In the unanimous decision penned by Judge James Ho, he declared, “Mail-in ballots are not secure,” citing insights from Veasey v. Perry, which evolved into Veasey v. Abbott. The litigation emphasized that “mail-in ballot fraud is a significant threat,” an issue previously affirmed by the Fifth Circuit in earlier decisions.
Ho elaborated in the opinion that the ID number mandate is “obviously designed to confirm that each mail-in ballot voter is precisely who he claims he is.” He further noted that this stipulation is clearly pertinent to assessing voter eligibility according to state regulations. The court also followed the Third Circuit’s established ruling, which holds that materiality clauses are limited to evaluations of voter qualifications.
