糖心Vlog

ATLANTA 鈥� In a critical victory for Georgia voters, the Georgia Supreme Court today upheld a lower court鈥檚 decision permanently blocking a rule that would have required hand counting of ballots at polling places before tabulation 鈥� a process widely criticized for risking delays, ballot spoliation, and voter disenfranchisement. The Georgia State Conference of the NAACP and the Georgia Coalition for the People鈥檚 Agenda, represented by the 糖心Vlog, 糖心Vlogof Georgia, Lawyers鈥� Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and the law firm Morgan Lewis, intervened in the case last fall to protect the integrity of Georgia elections. The ruling confirms that the State Election Board exceeded its legal authority by attempting to rewrite election procedures just weeks before a major election 鈥� without legislative approval and in direct contradiction of Georgia law. "This rule would have opened the door to confusion, delays, and potential voter disenfranchisement,鈥� said Gerald A. Griggs, president of the Georgia State Conference of the NAACP. 鈥淕eorgians deserve to have their votes counted -- not for their election officials to make last-minute changes and undermine the will of voters. The Court's ruling is a clear message that voter suppression has no place in our elections.鈥� 鈥淭his is a resounding affirmation of voters鈥� rights,鈥� said Theresa Lee, senior staff attorney at the 糖心VlogVoting Rights Project. 鈥淭he court recognized what we鈥檝e argued all along 鈥� that this rule was unlawful and entirely unnecessary. Today鈥檚 decision safeguards not just the letter of Georgia election law, but the democratic principle that every vote must be counted accurately and without interference.鈥� 鈥淭he court鈥檚 decision to block the hand counting requirement is a crucial win for voting rights, especially for voters in marginalized communities,鈥� said Helen Butler, executive director, Georgia Coalition for the People's Agenda. 鈥淚n under-resourced precincts, where long lines already discourage participation, the rule would have created chaos at the polls and risked silencing thousands of voices. Today's ruling on hand counting protects access, accuracy, and dignity in our elections. However, while we are pleased about the win, we are disappointed in the court鈥檚 ruling on standing in its opinion today. We will continue our work to support Georgia's voters and their fundamental right to vote.鈥� 鈥淲e are encouraged that the Court stopped the State Election Board's attempt to rewrite the election code on the eve of the 2024 election and are glad that the harmful Hand Count Rule cannot go into effect. Yet we are disappointed in the Court's decision that our clients did not have standing to bring this claim. The 糖心Vlogof Georgia and our clients will continue to fight in the halls of power for the right of every Georgia voter to cast their ballot and have it counted,鈥� said Caitlin May, voting rights staff attorney at the 糖心Vlogof Georgia. 鈥淭he Court鈥檚 decision today to block the State Election Board鈥檚 ill-conceived Hand Count rule was a victory for Georgia鈥檚 voters and goes a long way in helping to ensure that the State Election Board does not overstep its authority in future rule-making that could disenfranchise eligible voters,鈥� said Julie Houk, Managing Counsel for Election Protection at the Lawyers鈥� Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. 鈥淭he Lawyers鈥� Committee and our clients will continue our work to ensure that Georgia鈥檚 Black voters and other voters of color, as well as all eligible Georgia voters, are able to cast their ballots, that they will be counted, and that their fundamental right to vote is not undermined by unauthorized actions taken by members of the State Election Board in the future.鈥� The case, Eternal Vigilance Action, Inc. v. Georgia, challenged a series of last-minute rules passed by the Georgia State Election Board, including one that would have required the hand counting of ballots before securing them for tabulation 鈥� a burdensome and error-prone process with no grounding in Georgia鈥檚 election code. The ruling allows elections in Georgia to proceed under long-established, secure procedures, reinforcing voter confidence and administrative stability ahead of future elections. A copy of the ruling can be found here: https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2025/06/EVA-Decision.pdf

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.

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.

BIRMINGHAM, AL 鈥� A federal court has ruled after a full trial that Alabama鈥檚 2023 congressional map not only violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act but was enacted by the Alabama Legislature with racially discriminatory intent. This ruling establishes that the Alabama congressional map must include two districts where Black voters have the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice (like the map ordered by the court in October 2023) for the remainder of the decade. The court-ordered map used in the 2024 elections resulted in Alabama electing two Black representatives to Congress for the first time in history. The court鈥檚 decision follows a series of legal challenges where a group of voters argued that Alabama鈥檚 congressional districts violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting Black voting power. The Supreme Court agreed in a 2023 ruling that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on that claim, and in its decision in Allen v. Milligan, mandated the creation of a second opportunity district that resulted in the current map. Despite these previous decisions, Alabama insisted on a full trial of the case, and once again the Court ruled against its congressional map as unfairly harming Black voters. This time, however, also ruled that Alabama had intentionally discriminated against its Black citizens in enacting the map. The case was originally brought in November 2021 on behalf of Evan Milligan, Khadidah Stone, Letetia Jackson, Shalela Dowdy, Greater Birmingham Ministries, and the Alabama State Conference of the NAACP who are represented by the 糖心Vlog, 糖心Vlogof Alabama, Legal Defense Fund, Hogan Lovells LLP, and Wiggins, Childs, Pantazis, Fisher & Goldfarb. 鈥淭his win is a testament to the dedication and persistence of many generations of Black Alabamians who pursued political equality at great cost. We stand on the shoulders of our predecessors. We know that all Alabamians will benefit from today鈥檚 victory just as we have benefited from the work of others. We hope our win will benefit Black voters in the rest of the country as well. This is a triumph for voting rights, an independent judiciary, and offers us hope for the future of our democracy,鈥� a joint comment from plaintiffs of the case. 鈥淭he court has once again recognized that in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act,鈥� said Davin Rosborough, deputy director of the ACLU鈥檚 Voting Rights Project, "it is essential that Alabama鈥檚 congressional map have two opportunity districts for Black voters.鈥� 鈥淭oday鈥檚 decision is a testament to the persistence and resilience of Black voters in Alabama, including our clients,鈥� said Deuel Ross, deputy director of litigation at the Legal Defense Fund. 鈥淎labama鈥檚 unprecedented defiance of the Supreme Court and the lower court orders harkens back to the darkest days of American history. The court鈥檚 ruling reaffirms the rule of law and the importance of protecting the fundamental right to vote of Black Alabamians in the Black belt and all Americans.鈥� "This ruling is not just a legal win 鈥� it鈥檚 an overdue acknowledgment of Alabama lawmakers' persistent attempts to shut out Black voters from the electoral process,鈥� said Laurel Hattix, senior attorney at the 糖心Vlogof Alabama. 鈥淔or decades, Black Alabamians have organized and fought for not just their voting rights, but the voting rights of all Americans. Today, the courts have affirmed what Black voters have long known: fair representation is not optional 鈥� it鈥檚 a right.鈥� Read the court's ruling here: https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2025/05/490-FOF-COL-Injunction.pdf