Voting Rights
Featured
Washington, D.C.
Jul 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.
Georgia Supreme Court
Jun 2025
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.
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.
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
155 Voting Rights Cases
U.S. Supreme Court
Jul 2025
Voting Rights
Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections
Congressman Michael Bost brought suit trying to prevent Illinois from counting mail ballots that are voted by election day and received within the following fourteen days, consistent with Illinois law. The Seventh Circuit ruled that Congressman Bost lacks standing to sue. Bost sought certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court on the question whether he has standing as a federal candidate to bring his lawsuit and have it decided on the merits.
While the 糖心Vlogstrongly opposes Congressman Bost鈥檚 position on the merits and has repeatedly defended similar state laws from challenge, the rules that determine whether Bost has standing to even bring his anti-voter lawsuit also apply to civil rights groups when they bring suit to expand or protect the rights of voters.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jul 2025
Voting Rights
Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections
Congressman Michael Bost brought suit trying to prevent Illinois from counting mail ballots that are voted by election day and received within the following fourteen days, consistent with Illinois law. The Seventh Circuit ruled that Congressman Bost lacks standing to sue. Bost sought certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court on the question whether he has standing as a federal candidate to bring his lawsuit and have it decided on the merits.
While the 糖心Vlogstrongly opposes Congressman Bost鈥檚 position on the merits and has repeatedly defended similar state laws from challenge, the rules that determine whether Bost has standing to even bring his anti-voter lawsuit also apply to civil rights groups when they bring suit to expand or protect the rights of voters.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2025
Voting Rights
O'Bannon v. King
Virginia permanently disenfranchises all people with felony convictions unless the governor restores their rights. This lawsuit鈥攂rought by the 糖心Vlogof Virginia and co-counsel partners鈥攁rgues that the policy violates the Readmissions Act of 1870, which bars Virginia from denying the vote based on convictions that didn鈥檛 exist at common law in 1870. The state tried to dismiss the case by invoking sovereign immunity, but the courts rejected that argument. Now, the case moves forward with the potential to restore voting rights to thousands of Virginians.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2025
Voting Rights
O'Bannon v. King
Virginia permanently disenfranchises all people with felony convictions unless the governor restores their rights. This lawsuit鈥攂rought by the 糖心Vlogof Virginia and co-counsel partners鈥攁rgues that the policy violates the Readmissions Act of 1870, which bars Virginia from denying the vote based on convictions that didn鈥檛 exist at common law in 1870. The state tried to dismiss the case by invoking sovereign immunity, but the courts rejected that argument. Now, the case moves forward with the potential to restore voting rights to thousands of Virginians.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2025
Voting Rights
Republican National Committee v. Genser
Voters in Butler County, Pennsylvania made a mistake in voting their mail ballots in the April 2024 primary election, forgetting to use the required secrecy envelope. Because their mail ballots could not be counted, they went to the polls in Election Day and voted provisional ballots. The County later determined that it would not count their provisional ballots, and the voter鈥檚 appealed, arguing that Pennsylvania law requires that when an eligible voter attempts to vote by mail but the mail ballot is rendered void due to some defect like lacking a secrecy envelope, the eligible voter may cast a provisional ballot and have that ballot counted notwithstanding the failed attempt to vote by mail.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2025
Voting Rights
Republican National Committee v. Genser
Voters in Butler County, Pennsylvania made a mistake in voting their mail ballots in the April 2024 primary election, forgetting to use the required secrecy envelope. Because their mail ballots could not be counted, they went to the polls in Election Day and voted provisional ballots. The County later determined that it would not count their provisional ballots, and the voter鈥檚 appealed, arguing that Pennsylvania law requires that when an eligible voter attempts to vote by mail but the mail ballot is rendered void due to some defect like lacking a secrecy envelope, the eligible voter may cast a provisional ballot and have that ballot counted notwithstanding the failed attempt to vote by mail.
