills were renamed—SB 7 became SB 1 and HB 6 became HB 3. After twenty-four hours of hearings in both houses during which opponents to the legislation stayed at the Capitol throughout the night to voice their opposition to SB 1 and HB 3, the House Elections Committee and the Senate State Affairs Committee passed the Bills. Soon after, the Senate voted out SB 1 and the Bill headed to the House for consideration. When the Bill reached the House Floor, a majority of House Democrats left the State in protest of continuing irregularities and the anti-voter nature of the Bills. Thus, no legislation passed during the 30 days of the first special session—from July 8 to August 7—because the House did not have a quorum. 10. As the end of the thirty days neared, Governor Abbott announced the convening of a second special session on August 7. The seventeen items on the agenda included “legislation strengthening the integrity of elections in Texas.” The Senate and the House both took up SB 1 again, which was identical to the previous version of SB 1 introduced by the senators during the first special session. After a final flurry of hearings and Floor debates, and a brief conference committee process, the final version of SB 1 passed the House and the Senate on August 31 and was signed into law on September 7 by Governor Abbott. The Bill makes considerable changes to various Sections of the Texas Election Code governing poll watchers, voting by mail, voter assistants, and methods of voting, all of which make it harder for voters—particularly voters of color—to vote. 11. SB 1 impermissibly expands the ability of poll watchers to harass and intimidate voters in polling places—tactics that are designed primarily to impact voters of color. By threatening election judges with criminal penalties for exercising their statutory right under current law to keep the peace within polling locations, SB 1’s vague provisions take away the power from election judges to protect voters and clerks from uncomfortable and disruptive behavior by poll watchers. Ultimately, these provisions threaten to stifle community engagement and chip away at the confidence of election judges as well as voters. SB 1 threatens to transform the polling place from its community-oriented culture to a hyper-partisan, toxic, and fearful space where emboldened poll watchers challenge voters, tell election judges how to do their jobs, and intimidate voters, particularly voters of color. 12. SB 1 also bans county election officials from soliciting vote-by-mail requests and distributing unsolicited vote-by-mail applications to voters directly and to third parties like civic engagement organizations. The impact will be acutely felt by Organizational Plaintiffs, who work closely with county officials to help eligible vote-by-mail voters request mail-in ballots. Plaintiffs’ members also rely on local election officials to distribute vote-by-mail applications or leave them at local post offices. 13 SB 1 also requires election officials to reject any application to vote by mail if the same voter cannot be identified when an election clerk matches the voter’s identification information on the registration application in the statewide voter registration database against the voter’s vote-by-mail application/ballot (i.e, matching the driver’s license number, election identification certificate number, personal identification card number, partial Social Security number, or a statement indicating the applicant has none of the above). The new provision says that if the two documents do not identify the same voter, a clerk must reject the application and/or ballot. Thus, the new Law creates additional barriers to voting by mail by introducing a new error- prone matching process that gives early voting ballot boards and/or signature verification committees discretion to reject applications and ballots if a matching process that involves voter registration files fails to identify the same voter. 14 The Law also makes it more difficult for voters with physical disabilities or a limited understanding of English to vote in person at the polls or by mail by imposing significant burdens on those assisting them. Voter assistants give voters confidence, empower voters— especially those who cannot read or write in English—to vote in person, and make the franchise accessible to all American citizens regardless of their backgrounds. Many of Organizational Plaintiffs’ members rely on assistants to help them vote. By heightening administrative requirements and imposing onerous and vague oaths, all under the penalty of perjury, SB 1 chills the ability of voter assistants to help others and thereby reduces constitutionally protected speech. 15. Further, by effectively prohibiting drive-thru voting, extended voting hours (including overnight voting), and return of mail-in ballots to ballot drop boxes, SB 1 strips power from local election officials to implement lawful ways for more voters to be able to cast ballots, as Harris County election officials did in 2020. These provisions remained in place in the Bill even after Keith Ingram, top elections official at the Secretary of State’s office, testified during Special Session hearings that the State did not “have any evidence of actual fraud” in connection with drive-thru voting or overnight voting. 16. Equally troubling is a provision in SB 1 that requires at least twelve hours of Saturday early voting but only requires six hours of Sunday early voting during the final weekend of the early voting period, despite the fact that early voting on the final Sunday before Election Day is a mainstay of Souls to the Polls programs, primarily run by Black voter engagement organizations across the State. 