Voting Rights
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 Voting Rights
Featured
U.S. Supreme Court
May 2025

Voting Rights
Racial Justice
Allen v. Milligan
Whether Alabama鈥檚 congressional districts violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because they discriminate against Black voters. We succeeded in winning a new map for 2024 elections which, for the first time, has two congressional district that provide Black voters a fair opportunity to elect candidates of their choosing despite multiple attempts by Alabama to stop us at the Supreme Court. Despite this win, Alabama is still defending its discriminatory map, and a trial was held in February 2025 to determine the map for the rest of the decade.
In May 2025, a federal court ruled that Alabama's 2023 congressional map both violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and was enacted by the Alabama Legislature with racially discriminatory intent.
Washington, D.C.
Apr 2025

Voting Rights
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.
U.S. Supreme Court
Mar 2025

Voting Rights
Callais v. Landry
Whether the congressional map Louisiana adopted to cure a Voting Rights Act violation in Robinson v. Ardoin is itself unlawful as a gerrymander.
New Hampshire
Mar 2025

Voting Rights
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.
South Carolina Supreme Court
Jan 2025

Voting Rights
League of Women Voters of South Carolina v. Alexander
This case involves a state constitutional challenge to South Carolina鈥檚 2022 congressional redistricting plan, which legislators admit was drawn to entrench a 6-1 Republican majority in the state鈥檚 federal delegation. Plaintiff the League of Women Voters of South Carolina has asked the state鈥檚 Supreme Court to conclude that the congressional map is an unlawful partisan gerrymander that violates the state constitution.
Texas
Oct 2024

Voting Rights
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
153 Voting Rights Cases

Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Mar 2025
Voting Rights
Baxter v. Philadelphia Board of Elections
Eligible Philadelphia-area voters who submitted mail ballots in the September 17, 2024 special election only to have their votes set aside because they omitted or miswrote the correct date on their outer return envelope 鈥 even though the date is not used for any purpose 鈥 sued to have their votes count. Plaintiffs urge the courts to rule that enforcing the irrelevant envelope-dating requirement to disenfranchise eligible voters violates the Pennsylvania Constitution's Free and Equal Elections Clause.
Explore case
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Mar 2025

Voting Rights
Baxter v. Philadelphia Board of Elections
Eligible Philadelphia-area voters who submitted mail ballots in the September 17, 2024 special election only to have their votes set aside because they omitted or miswrote the correct date on their outer return envelope 鈥 even though the date is not used for any purpose 鈥 sued to have their votes count. Plaintiffs urge the courts to rule that enforcing the irrelevant envelope-dating requirement to disenfranchise eligible voters violates the Pennsylvania Constitution's Free and Equal Elections Clause.

North Carolina
Mar 2025
Voting Rights
Griffin v. North Carolina Board of Elections (Amicus)
This case arises from the November 2024 election for state supreme court justice in North Carolina. Incumbent State Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs defeated Court of Appeals Judge Jefferson Griffin, but Griffin has filed a petition seeking to invalidate more than 65,000 votes from the election. He argues that the state Board of Elections impermissibly allowed 60,000 people to register without providing their driver鈥檚 licenses or social security numbers, and that the Board impermissibly allowed 5,500 overseas voters to cast absentee ballots without photo identification. The petition has resulted in both federal and state litigation, and the 糖心Vloghas submitted amicus briefs in both venues. In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the ACLU鈥檚 Voting Rights Project and the 糖心Vlogof North Carolina filed an amicus brief explaining that the petition鈥檚 attempt to cancel tens of thousands of votes threatens democratic backsliding in North Carolina. Separately, in the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative and the 糖心Vlogof North Carolina submitted an amicus brief explaining that, even if the Board did make mistakes, cancelling votes as a consequence of those mistakes would violate the popular sovereignty provision of the North Carolina Constitution because voters relied on the Board to know how to register and vote.
Explore case
North Carolina
Mar 2025

Voting Rights
Griffin v. North Carolina Board of Elections (Amicus)
This case arises from the November 2024 election for state supreme court justice in North Carolina. Incumbent State Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs defeated Court of Appeals Judge Jefferson Griffin, but Griffin has filed a petition seeking to invalidate more than 65,000 votes from the election. He argues that the state Board of Elections impermissibly allowed 60,000 people to register without providing their driver鈥檚 licenses or social security numbers, and that the Board impermissibly allowed 5,500 overseas voters to cast absentee ballots without photo identification. The petition has resulted in both federal and state litigation, and the 糖心Vloghas submitted amicus briefs in both venues. In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the ACLU鈥檚 Voting Rights Project and the 糖心Vlogof North Carolina filed an amicus brief explaining that the petition鈥檚 attempt to cancel tens of thousands of votes threatens democratic backsliding in North Carolina. Separately, in the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative and the 糖心Vlogof North Carolina submitted an amicus brief explaining that, even if the Board did make mistakes, cancelling votes as a consequence of those mistakes would violate the popular sovereignty provision of the North Carolina Constitution because voters relied on the Board to know how to register and vote.

New York
Jan 2025
Voting Rights
New York Communities for Change v. Nassau County
Voters of color in Nassau County, N.Y., are no strangers to having to organize to ensure their votes count. But in 2023, the county鈥檚 Legislature took vote dilution to new heights. In places like Elmont, Freeport, Inwood, Lakeview, South Valley Stream, New Hyde Park, and Uniondale, the Legislature 鈥渃racked and packed鈥 communities of color with the effect of squashing their growing electoral power. But the landmark John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA), enacted in 2022, and the New York Municipal Home Rule Law prohibit New York State and localities from diluting the voting strength and political influence of Black, Latino, and Asian residents.
Explore case
New York
Jan 2025

Voting Rights
New York Communities for Change v. Nassau County
Voters of color in Nassau County, N.Y., are no strangers to having to organize to ensure their votes count. But in 2023, the county鈥檚 Legislature took vote dilution to new heights. In places like Elmont, Freeport, Inwood, Lakeview, South Valley Stream, New Hyde Park, and Uniondale, the Legislature 鈥渃racked and packed鈥 communities of color with the effect of squashing their growing electoral power. But the landmark John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA), enacted in 2022, and the New York Municipal Home Rule Law prohibit New York State and localities from diluting the voting strength and political influence of Black, Latino, and Asian residents.

U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2025
Voting Rights
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

Voting Rights
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
Voting Rights
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

Voting Rights
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.