LOS ANGELES– A Latino civil rights group is seeking Supreme Court review in two separate cases challenging voting rights restrictions in Texas and Arkansas under a section of the federal Voting Rights Act, according to petitions filed with the court last week.
MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund) asked the Court to review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in a challenge to an Arkansas law that limits who may assist voters at the polls, including voters who are not proficient in English. Attorneys argue that the appellate court’s ruling infringes on the rights of limited-English-proficient voters and violates Section 208 of the federal Voting Rights Act (VRA), harming Latino voters. Section 208 requires that voters who need assistance due to disability or an inability to read or write English can vote with help from a person of their choice. MALDEF attorneys also asked the Court to review an August 2025 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upholding a Texas law that restricts who can serve as a voter assister.
“These two cases epitomize the lengths to which some elected officials will go to reduce informed participation in elections,” said Thomas A. Saenz, MALDEF president and general counsel. “Setting an arbitrary limit on the number of voters anyone can assist, as Arkansas does, or placing other illogical restrictions on voter assistance, as Texas does, are incompatible with the thriving democracy that our country needs to continue to thrive.”
Although both cases hinge on the same provision of the VRA, they differ in the specific legal issues. In the Texas case, attorneys are asking the Supreme Court to overturn the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, and decide that Section 208 of the VRA pre-empts a state law that makes it a crime for a voter to compensate their assister, for example, by buying lunch for a neighbor in exchange for help completing the voter’s mail ballot. The Texas law also bans employees of social services organizations from assisting voters with their mail ballots. MALDEF filed the challenge to the Texas law in 2021 on behalf of La Union del Pueblo Entero (LUPE), a non-profit organization whose services to members include tax preparation, translation of documents, and helping members vote if they request assistance.
“Texas cannot, consistent with the Voting Rights Act, interfere when an eligible voter chooses a trusted person to help them vote,” said Nina Perales, MALDEF Vice President of Litigation. “Making it a crime for a voter to buy lunch for a neighbor in exchange for help, or for a voter to receive help from a social services worker, is an unconstitutional infringement on the right to vote.”
In Arkansas, a MALDEF 2020 lawsuit challenged a provision in the state’s election code that arbitrarily limits the number of voters one person can assist, as preempted by Section 208 of the VRA. In their challenge to the law, attorneys argued the limit would hamstring efforts by Arkansas United, a non-profit that helps voters who need language assistance to cast a ballot, and injure voters by subjecting Arkansas United’s employees, including its executive director, Mireya Reith, to criminal prosecution and fines if they assist more than six voters. In 2022, a U.S. District Court ruled in favor of Arkansas United and held that the six-voter limit is preempted by Section 208. However, in July 2025, a three-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit overturned that ruling and held that neither organizations nor individuals have the right to sue to enforce the VRA. MALDEF is now requesting that the Supreme Court review the decision to address the issues of equitable relief and private enforceability of Section 208.
“The Eighth Circuit stands alone in the country by holding that private parties cannot sue to enforce vulnerable voters’ right to cast a ballot with the help of a person of their choice and has effectively shut every door for private enforcement of the federal Voting Rights Act,” said Susana Sandoval Vargas, MALDEF Midwest Regional Counsel. “Voters in the Eighth Circuit, which covers seven states, who need assistance to vote may be forced to vote without that assistance, or worse, may not vote at all. The Supreme Court’s review of this decision is thus imperative.”
Read the petition in LUPE v. Abbott HERE.
Read a timeline of SB1 HERE.
Read the petition in Arkansas United v. Thurston HERE.