In elections like this year’s in which Latino voters are decisive in choosing the new tenant of the White House, there are States that have imposed barriers that make their participation difficult. Several Latino organizations have filed lawsuits against laws in Texas, Missouri and Arkansas that restrict aides who help voters with disabilities or who have language difficulties. Many Latinos do not speak English and going to the polls becomes a complicated task without someone to explain to them how to vote. Federal law ensures that they can choose an assistant to help them, but state rules make it difficult for them to exercise their right to vote.
Impediments can be for various reasons: limiting the number of people an assistant can serve; prohibiting assistants from assisting them during their work hours; increasing to the point of confusion the offenses that can be incurred, or forcing attendees to sign an oath that intimidates them because they run the risk of going to jail if they make a mistake. In all cases the argument is the same, to prevent electoral fraud, the litany that supporters of the Republican candidate, Donald Trump, have repeated since he lost the 2020 elections.
MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund) filed a lawsuit against the State of Texas for its SB1 Law, which Republican Governor Greg Abbott signed in 2021. “The guarantees of federal law are broader, so the State does not can impose restrictions that are contrary to it,” explains Nina Perales, vice president of Litigation at the firm. “People are not willing to help voters because they feel that if they make any kind of mistake in their attendance, they will be prosecuted. If they don’t complete the oath paperwork, they can also get into trouble. There is a lot of fear now to help a voter,” he maintains.
The SB1 law of 2021 was surrounded by controversy from the beginning for being one of the strictest for voting. Among the new provisions, attendees are required to fill out a form with personal data, the relationship with the voter and the approval of assuming the legal risks of helping a voter, which in the case of violation can range from fines to punishment. of jail.
In addition to people with disabilities, Latinos are the most affected by these barriers. “These attendance restrictions are very burdensome for the Latino community because English proficiency is limited. Furthermore, many people have not been able to obtain an education due to the discrimination they have suffered and cannot read or write well,” says Perales.
Texas law also prevents assistants from charging for the help they offer. This affects organizations such as LUPE (La Unión del Pueblo Entero), founded by historic Latino rights activists César Chávez and Dolores Huerta, which is behind the lawsuit filed by MALDEF. This group helps Latinos understand the voting process and assists them when they need it, but the law prevents assistants from being paid for this work, so their workers can only do so during their off hours.
Michael Mireles, director of Civic Engagement at LUPE, has already suffered the effects of the Texas law. In November 2023, when Texas was voting on amendments to the Constitution, it granted a Latina woman’s request to assist her in voting. She was dyslexic and was voting for the first time, so she felt confused. Mireles remembers that several polling station employees scolded him for minutes about whether he was voting twice.
“The law has put a lot of pressure on them and people working at polling stations are stressed and afraid of breaking a law and committing a serious crime. The atmosphere became much more hostile and tense,” says Mireles. Situations like this can discourage voting in a community where abstention is widespread. “I remember thinking that it was a very unfortunate experience for a person who is going to vote for the first time,” he adds.
Another obstacle they face relates to voting by mail, which in Texas is very restricted. Virtually only those over 65 and the disabled can cast their vote remotely and assistants cannot help them. LUPE workers offer information in their members’ homes, but Texas law prohibits them from doing so if any ballot is present. “We go to different neighborhoods, knock on doors and talk to people to see what kind of support they need to be able to participate in the elections. The fear we have is that we do not know if there is a ballot at home, if they had already filled out an application or received one by mail, because we would be breaking that law,” says Mireles.
No information in Spanish
Language is undoubtedly one of the main barriers that Latinos face and only some counties, due to the number of Spanish speakers who reside, offer information in Spanish.
In Arkansas it is difficult to find information in that language and the law prevents an assistant from helping more than six voters. “It is a violation of the federal voting rights law, which says that you have the right to have the assistance of the person you choose if you are blind or if you have a disability or if you have problems reading and writing,” says Susana Sandoval Vargas. , MALDEF lawyer in charge of the lawsuit against that State. Their client is Arkansas United, a migrant advocacy organization, which finds it difficult to help all the people who need it because of the imposed limit. “They don’t have the capacity to do it because there aren’t many bilingual people who can provide assistance,” explains Sandoval Vargas.
Most of the people United Arkansas helps are Latinos who do not know how to read and write in English and need assistance, because there is not enough Spanish-speaking population in that State for the law to require them to have information in Spanish . “The risk is that if a voter chooses someone to help them and that assistant has already covered the limit of six people, they may decide not to vote,” maintains Sandoval Vargas.
The plaintiffs are awaiting the court ruling, which will also affect another lawsuit filed by several Latino organizations against the State of Missouri. In this case, the limit is even more restrictive and each assistant can only serve one voter. This lawsuit, because it is similar to the one filed against Arkansas, is paralyzed until the decision that comes out of that State is known.
There is no expectation that any of the three open cases will be decided before November 5, so the restrictions will continue to apply in this election. Its defenders justify that it is a way to prevent attendees from influencing other people’s votes and thus avoid fraud.
Perales says that a defense witness in the Texas case acknowledged that there had been no case of fraud among those attending the vote. “So why put up these barriers? It must be for a reason other than fraud,” he assumes.
