Voting Rights and Democracy

Cascino v. Nelson

In Cascino v. Nelson, the Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a Texas law that only allows voters over age 65 to vote by mail violates the Twenty-Sixth Amendment’s prohibition on age-based discrimination in voting.

Case Summary

Texas law allows voters 65 years and older to vote by mail without excuse, but denies younger voters the same opportunity.  Three Texas voters under the age of 65 challenged this scheme on the ground that the express discrimination between adult voters of different ages violates the Twenty-Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which promises that the right to vote of all citizens eighteen and older “shall not be denied or abridged” by any state “on account of age.”

On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld Texas’s age-based restriction on mail-in voting. The Fifth Circuit held that the Twenty-Sixth Amendment’s constitutional prohibition on age discrimination in voting does not protect younger voters from facially discriminatory absentee voting laws.

CAC filed an amicus curiae brief urging the Supreme Court to grant the petition for a writ of certiorari and reverse the Fifth Circuit’s ruling.  We explained that the text and history of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment prohibit laws that deny equal voting opportunities to adult voters on account of age.  Going beyond simply extending the right to vote to those 18-21 years old, the broad language of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment expressly forbids age discrimination in voting in the same manner the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments outlaw discrimination in voting on the basis of race and sex.  Indeed, our brief showed that the Twenty-Sixth Amendment was intentionally modeled on the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments.  As a result, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment forbids the government from curtailing or diminishing the rights of any adult voter on account of age.  In the same way that voting laws may not limit mail-in voting to just men or just white people, they may not limit mail-in voting to just voters over 65.

In April 2024, the Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari.

Case Timeline

  • January 8, 2024

    CAC files amicus brief in the Supreme Court

    Cascino CAC Amicus Brief
  • April 22, 2024

    The Supreme Court denies the petition for certiorari

More from Voting Rights and Democracy

Voting Rights and Democracy
Wisconsin Supreme Court

Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy v. Wisconsin Elections Commission

In Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, the Wisconsin Supreme Court is considering the legality of Wisconsin’s congressional redistricting map.
Voting Rights and Democracy
July 8, 2026

“Ruling Away From America’s Second Founding” on the Election Law Blog

Election Law Blog
David Gans’s Slate article on the Roberts Court was featured on Election Law Blog. Read more.
Voting Rights and Democracy
June 30, 2026

CAC Release: Roberts Court Strikes Down Yet Another Campaign Finance Law, Turns Blind Eye to Corruption

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in National Republican Senatorial Committee...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen, David H. Gans
Voting Rights and Democracy
June 29, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Rebukes Fifth Circuit, Affirms State Authority to Permit Post-Election Receipt of Mail Ballots

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Watson v. Republican National...
By: David H. Gans, Simon Chin
Voting Rights and Democracy
June 21, 2026

Guns, Weed, and the Forgotten Framers

Slate
CAC's David H. Gans discussed his forthcoming paper in the Stanford Law Review on the Black Conventions...
Voting Rights and Democracy
June 3, 2026

How Congress Can Pass a New Voting Rights Act Despite the Supreme Court

Slate
Director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights & Citizenship David H. Gans wrote an article in...
By: David H. Gans