17. Viewed individually or collectively, these provisions of SB 1 gravely threaten the fundamental right to vote of all Texans, but they will hit hardest in communities of color. This is precisely what the legislature intended. It is no accident that SB 1 was rushed through the Texas Legislature on the heels of an election in which voters of color turned out in record numbers, after a decade in which Black, Hispanic, and Asian population growth has soared. It is no accident that SB 1 targets the very methods of voting that were used disproportionately by minority voters. And it is no accident that repeated pleas to assess the Bill’s impact on communities of color were repeatedly ignored. This Court should declare SB 1 unlawful and unconstitutional, and permanently enjoin its implementation DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN 18 Discovery is intended to be conducted under Level 3 of Rule 190.4 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 19. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter of election law under Texas Election Code § 273.081 and other laws. Plaintiffs do not seek damages and therefore make no statement under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 47. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, which are within the jurisdiction of this Court. 20. Venue is proper in Harris County under Sections 15.002(a)(1) of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in Harris County PARTIES 21 Plaintiff TEXAS STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP (“Texas NAACP”) is a subsidiary organization of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Inc. (“NAACP”), a national non-profit, non-partisan organization founded in 1909, which has more than 2,200 units across the nation and is powered by more than two million activists. The NAACP works to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of all persons and to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination, including by removing all barriers of racial discrimination through democratic processes. 22. The Texas NAACP is the oldest and one of the largest and most significant organizations promoting and protecting the civil rights of people of color in Texas. The first Texas branches of the NAACP were formed in 1915, and the Texas State Conference was formally organized in 1937. Since then, the Texas NAACP has used litigation, policy advocacy, community organizing, and public education to ensure the political equality of all Texans. To achieve its mission, the Texas NAACP engages in voter education, registration, mobilization, and other civic engagement activities. 23 The Texas NAACP is headquartered in Austin and has more than sixty local branch units, college chapters, and youth councils across the State, with members in almost every county in Texas. A large portion of the Organization's more than 10,000 members are residents registered to vote in Texas. The Texas NAACP's membership consists largely of Black Americans, and it considers its constituents to be people of color and/or members of other underrepresented and vulnerable populations, such as those with disabilities. The Texas NAACP's members and constituents are more likely than other populations to live in poverty. A large segment of Texas NAACP’s membership lives in Harris County. 24. In 2020, Texas NAACP held virtual town halls to prepare members to vote during the COVID-19 pandemic, assisted members directly with voter registration and voting processes, trained volunteers to serve in its election protection program, and participated in litigation to make underlying conditions to COVID-19 a basis for obtaining mail-in ballots. During the 2020 election, Texas NAACP’s membership voted early in person and by mail; overnight in Harris County and on Election Day; and by using drop boxes if returning vote-by-mail ballots, curbside if physically disabled, and drive-thru in Harris County. Many Texas NAACP units also helped voters eligible to receive assistance to vote by providing assistance at the polls or driving voters to the polls through its Souls to the Polls Program, which organizes transportation to the polls on Sundays during early voting. 25. Texas NAACP members have routinely experienced voter intimidation by poll watchers, during the 2020 election and long before it. Intimidation encompasses a wide range of behavior, including hovering close to voters, talking to voters, talking to or directing election clerks while voters are being checked in or are at voting stations, challenging voters’ eligibility, and much more. Texas NAACP members and leaders are concerned that the powers given to partisan poll watchers by SB 1 will allow poll watchers to engage in even more intimidating conduct toward Texas NAACP members. If these provisions stand, Texas NAACP will have to commit significant time and resources to develop and run know-your-rights trainings for the public and for its membership and to work with individual members to ensure they feel comfortable and safe exercising their right to vote. By allocating time and resources to these priorities, Texas NAACP will be unable to commit to its other programming. 