Mi Familia Vota and three individual Texas voters, along with co-plaintiffs Houston Area Urban League, Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, The Arc of Texas, and Jeffrey Lamar Clemmons, won a significant court victory on August 2, 2022, in their legal challenge to SB 1, a 2021 Texas election law that unconstitutionally and unlawfully limits eligible voters’ access to the polls. The federal court in San Antonio issued a ruling that, in large part, denied the state’s motion to dismiss the case. 

The motion—which had been filed by the three state defendants named in the plaintiffs’ amended complaint, the Governor, Secretary of State, and Attorney General—asked the court to dismiss the entire case. The Court has now decided that the plaintiffs’ claims can proceed against at least one of the state defendants. Although the Court has dismissed the Governor as a defendant and has dismissed the Attorney General as a defendant with regard to some claims, the Court has ruled that the case will go ahead against the Secretary of State and, in part, against the Texas Attorney General. 

This important ruling allows Mi Familia Vota and its co-plaintiffs to continue to pursue the case, which is currently scheduled for trial in July 2023. Plaintiffs have asserted that SB 1 places unconstitutional and unlawful burdens on the right to vote, and particularly—and purposefully—burdens voters of color, disabled voters, and voters who require language assistance to vote. The amended complaint alleges that SB 1 violates the First, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments of the Constitution, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Free Speech For People, the law firm of Stoel Rives LLP, and the law firm of Lyons & Lyons represent Mi Familia Vota and three individual Texas voters in this case. The Houston Area Urban League plaintiffs are jointly represented by the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., the Arc of the United States, Inc., and Reed Smith LLP. 

Read more about the case here, read our opposition to the defendants’ motion here, and read the Court’s ruling here.