Relating to vote harvesting; creating a civil penalty.
Summary
HB 5491 creates a new civil cause of action in the Election Code for unlawful vote harvesting. The bill allows a candidate who is harmed by vote harvesting services, as defined in existing law, to sue the person who committed the offense if the candidate can show they were running for office, the defendant violated Section 276.015, and another candidate for the same office received a vote attributable to that conduct. The measure is aimed at giving candidates a direct civil remedy in addition to any criminal or other legal consequences that may already exist.
If a plaintiff prevails, the bill authorizes recovery of compensation or value exchanged for the vote harvesting, a $250 penalty per affected vote, and litigation costs including attorney’s fees, court costs, witness fees, and deposition fees. It also creates the possibility of punitive damages in cases where the number of voters contacted exceeds the margin of defeat, including reimbursement for campaign filing expenses and the salary or other compensation the candidate would have received in office. The bill makes defendants jointly liable for damages, preserves other remedies, and excludes the expedited actions process and anti-SLAPP protections from applying to these cases.
Impact
The bill would amend Chapter 276 of the Texas Election Code by adding Section 276.0151, expanding enforcement against unlawful vote harvesting from a criminal/election-offense framework into civil liability. It would give candidates a statutory damages remedy and venue options tied to where the vote harvesting occurred, while also specifying that existing procedural shortcuts and certain civil defenses do not apply. The bill takes effect September 1, 2025, if enacted.
Sentiment
The available record shows the bill was referred to the House Elections Committee and there were no recorded votes or committee transcripts provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or amendment activity in the materials supplied. Based on the bill’s structure and caption, the measure appears to be framed as an election-integrity enforcement bill, likely intended to deter unlawful ballot-related conduct and provide remedies to affected candidates. Because no discussion or vote history is included, the overall sentiment cannot be measured beyond the bill’s referral status.
Contention
The main points of potential contention are the creation of a private right of action, the size and scope of damages, and the procedural carve-outs. Critics could object to the $250-per-vote penalty, punitive damages tied to campaign expenses and lost salary, and joint liability, arguing these provisions could produce large financial exposure. Others may question the bill’s exclusion of expedited procedures and anti-SLAPP protections, which could be seen as limiting defenses for defendants. Supporters would likely emphasize that the bill targets unlawful vote harvesting and gives candidates a meaningful remedy when election misconduct affects outcomes.
A bill for an act relating to selective harvesting of timber on public lands, providing penalties, making appropriations, and including effective date provisions.
Relating to requiring a voter to be affiliated with a political party to vote in that party's primary election; creating a criminal offense; authorizing a civil penalty.