North Dakota
Jun 2025
Voting Rights
Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe (Amicus)
In Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment, the 8th Circuit became the first federal appeals court to rule that private plaintiffs cannot enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In doing so, the court left open the question whether private plaintiffs could enforce Section 2 through an alternative civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. 搂 1983. In this case, a divided panel on the 8th Circuit has held that plaintiffs may not use Section 1983, either. If the holding stands, Section 2 of the VRA will be functionally out of reach for voters across the 8th Circuit in Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. On behalf of the NAACP Arkansas State Conference and the Arkansas Public Policy Panel, the 糖心Vlogand 糖心Vlogof Arkansas has filed a brief supporting the plaintiffs' request that the full Eighth Circuit rehear and correct this decision.
Explore case
North Dakota
Jun 2025
Voting Rights
Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe (Amicus)
In Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment, the 8th Circuit became the first federal appeals court to rule that private plaintiffs cannot enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In doing so, the court left open the question whether private plaintiffs could enforce Section 2 through an alternative civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. 搂 1983. In this case, a divided panel on the 8th Circuit has held that plaintiffs may not use Section 1983, either. If the holding stands, Section 2 of the VRA will be functionally out of reach for voters across the 8th Circuit in Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. On behalf of the NAACP Arkansas State Conference and the Arkansas Public Policy Panel, the 糖心Vlogand 糖心Vlogof Arkansas has filed a brief supporting the plaintiffs' request that the full Eighth Circuit rehear and correct this decision.
Alaska
May 2025
Voting Rights
Racial Justice
Smith v. State of Alaska (Amicus)
The 糖心Vlogand 糖心Vlogof Alaska have filed an amicus in support of Tupe Smith, a woman born in American Samoa who now lives in Whittier, Alaska charged with falsely affirming that she was a U.S. citizen when she registered to vote. But Tupe Smith is not an 鈥渁lien鈥� under the law. People, like her, born in the U.S. territory of American Samoa are the only remaining individuals recognized as 鈥渘on-citizen U.S. nationals,鈥� a unique status that falls short of 鈥渃itizen鈥� but nonetheless recognizes that American Samoa has been part of the United States for over 125 years.
All evidence indicates that Ms. Smith believed that, as a non-citizen U.S. national, she was eligible to vote in local elections when she registered to vote. In fact, local election officials encouraged her to check the box labeled "U.S. citizen" when she registered, given the fact that there was no option for "U.S. national."
Our amicus brief urges Alaska鈥檚 Court of Appeals to dismiss Tupe Smith鈥檚 indictment because of well-settled principles that election-crime statutes should be construed to avoid punishing innocent mistakes. Separately, we warn that upholding a different view of the law would make Alaska an outlier among the states.
Explore case
Alaska
May 2025
Voting Rights
Racial Justice
Smith v. State of Alaska (Amicus)
The 糖心Vlogand 糖心Vlogof Alaska have filed an amicus in support of Tupe Smith, a woman born in American Samoa who now lives in Whittier, Alaska charged with falsely affirming that she was a U.S. citizen when she registered to vote. But Tupe Smith is not an 鈥渁lien鈥� under the law. People, like her, born in the U.S. territory of American Samoa are the only remaining individuals recognized as 鈥渘on-citizen U.S. nationals,鈥� a unique status that falls short of 鈥渃itizen鈥� but nonetheless recognizes that American Samoa has been part of the United States for over 125 years.
All evidence indicates that Ms. Smith believed that, as a non-citizen U.S. national, she was eligible to vote in local elections when she registered to vote. In fact, local election officials encouraged her to check the box labeled "U.S. citizen" when she registered, given the fact that there was no option for "U.S. national."
Our amicus brief urges Alaska鈥檚 Court of Appeals to dismiss Tupe Smith鈥檚 indictment because of well-settled principles that election-crime statutes should be construed to avoid punishing innocent mistakes. Separately, we warn that upholding a different view of the law would make Alaska an outlier among the states.