Fighting Voter Suppression
Eternal Vigilance Action, Inc. v. Georgia
The ÌÇÐÄVlogand 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’s decision permanently blocking the rule requiring hand counting of ballots at polling places before tabulation — 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—an agency that Congress specifically established to be bipartisan and independent—to 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 ÌÇÐÄVlogand 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’s elimination a preexisting protection for voters—namely, 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—SB 1 for short—that 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

Georgia
Nov 2024
Fighting Voter Suppression
Ayota v. Fall
On October 31, 2024, just five days before the November 5 General Election, Cobb County announced that it had failed to send more than 3,000 absentee ballots to Cobb County voters who had timely requested them. Many of these voters are at school hundreds of miles away or have disabilities that make it all but impossible to vote in person. The ÌÇÐÄVlogand co-counsel sued on behalf of affected voters to ensure that they would not be disenfranchised because of the County's administrative error.
Explore case
Georgia
Nov 2024

Fighting Voter Suppression
Ayota v. Fall
On October 31, 2024, just five days before the November 5 General Election, Cobb County announced that it had failed to send more than 3,000 absentee ballots to Cobb County voters who had timely requested them. Many of these voters are at school hundreds of miles away or have disabilities that make it all but impossible to vote in person. The ÌÇÐÄVlogand co-counsel sued on behalf of affected voters to ensure that they would not be disenfranchised because of the County's administrative error.

South Carolina
Oct 2024
Fighting Voter Suppression
ÌÇÐÄVlog of South Carolina v. State Election Commission
The South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles (SCDMV) has unlawfully denied young, eligible South Carolinians the opportunity to register to vote. Under South Carolina law, individuals who are 17 years old may register to vote and vote in primary elections so long as they (1) will turn 18 on or before the next general election, and (2) otherwise meet the qualifications for voting. An administrative error in the SCDMV's processes, however has stopped the Department from transmitting the proper paperwork to complete all registration information to the South Carolina Elections Commission. As a result, thousands of young voters who did everything right and should have been registered to vote have not been added to the state's voter rolls in the runup to the 2024 general election. ÌÇÐÄVlogand ÌÇÐÄVlogof South Carolina sued, asking the court to ensure that these new voters are registered and properly notified in time for them to vote in the November 2024 election.
Explore case
South Carolina
Oct 2024

Fighting Voter Suppression
ÌÇÐÄVlog of South Carolina v. State Election Commission
The South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles (SCDMV) has unlawfully denied young, eligible South Carolinians the opportunity to register to vote. Under South Carolina law, individuals who are 17 years old may register to vote and vote in primary elections so long as they (1) will turn 18 on or before the next general election, and (2) otherwise meet the qualifications for voting. An administrative error in the SCDMV's processes, however has stopped the Department from transmitting the proper paperwork to complete all registration information to the South Carolina Elections Commission. As a result, thousands of young voters who did everything right and should have been registered to vote have not been added to the state's voter rolls in the runup to the 2024 general election. ÌÇÐÄVlogand ÌÇÐÄVlogof South Carolina sued, asking the court to ensure that these new voters are registered and properly notified in time for them to vote in the November 2024 election.

Wisconsin
Oct 2024
Fighting Voter Suppression
Eucke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission
Just weeks before Election Day, three individuals filed a lawsuit asking a court to initiate an improper purge of Milwaukee voters from the voter rolls. We moved to intervene to protect voters from being purged based on unreliable information.
Explore case
Wisconsin
Oct 2024

Fighting Voter Suppression
Eucke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission
Just weeks before Election Day, three individuals filed a lawsuit asking a court to initiate an improper purge of Milwaukee voters from the voter rolls. We moved to intervene to protect voters from being purged based on unreliable information.

Ohio Supreme Court
Oct 2024
Fighting Voter Suppression
Ohio Democratic Party v. LaRose (Amicus)
Just weeks before absentee voting begins in Ohio, Secretary LaRose issued Directive 2024-21 to curtail the use of drop boxes. The directive deprives everyone who is lawfully assisting another voter from using a drop box, and mandates that drop boxes may be used only by voters who are returning their own ballot. We filed an amicus brief to explain the harsh, unnecessary burdens this directive will impose on voters and election officials alike.
Explore case
Ohio Supreme Court
Oct 2024

Fighting Voter Suppression
Ohio Democratic Party v. LaRose (Amicus)
Just weeks before absentee voting begins in Ohio, Secretary LaRose issued Directive 2024-21 to curtail the use of drop boxes. The directive deprives everyone who is lawfully assisting another voter from using a drop box, and mandates that drop boxes may be used only by voters who are returning their own ballot. We filed an amicus brief to explain the harsh, unnecessary burdens this directive will impose on voters and election officials alike.

Nevada
Oct 2024
Fighting Voter Suppression
Citizen Outreach Foundation v. Portillo
On the eve of the November 2024 presidential election, a third-party organization has challenged about 20,000 voters in Clark County, Nevada on the basis of purportedly improper residency. When Clark County rightly declined to process these challenges as improper under Nevada law, the third-party organization sued to compel the county to act on the challenges. The ÌÇÐÄVlogVoting Rights Project and the ÌÇÐÄVlogof Nevada have moved to intervene in the case to prevent mass disenfranchisement of Clark County voters mere weeks out from the 2024 general election.
Explore case
Nevada
Oct 2024

Fighting Voter Suppression
Citizen Outreach Foundation v. Portillo
On the eve of the November 2024 presidential election, a third-party organization has challenged about 20,000 voters in Clark County, Nevada on the basis of purportedly improper residency. When Clark County rightly declined to process these challenges as improper under Nevada law, the third-party organization sued to compel the county to act on the challenges. The ÌÇÐÄVlogVoting Rights Project and the ÌÇÐÄVlogof Nevada have moved to intervene in the case to prevent mass disenfranchisement of Clark County voters mere weeks out from the 2024 general election.