Election Day 'vote harvesting' probes allowed in Texas, appeals court rules.

The U.S. appeals court ruled that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton can continue investigating allegations of vote harvesting during the November elections, a decision that critics fear may discourage voter outreach and turnout in the state.

On Tuesday, the three-judge appellate court for the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court granted a temporary stay for certain provisions of S.B. 1, the 2021 Texas voting law, including a provision that allows Paxton's office to continue its investigations into alleged illegal "vote harvesting" efforts at least through the Nov. 5 elections.

The appellate decision will determine whether the stay will remain in place until a full appeal of the law is granted or denied.

The decision of the court temporarily suspends the ruling issued by U.S. District Judge Xavier Rodriguez in late May, which ordered an immediate halt to the vote harvesting provision of S.B. 1. Rodriguez had sided with plaintiffs in their argument that the provision is too vague and a restriction on free speech.

He also recognized the "common misunderstanding" about what is considered vote harvesting in Texas.

Paxton immediately pledged to challenge the decision, asserting that the vote harvesting provision of S.B. 1 is vital to safeguarding election honesty in Texas and preventing fraudulent voting.

"If we had been unable to investigate election crimes, it would have significantly disrupted the electoral landscape with just a month remaining before Election Day," Paxton stated.

The vaguely-defined scope of vote harvesting has led some advocacy groups and voter outreach groups in Texas to stop their in-person election activities, including canvassing, volunteering, and providing food or transportation to volunteers, out of fear of being caught in a raid or providing compensation, which is illegal under the law.

Judge James Ho, while writing for the three-judge appellate court on Tuesday, appeared to support Paxton's argument, stating that the provision in question had been in effect for "more than three years" prior to the federal judge's ruling last month.

The confusion of plaintiffs in the lawsuit over the vaguely defined vote harvesting has hindered volunteer efforts in the state.

Due to the severe punishment for those convicted of the crime, which is classified under S.B. 1 as a third-degree felony.

According to S.B. 1, individuals who engage in vote harvesting services and receive or offer compensation or other benefits can be charged with a third-degree felony, which carries a maximum prison sentence of 10 years and fines of up to $10,000.

According to the law, "in-person interaction with one or more voters, in the physical presence of an official ballot or a ballot voted by mail, intended to deliver votes for a specific candidate or measure" is considered vote harvesting services.

Our republic's foundation is secure elections, as stated by Paxton's office.

In August, the Election Integrity Unit of his office conducted searches in three South Texas counties as part of an ongoing investigation. The unit states that the search was only carried out after sufficient evidence was gathered to obtain proper search warrants.

Advocacy groups and organizers in Texas have been targeted by "voter raids" carried out by the plaintiffs' office, according to allegations.

Juan Proaño, CEO of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, expressed disappointment over the ruling and stated that his group would appeal the case to the Supreme Court if necessary, as reported in an interview with Planet Chronicle on Tuesday.

Proaño told Planet Chronicle that S.B. 1 is really frightening to the community, as it has already had a significant chilling effect on voters and advocacy groups in Texas, which they argue are both unjustified and used as a potential means of voter suppression.

""LULAC advocates for election integrity as there is no evidence that non-citizens are involved in the election process," he stated."

"We will persist in litigating until we reach the Supreme Court, if necessary."