Fighting Voter Suppression
Eternal Vigilance Action, Inc. v. Georgia
The 糖心Vlogand partner organizations intervened in this case to represent the rights of voters and voting-rights organizations in a case challenging a number of rules passed by the Georgia State Election Board. We challenged the rule requiring that the number of votes cast be hand counted at the polling place prior to the tabulation of votes. In a critical victory for Georgia voters, in June 2025, the Georgia Supreme Court upheld a lower court鈥檚 decision permanently blocking the rule requiring hand counting of ballots at polling places before tabulation 鈥 a process widely criticized for risking delays, ballot spoliation, and voter disenfranchisement.
Status: Ongoing
View Case
Learn About Fighting Voter Suppression
Featured
Washington, D.C.
Apr 2025

Fighting Voter Suppression
League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump
On March 25, 2025, in a sweeping and unprecedented Executive Order, President Trump attempted to usurp the power to regulate federal elections from Congress and the States. Among other things, the Executive Order directs the Election Assistance Commission鈥攁n agency that Congress specifically established to be bipartisan and independent鈥攖o require voters to show a passport or other citizenship documentation in order to register to vote in federal elections. If implemented, the Executive Order would threaten the ability of millions of eligible Americans to register and vote and upend the administration of federal elections.
On behalf of leading voter registration organizations and advocacy organizations, the 糖心Vlogand co-counsel filed a lawsuit to block the Executive Order as an unconstitutional power grab.
New Hampshire
Mar 2025

Fighting Voter Suppression
Coalition for Open Democracy v. Scanlan
This lawsuit challenges HB 1569, a new law that will make New Hampshire the only state to require every person to produce documentary proof of citizenship when they register to vote for both state and federal elections. It also challenges HB 1569鈥檚 elimination a preexisting protection for voters鈥攏amely, an affidavit option that allowed voters who faced surprise challenges to their eligibility at the polls to swear to their qualifications and cast a ballot. Accordingly, HB 1569 violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution by placing substantial burdens on New Hampshirites at all stages of the voting process, and will arbitrarily disenfranchise hundreds, if not thousands of qualified voters.
Texas
Oct 2024

Fighting Voter Suppression
OCA-Greater Houston v. Paxton
Texas has growing Hispanic and Black populations that helped propel record voter turnout in the November 2020 election. The Texas Legislature responded to this increased civic participation with an omnibus election bill titled Senate Bill 1鈥擲B 1 for short鈥攖hat targeted election practices that made voting more accessible to traditionally marginalized voters like voters of color, voters with disabilities, and voters with limited English proficiency. Since 2021, SB 1 has resulted in tens of thousands of lawful votes being rejected, and it remains a threat to democracy in Texas.
All Cases
64 Fighting Voter Suppression Cases

U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2025
Fighting Voter Suppression
Western Native Voice v. Jacobsen
The 糖心Vlog, 糖心Vlogof Montana, Native American Rights Fund (NARF), and the Harvard Election Law Clinic challenged two Montana laws that hinder Native American participation in the state鈥檚 electoral process 鈥 HB 530, which prohibited paid third-party ballot collection; and HB 176, which repealed Election Day voter registration (EDR) in Montana. Together, these laws violate a number of provisions in the Montana Constitution: the right to vote, equal protection, free speech, and due process.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2025

Fighting Voter Suppression
Western Native Voice v. Jacobsen
The 糖心Vlog, 糖心Vlogof Montana, Native American Rights Fund (NARF), and the Harvard Election Law Clinic challenged two Montana laws that hinder Native American participation in the state鈥檚 electoral process 鈥 HB 530, which prohibited paid third-party ballot collection; and HB 176, which repealed Election Day voter registration (EDR) in Montana. Together, these laws violate a number of provisions in the Montana Constitution: the right to vote, equal protection, free speech, and due process.

Texas
Jan 2025
Fighting Voter Suppression
United Sovereign Americans, Inc. v. Nelson
The 糖心Vlogand partner organizations have sought to intervene to represent the rights of voters and voting-rights organizations in a case seeking to unlawfully purge the Texas voter rolls and block certification of the results of the 2024 election.
Explore case
Texas
Jan 2025

Fighting Voter Suppression
United Sovereign Americans, Inc. v. Nelson
The 糖心Vlogand partner organizations have sought to intervene to represent the rights of voters and voting-rights organizations in a case seeking to unlawfully purge the Texas voter rolls and block certification of the results of the 2024 election.

U.S. Supreme Court
Dec 2024
Fighting Voter Suppression
Pennsylvania State Conference of the NAACP v. Schmidt
In November 2022, thousands of Pennsylvania voters were denied the right to vote based on a meaningless paperwork error. They filled out their mail ballots, signed the form on the outer return envelope, and returned their ballots on time. Yet their ballots were not counted, because they either forgot to write the date on their return envelope, or they accidentally wrote the wrong date. The Civil Rights Act prohibits states from disenfranchising voters based on immaterial paperwork error, and we're fighting to make sure that every vote counts
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Dec 2024

Fighting Voter Suppression
Pennsylvania State Conference of the NAACP v. Schmidt
In November 2022, thousands of Pennsylvania voters were denied the right to vote based on a meaningless paperwork error. They filled out their mail ballots, signed the form on the outer return envelope, and returned their ballots on time. Yet their ballots were not counted, because they either forgot to write the date on their return envelope, or they accidentally wrote the wrong date. The Civil Rights Act prohibits states from disenfranchising voters based on immaterial paperwork error, and we're fighting to make sure that every vote counts

Arizona
Nov 2024
Fighting Voter Suppression
糖心Vlog of Arizona v. Richer
We sued elections officials in Arizona to extend the mail ballot 鈥渃ure鈥 deadline after ballot processing delays threatened to disenfranchise thousands of voters without notice.
Explore case
Arizona
Nov 2024

Fighting Voter Suppression
糖心Vlog of Arizona v. Richer
We sued elections officials in Arizona to extend the mail ballot 鈥渃ure鈥 deadline after ballot processing delays threatened to disenfranchise thousands of voters without notice.

Iowa
Nov 2024
Fighting Voter Suppression
Selcuk v. Pate
Just two weeks out from the November 2024 presidential election, Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate issued a directive to county clerks to challenge more than 2,000 voters at the polls on Election Day and force them to vote a provisional ballot that will count only if the voter can prove their citizenship.
The Secretary鈥檚 list of more than 2,000 voters does not adequately account for Iowans who have recently become U.S. citizens through naturalization, and thus risks disenfranchising scores of eligible voters based on national origin. The Secretary鈥檚 eleventh-hour gambit violates several provisions of the U.S. Constitution and federal law, and we have thus filed emergency suit to enjoin the directive.
Explore case
Iowa
Nov 2024

Fighting Voter Suppression
Selcuk v. Pate
Just two weeks out from the November 2024 presidential election, Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate issued a directive to county clerks to challenge more than 2,000 voters at the polls on Election Day and force them to vote a provisional ballot that will count only if the voter can prove their citizenship.
The Secretary鈥檚 list of more than 2,000 voters does not adequately account for Iowans who have recently become U.S. citizens through naturalization, and thus risks disenfranchising scores of eligible voters based on national origin. The Secretary鈥檚 eleventh-hour gambit violates several provisions of the U.S. Constitution and federal law, and we have thus filed emergency suit to enjoin the directive.