26. The provisions forbidding election officials from soliciting vote-by-mail requests from voters or distributing vote-by-mail applications will burden the right to vote of many Texas NAACP members who are elderly or disabled and count on solicitation and distribution from local election officials to follow complex vote-by-mail procedures. In 2020, Texas NAACP members over sixty-five years old who were registered to vote in Harris County received mailed vote-by- mail applications from Harris County. Many of these members who were more accustomed to voting in person would not have voted at all for fear of contracting COVID-19 if they had not received mailers from the County. These practices have also proved crucial for those members of Texas NAACP who do not have easy access to a computer or a printer or do not know how to use a computer. If these provisions are left in place, Texas NAACP will have to divert significant time and resources to filling education and resource gaps among its membership, including by developing a vote-by-mail phone-banking campaign and spending funds to print out mail-in ballot applications to ensure voters are aware of vote-by-mail requirements and deadlines. 10 27. Texas NAACP members who rely on vote-by-mail will be further burdened by provisions of SB 1 that require a match between the identifying information in a voter’s mail-in ballot application and the identifying information on the voter’s registration application. Without a match that indicates to an election clerk that the two documents identify the same voter, the election clerk has the power to reject the voter’s vote-by-mail application and/or ballot. Notice and opportunity to cure are also entirely dependent on timing and discretion of election officials and access to computers. Many Texas NAACP members do not have computer or internet access that would enable them to timely cure using an online tool. These provisions will result in some Texas NAACP members—especially those who are elderly and disabled—being arbitrarily disenfranchised. Texas NAACP will have to expend its limited resources on helping voters make sure their vote-by-mail applications and ballots are not wrongly rejected based on these provisions 28 Texas NAACP also has members who require assistance with the voting process either because of physical disabilities or because of discomfort reading, writing, or understanding English, the primary language of the ballot. Some members receive assistance requesting vote-by- mail ballots, and others receive assistance at the polling place while voting in person. If these provisions that make it harder for voter assistants to help others are upheld, then Texas NAACP’s core programs—including election protection, election assistance, and Souls to the Polls—will suffer because some members will be unwilling to assist others at the risk of being criminally investigated. As a result, these provisions will ultimately reduce the ability of Texas NAACP’s members to receive the help they need to vote. Texas NAACP will also have to prepare new voter trainings for voters requiring assistance and for voter assistants, and will have to spend a considerable amount of its limited time and resources revising its in-house voter engagement and education programs. 11 29. Many Texas NAACP members, including those who live in Harris County, used alternative, lawful forms of voting during the 2020 election held under the pall of a global pandemic, including drive-thru voting, overnight early voting, and returning mail-in ballots at drop boxes. In 2020, some Texas NAACP members took advantage of drop box voting and drive-thru voting in particular because they wished to protect their health and safety or the health and safety of family members. For immunosuppressed individuals, individuals with comorbidities, or individuals living and/or working with someone particularly vulnerable to COVID-19, these options offered a safe and efficient way to vote. Several members of Texas NAACP also used overnight early voting because they were working night shifts or other irregular hours, and overnight early voting provided an opportunity to vote during their free time, without which they may not have voted at all. Texas NAACP is concerned that the surges in COVID-19 infections because of the new variants and their rapid spread will result in another lockdown. With Texas’s vaccination rates lagging behind the national average at 47% and with 16,474 new cases being reported every day as of August 30, Texas NAACP is concerned that SB 1’s prohibitions on alternative, lawful methods of voting and returning vote-by-mail ballots will burden the right to vote of its members, especially for members seeking to vote in the November 2021 and March 2022 elections as the pandemic continues. Texas NAACP’s members rely on election officials who know and understand the community to be able to exercise their discretion in implementing lawful methods of voting that increase access. SB 1 takes away this discretion from local election officials. As a result, many of Texas NAACP’s members may not be able to vote safely in future elections. Furthermore, Texas NAACP will have to divert time, money, and resources from their other activities to help these voters access the ballot despite new restrictions. 