What are Texas election crimes?
"Election crime" is not a single statute. It is a cluster of offenses across the Texas Election Code that punish casting an unauthorized vote, lying to election officials, mishandling mail ballots, and paid ballot-collection schemes. The flagship offense is illegal voting under Election Code § 64.012, a second-degree felony.
"Election crime" is not a single statute. It is a cluster of offenses scattered across the Texas Election Code that punish casting an unauthorized vote, lying to election officials, mishandling mail ballots, and paid ballot-collection schemes. The Legislature rewrote much of this area in 2021 through Senate Bill 1, and then adjusted it again in 2023. The result is a body of law that has changed grade and scope three times in four years — which is exactly why an outdated form letter or a stale internet article can give you the wrong answer about your own exposure.
The offense most people mean when they say "voter fraud" is illegal voting under Election Code § 64.012. A person commits that offense if, acting knowingly or intentionally, they: (1) vote or attempt to vote in an election in which they know they are not eligible; (2) vote or attempt to vote more than once in the same election; (3) vote or attempt to vote a ballot belonging to another person, or by impersonating another person; (4) mark or attempt to mark any portion of another person's ballot without that person's consent; or (5) vote in a Texas election after voting in another state in an election in which a federal office appears on the ballot, where election day is the same in both states. The word that controls nearly every contested case is knows.
Surrounding § 64.012 are several companion offenses that prosecutors frequently charge together: election fraud (§ 276.013), vote harvesting (§ 276.015), and unlawful application for a ballot by mail (§ 84.0041). Each carries its own grade and its own mental-state requirement, and each can be defended on its own terms.
Why did the illegal-voting penalty keep changing?
The illegal-voting penalty has whipsawed. House Bill 1735 reduced § 64.012 to a Class A misdemeanor effective September 1, 2021; House Bill 1243 restored the second-degree-felony grade effective September 1, 2023. Because punishment attaches to the law in effect on the offense date, the date of the vote controls.
The illegal-voting penalty has whipsawed. For decades, § 64.012 was a second-degree felony. In the 2021 regular session, the Legislature passed House Bill 1735, which reduced the offense to a Class A misdemeanor effective September 1, 2021. Less than two years later, the 88th Legislature reversed course: House Bill 1243, effective September 1, 2023, restored the second-degree-felony grade. The statute's source note today reflects that 2023 amendment (Acts 2023, 88th Leg., R.S., Ch. 814).
Why does that matter for your case? Because in Texas the punishment generally attaches to the law in effect on the date of the offense. A vote cast during the roughly two-year window between September 1, 2021 and August 31, 2023 was, at the time, a Class A misdemeanor — a critical distinction if an old ballot is only now being investigated. We check the offense date against the statutory timeline on every election case before we ever discuss exposure, because getting the grade wrong by a single legislative session can be the difference between a misdemeanor and a 20-year felony.
This volatility is itself a defense theme. When the grade of an offense changes twice in 24 months, ordinary voters cannot reasonably be charged with perfect knowledge of their eligibility and the consequences of an error. That backdrop reinforces the knowledge requirement the Court of Criminal Appeals has read into the statute — discussed below.
What are the penalties for each offense?
Illegal voting is a second-degree felony (2–20 years); an attempt is a state jail felony. Vote harvesting is a third-degree felony; mail-ballot fraud is a state jail felony; election fraud is a Class A misdemeanor that rises to a state jail felony when committed by an elected official.
The Texas election offenses carry sharply different grades. The table sets out the current classification and range for each, verified against the codified statute.
| Offense | Statute | Current grade | Range |
|---|---|---|---|
| Illegal voting | § 64.012 | 2nd-degree felony | 2–20 yrs + up to $10,000 |
| Attempt to vote illegally | § 64.012(b) | State jail felony | 180 days–2 yrs + up to $10,000 |
| Vote harvesting | § 276.015 | 3rd-degree felony | 2–10 yrs + up to $10,000 |
| Unlawful mail-ballot application | § 84.0041 | State jail felony | 180 days–2 yrs + up to $10,000 (enhanceable) |
| Election fraud | § 276.013 | Class A misdemeanor (SJF if by an elected official) | Up to 1 yr + $4,000; SJF 180 days–2 yrs |
Several of these grades climb a step for aggravators. Under § 84.0041 and § 276.013, the offense moves to the next higher category if the defendant has a prior Election Code conviction, if the victim was 65 years of age or older (subject to narrow statutory exceptions), or if the defendant committed another violation in the same election. Those enhancement triggers are fact questions the State must prove, and they are frequently contestable.
What must the State prove for illegal voting?
To convict under § 64.012(a)(1), the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant voted or attempted to vote, in an election in which the person was not eligible, knowing the person was not eligible. The knowledge element decides cases.
