Texas Court Lets Crystal Mason's Acquittal Stand in Provisional-Ballot Case
Texas's highest criminal court voted 5-4 on September 24, 2026, to leave Crystal Mason's acquittal in place, ending her case.
The order declined to hear the Tarrant County prosecutor's appeal after the court had first agreed to take it. The court gave no explanation. The Guardian
Mason had been convicted in 2018 for casting a provisional ballot in the 2016 presidential election that was never counted. A provisional ballot is a backup ballot offered when eligibility is unclear and checked later. A judge found her guilty and sentenced her to five years in prison. An acquittal followed in 2024. The Tarrant County prosecutor then appealed that acquittal to Texas's highest criminal court, which first granted review before reversing course on September 24, 2026.
The underlying vote happened on Election Day in 2016. Mason was then on supervised release, a period of supervision after sentencing, for a federal tax felony. Election officials offered her a provisional ballot after they could not find her on the registered voter list. Texas prohibits people with a felony conviction from voting while on probation. Phil Sorrells was the Tarrant County district attorney in September 2026.
The case moved through multiple layers of Texas appellate review. The court that set aside the conviction was the Texas Second Court of Appeals, as reported at the time by Reuters. That acquittal rested on insufficient evidence about whether Mason knew she was ineligible, according to case summaries from her advocates at the ACLU of Texas. Her legal team then asked the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to review the case and affirm the acquittal.
The broader context here is mens rea, the legal term for knowledge or intent. The question was not whether Mason was ineligible at the time she appeared at the polls. It was whether the state proved she knew she was ineligible when she cast a provisional ballot at officials' direction. The 2024 acquittal turned on that gap in evidence. By refusing discretionary review, a choice not to hear a case, the Court of Criminal Appeals leaves that reading undisturbed without creating new binding reasoning of its own, since a refusal carries no opinion.
Looking at what this means for prosecutors and election administrators, the finality matters more than the vote margin. A 5-4 refusal shows disagreement within the court. But the legal effect is straightforward. The acquittal stands. The 2018 conviction and five-year sentence have no further appellate life. For lawyers advising clients with felony histories, the case is a warning that a provisional ballot can still bring criminal risk even when the ballot is never tallied. For district attorneys, it clarifies the cost of pursuing charges that depend on proving knowledge where poll-worker testimony and election forms leave intent unclear.