12 30. If SB 1 stands, thousands of NAACP members across the State will be burdened by the portions of SB 1 that grant poll watchers significant power within the boundaries of the polling place; ban distribution and solicitation of vote-by-mail applications by election officials; institute match requirements for voters requesting vote-by-mail applications and ballots; complicate voter assistance by threatening assistants with perjury and investigation; and ban lawful, alternative voting methods. Texas NAACP has already diverted significant time and resources towards actions and testimony against SB 1, including by testifying on multiple occasions about the disproportionate harm that SB 1’s restrictions would inflict on voters of color and voters from historically disenfranchised communities. If SB 1 is permitted to stand, Texas NAACP will be forced to allocate even more time and resources to educating its members on SB 1’s restrictions and ensuring its members feel safe with increased poll watcher activity in place of its other core activities 31 Plaintiff COMMON CAUSE TEXAS (“CC Texas”) is a grassroots, democracy- focused non-profit organization, dedicated to promoting equal rights and empowering all people to make their voices heard in the political process. CC Texas is a state chapter of Common Cause National, which has 1.2 million members and supporters nationwide and chapters in thirty states. 32. CC Texas’s mission is to build a more equitable democracy and ensure free, fair, and accessible elections in Texas. To that end, CC Texas engages in voter protection, advocacy, education, and outreach activities to ensure that voters are able to register to vote, vote without intimidation, and have their votes counted as cast. CC Texas also conducts legislative advocacy on various issue areas of importance to CC Texas and its constituents and works as a part of coalitions with other groups to mobilize and educate voters. 13 33. CC Texas has more than 52,000 members and supporters spread across nearly every county in Texas, a substantial number of whom are registered to vote in Texas. CC Texas has more than 7,500 members in Harris County; more than 6,200 members in Travis County; more than 5,700 members in Dallas County; more than 4,000 members in Bexar County; and more than 3,800 members in Tarrant County. CC Texas’s membership is diverse in race and ethnicity, age, disability status, and citizenship status. During the 2020 election, CC Texas’s members used a variety of voting methods: some members voted early in person, while others voted in person at the polls on Election Day; many voted by mail and returned their ballots via drop boxes; and some members who voted in person used curbside and drive-thru voting if voting in Harris County. CC Texas was active throughout the 2020 election cycle. Its three full-time staff members and five paid fellows ran an in-house election protection program, recruited and trained poll monitors, assisted voters with Texas’s registration and voting processes, and educated voters on the mechanics of voting through digital advertising. CC Texas fielded many calls, requests, and questions from prospective voters, many of whom were members, who had difficulty navigating the voting process in 2020. 34. CC Texas’s members have experienced harassment and intimidation by poll watchers in the past, including during the 2020 election. Members have had poll watchers challenge their eligibility to vote at the polls, experienced aggressive behavior by poll watchers in and around polling sites while waiting to vote, witnessed poll watcher intimidation of other voters while volunteering at polling sites, and witnessed voters requiring assistance being repeatedly questioned by poll watchers during the process. CC Texas is concerned that the provisions of SB 1 that grant poll watchers free movement throughout polling places will dissuade many of CC Texas’s members—particularly young voters, Black voters, Hispanic voters, Asian voters, 14 disabled and elderly voters, limited-English-speaking voters, and newly naturalized American citizens—from voting at the polls altogether, the only method of voting available to CC Texas’s members who are not eligible to vote by mail. CC Texas will also have to devote significant time and resources away from its current initiatives to educate its membership and the broader public to help them to determine the safest way to vote without harassment and intimidation, including by developing an in-house program to equip voters with know-your-rights trainings and to protect voters against the expanded rights of poll watchers. 35 A significant percentage of both CC Texas’s members and the voters it supports during the election process are eligible to vote by mail under Texas law, typically due to age, illness, and/or mental and/or physical disability. CC Texas’s members and constituents rely on election officials for solicitation and distribution of vote-by-mail applications, and CC Texas staff rely on election officials to provide members and the general public with accurate, specific information about various voting processes. Voting by mail is not easy in Texas. It requires eligible voters to jump through a multi-step process starting with the request for an application. Many prospective voters, including many of CC Texas’s members, do not know that they have to apply to receive a vote-by-mail ballot, and some do not have access to computers, internet, or printers to be able to access an official application and apply to vote by mail. In the past, these individuals have relied on their local election officials to distribute unsolicited vote-by-mail applications. In 2020, some CC Texas members who are registered voters over the age of sixty-five received vote- by-mail applications from Harris County. This was extremely beneficial and made voting by mail accessible to CC Texas’s older members. As an organization, CC Texas also relies on county election officials as experts to inform voters about their voting options and to provide official materials for voters to understand the voting process better, including vote-by-mail applications 15 Because SB 1 generally prohibits county election officials from soliciting vote-by-mail applications and distributing such applications, CC Texas is concerned that county election officials will not partner directly with their Organization for fear of being subjected to criminal penalties under SB 1’s ambiguous provisions. As a result, CC Texas will now have to devote its limited resources towards additional vote-by-mail education and awareness, instead of towards other types of programming, such as its high school voter registration program and its local and state policy-advocacy efforts on civic education, redistricting, and campaign finance issues. 