To convict under § 64.012(a)(1) — the most common theory — the State must prove each of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
- 1. Voting or attempting to vote
- The defendant cast a ballot, or took a substantial step toward casting one, in a specific election. Casting a provisional ballot that is never counted can still satisfy this element, because the statute reaches both voting and attempting to vote.
- 2. In an election in which the person was not eligible
- Eligibility is defined by § 11.001 of the Election Code. The most common disqualifier in prosecuted cases is a felony conviction for which the person has not fully discharged the sentence, including any term of supervision or parole.
- 3. Knowing the person was not eligible
- This is the element that decides cases. The State must prove the defendant knew — not should have known, not could have found out — that they were ineligible at the moment of voting. Knowledge of the underlying facts (for example, knowing you have a felony conviction) is not the same as knowing those facts made you ineligible.
The other subsections of § 64.012 carry their own knowing or intentional requirements: voting more than once, voting another person's ballot, marking another's ballot without consent, or double-voting across state lines. In each, the prosecution must tie the conduct to a culpable mental state — an accidental duplicate registration or a clerical mix-up is not a crime.
The knowledge fight: did you know you were ineligible?
The single most important development in Texas illegal-voting law is the appellate fight over the knowledge element, decided in the prosecution of Crystal Mason. The Court of Criminal Appeals required proof of actual knowledge of ineligibility; on remand the Fort Worth Court of Appeals acquitted.
The single most important development in Texas illegal-voting law is the appellate fight over the knowledge element, and it played out in the prosecution of Crystal Mason. Mason cast a provisional ballot in the 2016 election while on federal supervised release for a felony. Her provisional ballot was never counted, yet she was convicted of illegal voting and sentenced to five years in prison — a result that drew national attention precisely because it appeared to punish a mistake rather than a knowing crime.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed and remanded. In Mason v. State, 663 S.W.3d 621 (Tex. Crim. App. 2022), the court held that § 64.012 "requires only that the Appellant knew she was ineligible to vote" and "does not require her to know that voting while ineligible violates the Election Code." In other words, the State has to prove the defendant actually knew of her ineligibility — but does not have to prove she knew the specific statute she was breaking. The court sent the case back for a proper sufficiency review under that standard.
On remand, the Second Court of Appeals in Fort Worth applied the standard and acquitted. In Crystal Mason v. State, No. 02-18-00138-CR (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 2, 2024), the court held that the State had to prove not only that Mason knew she was on supervised release after a felony conviction, but also that she "actually realized" that those circumstances "in fact" rendered her ineligible to vote. Reading the provisional-ballot affidavit was not enough, the court explained, because the affidavit "did not expressly warn her that being a felon who has not completed her punishment renders her ineligible." The court rendered a judgment of acquittal.
Two principles from the Mason litigation matter in every case we defend. First, a factfinder's disbelief of the defendant is not affirmative proof of guilt: as the Fort Worth court put it, "finding Mason to be not credible—and disbelieving her protestation of actual knowledge—does not suffice as proof of guilt" because "the burden of proof is on the State." Second, signing a form does not equal knowing its legal meaning. Criminal law — unlike civil law — does not presume that a person who signs a document understood a legally defined term inside it. Those two holdings convert what prosecutors treat as a paperwork case into a genuine knowledge dispute.
What defenses work against an election charge?
Election defenses target the mental-state and proof problems that run through every offense: no knowledge of ineligibility, the § 64.012(c) affidavit-only bar, mistake of fact, lawful uncompensated assistance in harvesting cases, documented authorization in mail-ballot cases, and First Amendment overbreadth.
L and L Law Group, PLLC develops defenses targeted to the mental-state and proof problems that run through every election offense. Depending on the facts, those include:
- No knowledge of ineligibility. The central defense to § 64.012. If the client did not actually realize a felony status, residency rule, or registration defect made them ineligible, the State cannot meet its burden under Mason. Evidence of confusion, conflicting official guidance, or reliance on an election worker supports it.
- The affidavit-only bar. Section 64.012(c) prohibits conviction based solely on a signed provisional-ballot affidavit unless corroborated by other evidence of knowing commission. Where the prosecution's case is essentially "you signed the form," that statute is a direct legal defense.
- Mistake of fact. Under Penal Code § 8.02, a reasonable mistaken belief about a fact — that registration was valid, that supervision had ended, that the voter was the person on the ballot record — negates the culpable mental state the State must prove.
- No compensation / lawful assistance (harvesting cases). Section 276.015 reaches paid vote-harvesting. Where the conduct was uncompensated help to a voter, or fell within the Election Code's authorized-assistance provisions, the harvesting offense does not apply.
