Thread by @DemocracyDocket

🚨⚖️COURT ALERT: Today the 5th Circuit is hearing oral arguments in a lawsuit challenging the residency restrictions in Texas voter suppression law #SB1111 for violating the U.S. Constitution.

Follow along for live updates.🧵

Enacted in 2021, SB 1111 creates new residency restrictions to register to vote. The law imposes limits on what type of addresses voters can use to register to vote and allows county officials to require additional verification for some voters to register.

.@votolatino and Texas State @LULAC sued, arguing that the law violates the 1st, 14th and 26th Amendments and unfairly targets young voters, student voters and voters of color. democracydocket.com/cases/texas-re…

In August, a district court struck down some provisions of SB 1111, ruling that “the burden imposed [by SB 1111] is ‘severe,’ if not insurmountable. Such an insurmountable burden is not easily overcome.” democracydocket.com/news-alerts/co…

Texas officials, including Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R), appealed the decision to the 5th Circuit. The appellate court paused the lower court’s decision blocking enforcement, so the law is in effect as litigation continues.

Listen to the arguments here: 5thcircuit.streamguys1.com/east

Oral arguments have begun.

Attorney for AG Paxton begins, saying that the plaintiff organizations lack standing to sue: "Plaintiffs themselves can't vote and they can't complain of a violation of their nonexistent right to vote...[and] have not identified a single voter who has been harmed by SB 1111.

Judge Wilson, speaking to the chilled speech claim: “The plaintiffs’ position…is that [the law] is very broad. The Legislature probably could have been better written [this law], but it wasn't. It's what the Legislature passed.”

Judge Wilson: Plaintiffs say "'it prohibits a wide swath of political activity protected speech, but we can't talk about the bill because the because of it.' So how is that not chilled speech if they can't explain or don't know what to do" with the law?

Regarding SB 1111’s provision that prohibits moving to influence an election, Judge Wilson asks, "What if someone moves from DC to Texas to work on a campaign – is that moving to influence an election?"

Attorney for Paxton responds: "Well, I don't think that any part of SB 1111 prohibits any sort of moving...to work on a campaign."

An attorney representing defendant Lupe Torres echoes the argument from Paxton's attorney that plaintiffs lack standing to sue.

It is now Voto Latino's and LULAC's turn to speak.

Plaintiffs' atty: "Plaintiffs agree that [Texans] should vote where they live & that has been the law for quite some time. Nobody in this lawsuit disputes that common sense requirement..This lawsuit challenges provisions of SB 1111 that are overbroad & do just the opposite."

Plaintiffs' attorney explains that the plaintiff organizations were harmed by SB 1111 because they had to shut down some voter outreach and voter education programs due to the law's restrictions.

Judge Duncan asks how the groups’ responses to SB 1111 are different from other election law changes.

Plaintiffs’ atty argues it’s different because "retooling & retraining volunteers is necessary to avoid criminal penalties" in contrast to a slight change in how people vote.

Plaintiffs' atty: "Texas law has made it such that the requirements for registration and the requirements for establishing residency are not just imposed on the voters, they're also imposed on those who helped the voters."

Plaintiffs' atty: "The cases that opposing counsel has cited lose sight of the fact that this is a 1st Amendment case. We challenged the provisions under the 1st and 14th Amendments, whether it's the right to vote or whether it's a speech restriction."

The atty for AG Paxton rebuts.

The atty for AG Paxton again argues that the organizations lack standing to sue over SB 1111. Arguments have ended. Once we get a ruling on this appeal, we'll let you know!