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
Georgia
Nov 2024
Voting Rights
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 糖心Vlogand 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
Voting Rights
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 糖心Vlogand 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
Voting Rights
糖心Vlog 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. 糖心Vlogand 糖心Vlogof 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
Voting Rights
糖心Vlog 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. 糖心Vlogand 糖心Vlogof 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.
Nebraska Supreme Court
Oct 2024
Voting Rights
Spung v. Evnen
Less than four months before the November 2024 presidential election, the Nebraska Secretary of State issued a directive embracing a non-binding opinion issued by the state Attorney General that would essentially reinstate permanent felony disenfranchisement and re-disenfranchise tens of thousands of Nebraska citizens. This directive is violative of both the Nebraska Constitution and several state statutes, and urgent relief is needed to avoid mass disenfranchisement of an entire class of Nebraska citizens.
Explore case
Nebraska Supreme Court
Oct 2024
Voting Rights
Spung v. Evnen
Less than four months before the November 2024 presidential election, the Nebraska Secretary of State issued a directive embracing a non-binding opinion issued by the state Attorney General that would essentially reinstate permanent felony disenfranchisement and re-disenfranchise tens of thousands of Nebraska citizens. This directive is violative of both the Nebraska Constitution and several state statutes, and urgent relief is needed to avoid mass disenfranchisement of an entire class of Nebraska citizens.
Wisconsin
Oct 2024
Voting Rights
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
Voting Rights
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
Voting Rights
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
Voting Rights
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.