- Lack of authorization is the wrong target (mail-ballot cases). Section 84.0041 requires that the application be submitted or altered without the voter's knowledge and authorization. Documented consent from the voter defeats that element.
- First Amendment and overbreadth. Portions of Texas's 2021 election laws have been the subject of federal constitutional litigation. Where a charge brushes against protected speech or association, those challenges may be available and are preserved early.
- Insufficient corroboration and circumstantial gaps. Because knowledge is usually proven circumstantially, we attack the inference chain — the absence of any warning, the client's prior lawful interactions with election officials, and the State's reliance on disbelief rather than evidence.
Where is the line on helping a voter?
Vote harvesting is where lawful conduct and felony conduct sit closest. Section 276.015 reaches in-person interaction in the physical presence of a ballot, for compensation, intended to deliver votes for a candidate or measure. Ordinary, uncompensated assistance — and the authorized-assistor oath procedure — is not the target.
Vote harvesting is the area where lawful conduct and felony conduct sit closest together, and where well-meaning volunteers and family members are most at risk of an overcharge. Section 276.015 defines "vote harvesting services" as 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. The offense is knowingly providing or offering those services in exchange for compensation or a benefit, or knowingly paying another person to do so. It is a third-degree felony.
The statute does not criminalize ordinary assistance. The Election Code separately allows a voter who needs help — because of disability or inability to read or write — to choose an assistor, who must complete an oath. A relative helping a parent with a mail ballot, or a designated assistor following the oath procedure, is acting within the law. The line is crossed when (a) the interaction is for compensation and (b) it is intended to deliver votes for a particular candidate or measure while a ballot is physically present. We defend harvesting allegations by separating protected assistance from the narrow band of conduct the statute actually reaches, and by testing whether the "compensation" and "in the physical presence of a ballot" elements are really present.
Mail-ballot application cases under § 84.0041 raise a parallel problem. Submitting an application for a relative, or helping fill one out, is not a crime — unless it is done without the voter's knowledge and authorization, or with knowingly false information. The defense is documentary: prove the voter asked for and authorized the help.
Collateral consequences and related offenses
A felony election conviction carries loss of firearm rights and the right to vote until the sentence is discharged, plus immigration, licensing, and supervision-revocation exposure. Prosecutors also pair election counts with tampering, perjury, and forgery — each a separate set of elements.
An election-crime conviction reaches well beyond the courtroom. A felony conviction under § 64.012 or § 276.015 carries the loss of firearm rights under Penal Code § 46.04 and 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), and — with grim circularity — the loss of the right to vote until the sentence is fully discharged. For non-citizens, a fraud-related conviction can carry serious immigration consequences, including removability, and warrants coordination with immigration counsel before any plea. Professional licenses, public-sector and education employment, and security clearances can all be affected. Because illegal voting is frequently prosecuted against people already navigating the criminal-justice system on a prior case, a new conviction can also trigger revocation of probation or supervised release. These stakes are why the early, knowledge-focused defense matters so much.
Election charges rarely travel alone. Prosecutors often pair them with general process and fraud offenses, and the distinctions matter:
- Illegal voting vs. election fraud. Illegal voting (§ 64.012) punishes the unauthorized vote itself and is a second-degree felony. Election fraud (§ 276.013) sweeps more broadly — false statements to officials, registering under false pretenses, destroying a voter's ballot — and is a Class A misdemeanor unless committed by an elected official.
- Tampering with a governmental record. A false voter registration or application can be charged under tampering with a governmental record as well as the Election Code, creating parallel exposure that has to be defended on both tracks.
- Perjury and false statements. Where the State alleges a false oath on an election form, perjury or aggravated perjury may be charged alongside the election count.
- Forgery. Altering a mail-ballot application or signature can draw a forgery charge in addition to § 84.0041.
A hypothetical, for illustration only. Suppose a person finishes a deferred-adjudication term, is told by a county clerk that their registration is "active," and votes in the next election — only to learn months later that a paperwork error left the felony status unresolved. Under Mason, the State would have to prove that person actually realized they were ineligible when they voted. Reliance on the clerk's statement, and the absence of any warning, would be central exculpatory evidence. This scenario is illustrative and not a description of any actual client matter or outcome.
L and L Law Group represents clients facing election-integrity charges across Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant counties. Co-founding partners Reggie London and Njeri London handle both the criminal-defense and collateral-consequence components of these cases — defending the charge through plea or trial, presenting exculpatory eligibility evidence before indictment where possible, and advising non-citizen clients on the immigration implications under Padilla v. Kentucky. Free initial consultations are available; contact the firm at (972) 370-5060 or info@landllawgroup.com to schedule.