36. CC Texas members who rely on voting by mail will be further burdened by provisions of SB | that require a match between the identifying information in a voter’s mail-in ballot application and the identifying information on the voter’s registration application and ballot Without the possibility of a match that indicates to an election clerk that the two documents identify the same voter, the election clerk has the power to reject the voter’s vote-by-mail application and/or ballot. Notice and opportunity to cure are also largely dependent on the timing of the application or ballot, the discretion of election officials, and voters’ access to computers. Many CC Texas members do not have computer or internet access that would enable them to timely cure using an online tool. These provisions will result in some members—especially those who are elderly and disabled—being arbitrarily disenfranchised, and CC Texas will have to expend its limited resources on helping voters make sure their applications and/or vote-by-mail ballots are not wrongly rejected based on this provision. 37. CC Texas’s membership also includes voters who need assistance at the polls or at home if they are voting by mail, as well as individuals who assist voters in various ways. Some CC Texas members who require assistance cannot read English well, and others have physical disabilities that prevent them from seeing and/or marking ballots. CC Texas is concerned that the 16 provisions of SB | requiring voter assistants to provide detailed information under oath will deter assistants from helping voters, thereby making it more difficult for voters to receive the assistance they need from someone of their choice. CC Texas also connects voters to a number of other organizations that provide free transportation to the polls for those who have a physical disability and who need to vote curbside, but do not have access to transportation. These organizations may not operate as they have previously, given the provisions in SB 1 that make providing seven or more such voters with transportation to the polls more cumbersome. With these changes in place, CC Texas expects it will have to devote significant time and resources away from its current initiatives to educate its membership and the broader public about these provisions and ensure they understand the nuances of voter assistance. CC Texas will also have to field requests from voters asking CC Texas volunteers and staff to assist them at the polls. This would significantly increase CC Texas’s workload, forcing CC Texas to divert its limited staff time away from its other important initiatives. 38. CC Texas also has members, primarily in Harris County, who used drive-thru voting and overnight early voting and returned vote-by-mail ballots via drop boxes during the 2020 election for various reasons. Many members used drive-thru voting because they had underlying health conditions that left them more vulnerable to contracting COVID-19, they were caretakers of individuals with comorbidities who were more vulnerable to COVID-19, or they were simply afraid to vote in person at polling places during the pandemic. Other members voted overnight to accommodate their work hours or other obligations. Still other members were able to drop off their vote-by-mail ballots at drop box locations because even though they might have timely requested vote-by-mail ballots, they received them too late and were concerned that their ballots would not be delivered in time due to delayed postal service delivery times. CC Texas is concerned that the 17 surges in COVID-19 infections because of new variants and their rapid spread will result in another lockdown. With Texas’s vaccination rates lagging behind the national average at 47% and with 16,474 new cases being reported every day as of August 30, CC Texas is concerned that SB 1’s prohibitions on alternative, lawful methods of voting and returning vote-by-mail ballots will burden the right to vote of CC Texas’s members, especially during exigent circumstances like the pandemic that will present challenges for members seeking to vote in the November 2021 and March 2022 elections. CC Texas will have to devote significant time and resources away from its current initiatives to educate its membership and the broader public about these provisions, to answer questions about alternative voting methods, and to ensure their members are not relying on alternative voting methods that have been banned. 39. If SB 1 is allowed to stand, the votes of thousands of CC Texas’s members will be in jeopardy as voters encounter frequent voter intimidation by newly empowered poll watchers; new hurdles to access vote-by-mail ballots and voter assistance; and restrictions on early voting, drop box voting, and drive-thru voting. Moreover, members who assist voters may not feel safe doing so in the face of potential criminal investigation. If SB 1 remains, CC Texas’ other programs and priorities will suffer, including its high school voter registration program and its local and state policy-advocacy efforts on civic education, redistricting, and campaign finance because it will have to devote significant staff time and resources towards mitigating the pernicious effects of the new Law. 40. Plaintiff DANYAHEL NORRIS has lived the majority of the last twenty-three years in Harris County. He is a registered voter and votes regularly. Norris is African American. 