Texas law requires individuals who submit their voter registration applications electronically or through fax to also provide a copy of their application with a "wet signature" — meaning signed with pen on paper.

.@votedotorg filed a lawsuit arguing that Texas' "wet signature" requirement violates federal law, including the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects voters from being disenfranchised for trivial reasons. democracydocket.com/analysis/this-…

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) is arguing that the Materiality Provision is not privately enforceable, meaning that individuals and organizations, like @votedotorg, do not have the ability to sue under this provision and only the U.S. government can sue to enforce the law.

This legal concept is known as a private right of action — and it has become the target of conservative attacks.

Learn more about private right of action here: democracydocket.com/analysis/who-c…

Learn more about the lawsuits challenging this principle here.👇 democracydocket.com/analysis/the-c…

A lower court blocked Texas' "wet signature" law, but the 5th Circuit allowed the law to remain in effect as the appeal is litigated.

Learn more about the case and find all of the court filings here. democracydocket.com/cases/texas-on…

The U.S. Department of Justice asked to participate in oral argument, arguing that "the United States has a strong interest in the resolution of this appeal." Today, the DOJ will defend private enforcement of the Materiality Provision.

Here's who is participating in oral argument: -Texas state officials: Defending the law and arguing that Vote.org" class="external-link">Vote.org can’t sue under the Materiality Provision -Vote.org: Challenging the law -The DOJ: Defending Vote.org’s ability to sue

(All links on Twitter are currently broken. It's not us, it's Twitter. Hopefully, they'll be working soon! We'll still livetweet this oral argument in the meantime.)

Attorney for Texas officials begins. He argues that Vote.org has no standing, saying it's a "leap" to say that a third party can bring claims under the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act.

Attorney for AG Paxton argues that when the lower court blocked the wet signature law, it didn't consider "the wide array of opportunities that there are to register to vote in Texas."

Texas is one of eight states that does not offer online voter registration.

Judge asks why a faxed copy of a signature isn't accepted if it's preserving the "original signature." Attorney for AG Paxton responds he doesn't "think that that is actually signing the registration form. That's attaching a picture of your signature to a registration form."

Judge asks how faxing is different from when a person uses a stylus to electronically sign forms at an agency and that is accepted for voter registration. Attorney for AG Paxton says "that's providing a [manual] signature and then having it captured with the digital format."

An attorney for other Texas officials defending the law begins. She argues that a wet signature IS a material requirement for determining voter registration in the state of Texas.

Judge: "Young people sign almost everything on the internet. They don't have printers. Especially in big states like...Texas, where people just can't drive to Kinkos easily...this is a very big impediment for a lot of people that might want to sign up and be a voter."

Attorney for Vote.org begins, countering the Texas officials' attorney's point that Texas can make anything a material qualification under state law.

Judge: The other side is saying that "Texas can put whatever they want in there, and that makes it material."

Vote.org Atty: "Texas absolutely cannot do that. Congress anticipated this type of circular reasoning and in fact…imposed certain provisions within the Civil Rights Act to make sure that such reasoning” doesn’t restrict the right to vote.

Atty for Vote.org: "Denying someone the ability to register is just the same as denying them a ballot under the Civil Rights Act & under Section 101 of the Civil Rights Act...you cannot reject the registration application simply because of an immaterial omission."

Judge asks about standing. Vote.org" class="external-link">Vote.org's attorney says they have testimony from county registrars that they reject voter registration applications from Vote.org because of the lack of a wet signature.

Judge asks Vote.org" class="external-link">Vote.org's attorney how the digital capture of a signature using a stylus, like at state agencies, differs from an original signature. Vote.org's attorney says "it is not different at all. It is exactly the same thing."

Vote.org" class="external-link">Vote.org" class="external-link">Vote.org atty: "We don't even have to guess whether there's a law that restricts Vote.org. The secretary of state admitted that he dropped the language of this provision [in HB 3107] specifically to target Vote.org’s applications."

An attorney representing the U.S. Department of Justice begins. The DOJ is here to speak about the Materiality Provision and private right of action.

DOJ: "The reading that the other side has put forward here that essentially anything that states put forward as a procedural requirement is enough to, essentially, leave out the Materiality Provision goes against the definition of 'vote' in the statute."

DOJ: “The summary judgment record clearly showed that the wet signature rule, the requirement of a wet signature in particular, is not material to meeting any of those qualifications [and] it's not being used, certainly not directly.”

The DOJ cites a 3rd Circuit ruling that struck down Pennsylvania's requirement that mail-in ballots be signed and dated as immaterial under the Civil Rights Act. The decision was later vacated by SCOTUS as moot, but the ruling may still hold influence. democracydocket.com/cases/pennsylv…

DOJ: "There clearly is a private right of action to enforce the statute under" the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act.

Attorney for AG Paxton starts rebuttal. He argues that the state had issues with Vote.org in 2018 and Texas enacted this wet signature provision in response.

Attorney for AG Paxton wraps up his argument, again saying that he doesn't believe that Vote.org has standing to sue and that Texas offers "so many avenues" to register to vote.