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

Mississippi
Sep 2024
Fighting Voter Suppression
Republican National Committee v. Wetzel (Amicus)
In 2020, in a nearly unanimous bipartisan vote, Mississippi joined eighteen other states in accepting mail ballots postmarked by Election Day that arrived after Election Day (in Mississippi’s case, up to five business days). This lawsuit by partisan actors seeks to disenfranchise these voters whose ballot is mailed by Election Day but—through no fault of their own—does not arrive until afterwards. In Mississippi, this harm will fall disproportionately on voters with disabilities, older voters, and other communities that rely upon absentee voting. Twisting the words and meaning of Congress, the RNC argues that three longstanding federal laws that set a uniform election day for federal races require that ballot may only be counted if they are received by election officials by Election Day. If accepted, this radical argument would not only disenfranchise thousands upon thousands of voters in Mississippi and eighteen other states, but also upend election administration in every state.
Explore case
Mississippi
Sep 2024

Fighting Voter Suppression
Republican National Committee v. Wetzel (Amicus)
In 2020, in a nearly unanimous bipartisan vote, Mississippi joined eighteen other states in accepting mail ballots postmarked by Election Day that arrived after Election Day (in Mississippi’s case, up to five business days). This lawsuit by partisan actors seeks to disenfranchise these voters whose ballot is mailed by Election Day but—through no fault of their own—does not arrive until afterwards. In Mississippi, this harm will fall disproportionately on voters with disabilities, older voters, and other communities that rely upon absentee voting. Twisting the words and meaning of Congress, the RNC argues that three longstanding federal laws that set a uniform election day for federal races require that ballot may only be counted if they are received by election officials by Election Day. If accepted, this radical argument would not only disenfranchise thousands upon thousands of voters in Mississippi and eighteen other states, but also upend election administration in every state.

Arizona
Aug 2024
Fighting Voter Suppression
Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes (Amicus)
Does Congress have authority (as it has long done) to regulate all federal elections, including presidential elections—such as through key federal voting rights laws like the NVRA, UOCAVA, and the MOVE Act?
Explore case
Arizona
Aug 2024

Fighting Voter Suppression
Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes (Amicus)
Does Congress have authority (as it has long done) to regulate all federal elections, including presidential elections—such as through key federal voting rights laws like the NVRA, UOCAVA, and the MOVE Act?

Mississippi
Aug 2024
Fighting Voter Suppression
Disability Rights Mississippi v. Fitch
A law passed in 2023 significantly diminishes access to the ballot for Mississippians with disabilities by restricting who may return an absentee ballot for a voter to only a narrow category of assistors. We’re suing to block this law.
Explore case
Mississippi
Aug 2024

Fighting Voter Suppression
Disability Rights Mississippi v. Fitch
A law passed in 2023 significantly diminishes access to the ballot for Mississippians with disabilities by restricting who may return an absentee ballot for a voter to only a narrow category of assistors. We’re suing to block this law.

Colorado
Aug 2024
Fighting Voter Suppression
Citizens Project v. City of Colorado Springs
Colorado Springs’s unusually-timed elections suppress voter turnout—disproportionately, among the City’s Black and Hispanic population. This federal court lawsuit challenges the City’s election timing for violating our clients’ right to vote free from denial of abridgment on account of race under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Explore case
Colorado
Aug 2024

Fighting Voter Suppression
Citizens Project v. City of Colorado Springs
Colorado Springs’s unusually-timed elections suppress voter turnout—disproportionately, among the City’s Black and Hispanic population. This federal court lawsuit challenges the City’s election timing for violating our clients’ right to vote free from denial of abridgment on account of race under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Minnesota Supreme Court
Aug 2024
Fighting Voter Suppression
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Hunt
The ÌÇÐÄVlogand ÌÇÐÄVlogof Minnesota intervened as defendants to block an attempt by Minnesota Voters Alliance -- a private plaintiff group -- to challenge a law that restored voting rights to individuals convicted of a felony while they are "not incarcerated for the offense" and "including any period when they are on work release."
Explore case
Minnesota Supreme Court
Aug 2024

Fighting Voter Suppression
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Hunt
The ÌÇÐÄVlogand ÌÇÐÄVlogof Minnesota intervened as defendants to block an attempt by Minnesota Voters Alliance -- a private plaintiff group -- to challenge a law that restored voting rights to individuals convicted of a felony while they are "not incarcerated for the offense" and "including any period when they are on work release."