41. Norris is a member of the Houston Chapter of the Texas NAACP and a past President of the Houston Lawyers’ Association, where he led a robust voter education initiative to 18 teach voters about the implications of SB 14, Texas’s photo ID law. During these educational sessions, he helped voters understand and comply with the new ID requirements. Norris also led initiatives to register prospective voters to vote. Over the past several years, Norris has regularly volunteered for election protection with local organizations, fielding calls from voters who have questions about the voting process 42. The 2020 election cycle presented several challenges for Norris and his family Norris’s wife has high blood pressure, a known comorbidity that makes a person more susceptible to contracting and potentially dying of COVID-19, and he felt the need to remain cautious throughout the year for her health and safety and those of his children. 43 Voting in person at the polls posed significant hurdles to Norris, so when Harris County implemented drive-thru voting in the 2020 general election—by allowing voters to cast their ballots while in their cars—Norris immediately took advantage. Without the option of drive- thru voting, Norris’s and his wife’s right to vote would have been significantly burdened during the pandemic 44 Norris is now concerned about the surges in COVID-19 infections because of the new variants and their rapid spread. He is worried about voting in person given that his children are unvaccinated, especially in a State where the vaccination rate remains at 47% and more than 16,400 new cases are being reported daily. He plans to vote in the upcoming elections in November, but feels that his right to vote will be burdened if his county election clerks are unable to offer him and fellow voters safe voting options as they did in 2020 45 Norris is also extremely concerned about the provisions of SB 1 that expand the rights of poll watchers at polling places and limit the power of election officials to protect voters from the disruptive, uncomfortable, and intimidating behavior of watchers. He believes these 19 provisions will impact his ability to vote peacefully, free of any disturbance, encumbrance, or potential embarrassment. Norris finds these provisions intimidating both for himself and his wife, and for other Black voters. 46. Plaintiff HYUN JA NORMAN isa registered voter who has lived in Harris County for the majority of the last twenty years. Since becoming a naturalized citizen of the United States in 2005, Norman has voted regularly. 47. Norman believes that it is her civic duty to help others access the franchise. For this reason, she has volunteered with the Korean American Association of Houston (“KAAH”) since 2014, when KAAH visited her church to register prospective eligible voters. 48 Approximately 35,000 to 40,000 Korean Americans live in Harris County. The largest concentration of Korean Americans is in the Spring Branch West neighborhood of Houston, also colloquially known as Little Korea because of its many Korean churches and businesses Many Korean Americans who live in Spring Branch and across Harris County are limited-English proficient in speaking, reading, and writing. Many are also older and have physical disabilities that affect their ability to read or write. This is particularly so for the seniors who attend the Korean senior center in Spring Branch for its day program or who live in the low-income senior apartments tun by the City of Houston. 49. Harris County does not provide ballots in Korean. For that reason, many in the Korean American community in Houston cannot vote unless they receive language assistance. Norman devotes a large amount of time to providing these voters with such assistance. 50. Before every major election, Norman and her fellow volunteers designate one day of early voting—usually a Saturday or a Sunday—as Korean American Early Voting Day. On that day, they spend several hours providing language assistance to Korean American voters. 20 51. Norman typically assists voters at the polls through in-person assistance and drives to the polls. On Korean American Early Voting Day, she waits outside the 100-foot polling place boundary at Trini Mendenhall Community Center and greets Korean Americans with the words “anyo haseo,” a Korean phrase meaning “hello,” letting Korean American voters know that she is a community member and that she speaks Korean. Some voters are afraid of getting in trouble for accepting assistance or doing something wrong during the voting process, so Norman takes care to explain that voters who do not speak or understand English are eligible for assistance under the law. When a voter requests her assistance, Norman enters the polls with the voter and explains to the greeter or the election judge that the voter needs her assistance because he or she does not speak English. At the check-in desk inside the polling place, Norman checks in as a voter assistant and provides her name, address, and other identification information next to the voter’s information, usually in an e-poll book. Some voters who have never voted before and do not speak, read, or write in English do not know anything about the voting process—therefore, sometimes the voter will have questions about the layout of the polling place, how machine voting works, or where to go after the election clerk checks the voter in. Norman answers these questions in Korean Norman then accompanies the voter to the voting machine to help him or her read and understand the ballot by verbally translating all contents of the ballot in Korean. If the voter does not know how to mark a machine, she shows the voter how to “select” options. Norman does not mark the voter’s ballot unless specifically asked to do so; she prefers that a voter mark his or her own ballot if physically able to do so. Once the voter completes and submits an electronic ballot, Norman walks out with the voter and congratulates the voter on successfully navigating the process and completing an important civic duty. 21 52. SB 1 will make it harder for Norman to help others, increasing the administrative burden on Norman and other assistants, thus chilling her ability to help voters, deterring people from choosing to provide assistance, and ultimately making it more difficult for voters who need such language assistance to vote. Norman is particularly concerned that the oath provision, which requires her to swear, under penalty of perjury, that she will not “pressure” a voter to choose her to provide assistance will prevent her from effectively helping voters. Norman is accustomed to having to convince Korean American voters to accept the help that they are guaranteed under law. She often has to explain that voters have a right to assistance and should accept help if they need it. Asa result of this provision, she fears that she will punished for engaging in these conversations, holding up signs outside the polling place, or encouraging community members to come to the Trini Mendenhall Center where she provides assistance 53 Though Norman has not yet transported curbside voters, she regularly transports multiple voters who need language assistance to the polls and she expects she may have to transport curbside voters in the years to come as many in her community are elderly and/or physically disabled. She usually visits the Korean American Senior Center and makes an announcement, explaining that she is available to drive voters who cannot drive themselves and need to vote. Many are elderly Korean Americans who do not speak, read, or write English. As Covid-19 variants continue to threaten many Texas communities, Norman anticipates that more voters who are eligible to vote curbside but do not will now choose to vote curbside because of comorbidities that make entering a polling place dangerous to their health. By requiring Norman to sign a form each time she drives seven or more voters to the polls, including requiring her to state whether she has also provided in-person assistance at the polls and then requiring election officials to make the form available to the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, SB 1’s new provisions present 22 an administrative nightmare for Norman. She expects that these provisions will dissuade voters from seeking her help, and she knows that these provisions will chill her ability to drive voters and help them at the polls for fear that she may be investigated or held accountable for statements about the voter’s eligibility to receive assistance. 54. Norman also assists eligible vote-by-mail voters, typically over the age of sixty- five and typically those who attend her church and ask for help. She assists these voters by explaining the vote-by-mail process to them, including how to request a vote-by-mail ballot. Most elderly community members do not have access to the internet or even if they do, they do not know how to use a computer or read instructions in English. If Norman helps anyone navigate the vote- by-mail ballot, she includes her name, address, and other information as required. If a community member asks her to witness a ballot, she tries to make sure that she only acts as a witness for one ballot, providing the information required. 55 As for vote-by-mail applications, Norman usually calls the Harris County clerk’s office and asks them if she can pick up multiple mail-in ballot applications for individuals eligible to vote by mail. In the past, Harris County has accommodated Norman’s requests and distributed applications to her so that she may share them with the wider community. Norman takes these applications and she gives them to church members and other community members who are typically sixty-five years or older or have physical disabilities preventing them from voting in person, making these individuals eligible to vote by mail under Texas law. If SB 1 goes into effect and prohibits the Harris County clerk’s office from distributing unsolicited mail-in ballot applications, Norman does not know how eligible Korean American community members who do not own a computer, do not know how to use a computer, or have limited English proficiency will 23 be able to access vote-by-mail applications. Norman herself does not have the funds to print out many vote-by-mail ballot applications for distribution. 56. Finally, Norman is extremely concerned about SB 1’s expansion of poll watchers’ rights. Norman has encountered many intimidating figures in her work at the polls, some of whom have caused election judges to remove her from the polls even though she did nothing wrong, as detailed in the allegations below. Since then, Norman has felt afraid to help her community as she normally does. But she still chooses to because without her help and without a Korean-language ballot, many Korean Americans would be co