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—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 şěĐÓĘÓƵ and co-counsel filed a lawsuit to block the Executive Order as an unconstitutional power grab.
Status: Ongoing
View Case
Learn şěĐÓĘÓƵ Voting Rights
Featured
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’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.
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’s 2022 congressional redistricting plan, which legislators admit was drawn to entrench a 6-1 Republican majority in the state’s federal delegation. Plaintiff the League of Women Voters of South Carolina has asked the state’s Supreme Court to conclude that the congressional map is an unlawful partisan gerrymander that violates the state constitution.
Louisiana
Jan 2025
Voting Rights
Nairne v. Landry
Nairne v. Landry poses a challenge under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to Louisiana’s House and Senate legislative maps on behalf of plaintiff Black voters and Black voters across the state.
Georgia
Oct 2024
Voting Rights
Eternal Vigilance Action, Inc. v. Georgia
The şěĐÓĘÓƵ and partner organizations have sought to intervene 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 challenge a rule that requires that the number of votes cast be hand counted at the polling place prior to the tabulation of votes. This rule risks delay and spoliation of ballots, putting in danger voters’ rights to have their votes count.
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—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
151 Voting Rights Cases
Arkansas
Jan 2024
Voting Rights
NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment
This case has two key parts: First, the Arkansas House district map diminishes the voting power of Black voters. Second, both the district court and Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals radically concluded that voters may not sue to protect their voting rights under Section 2, putting the VRA in further jeopardy and contradicting decades of precedent in which impacted voters — particularly Black voters — have challenged racially discriminatory voting laws.
Explore case
Arkansas
Jan 2024
Voting Rights
NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment
This case has two key parts: First, the Arkansas House district map diminishes the voting power of Black voters. Second, both the district court and Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals radically concluded that voters may not sue to protect their voting rights under Section 2, putting the VRA in further jeopardy and contradicting decades of precedent in which impacted voters — particularly Black voters — have challenged racially discriminatory voting laws.
Louisiana
Dec 2023
Voting Rights
Robinson v. Landry
Robinson challenged the congressional map that Louisiana enacted after the 2020 Census. şěĐÓĘÓƵ and partners represented Plaintiffs the Louisiana State Conference of the NAACP, Power Coalition for Equity and Justice, and several impacted voters, and argued that the enacted plan violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In June 2022, the district court found Louisiana's congressional map unlawfully denied Black voters a second district in which Black voters had an equal opportunity to elect their candidates of choice. After appeals, the legislature passed a new map containing two majority Black districts in January 2024.
Explore case
Louisiana
Dec 2023
Voting Rights
Robinson v. Landry
Robinson challenged the congressional map that Louisiana enacted after the 2020 Census. şěĐÓĘÓƵ and partners represented Plaintiffs the Louisiana State Conference of the NAACP, Power Coalition for Equity and Justice, and several impacted voters, and argued that the enacted plan violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In June 2022, the district court found Louisiana's congressional map unlawfully denied Black voters a second district in which Black voters had an equal opportunity to elect their candidates of choice. After appeals, the legislature passed a new map containing two majority Black districts in January 2024.
Texas
Dec 2023
Voting Rights
Vote.Org v. Callanen (Amicus)
Texas requires voters who register to vote electronically or via fax to mail an original copy with the voter’s “wet signature” to the applicable registrar. A voter may be denied registration merely because the mailed copy of the form has a scanned signature on it rather than a “wet ink” one. But the Civil Rights Act prohibits states from disenfranchising voters based on immaterial paperwork errors. We’re fighting to make sure that every vote counts and supported Vote.org’s challenge to the “wet ink” law as unlawful under the Civil Rights Act.
Explore case
Texas
Dec 2023
Voting Rights
Vote.Org v. Callanen (Amicus)
Texas requires voters who register to vote electronically or via fax to mail an original copy with the voter’s “wet signature” to the applicable registrar. A voter may be denied registration merely because the mailed copy of the form has a scanned signature on it rather than a “wet ink” one. But the Civil Rights Act prohibits states from disenfranchising voters based on immaterial paperwork errors. We’re fighting to make sure that every vote counts and supported Vote.org’s challenge to the “wet ink” law as unlawful under the Civil Rights Act.
Florida
Dec 2023
Voting Rights
Supporting Defendants in Unlawful Florida Prosecutions of Returning Citizens (Amicus)
Florida has arrested and prosecuted many returning citizens—persons with felony convictions who are no longer incarcerated—for registering and voting while ineligible. These prosecutions have occurred amid widespread confusion about voting rights restoration in Florida and have been initiated by an Office of Statewide Prosecutor (“OSP”) that has no authority to bring these criminal actions.
Explore case
Florida
Dec 2023
Voting Rights
Supporting Defendants in Unlawful Florida Prosecutions of Returning Citizens (Amicus)
Florida has arrested and prosecuted many returning citizens—persons with felony convictions who are no longer incarcerated—for registering and voting while ineligible. These prosecutions have occurred amid widespread confusion about voting rights restoration in Florida and have been initiated by an Office of Statewide Prosecutor (“OSP”) that has no authority to bring these criminal actions.
Mississippi
Dec 2023
Voting Rights
Hopkins v. Watson (Amicus)
Mississippi is home to one of the strictest felon disenfranchisement schemes in the nation. The Mississippi Constitution permanently disenfranchises citizens upon a single felony conviction for certain crimes, including minor offenses like writing a bad check. As a result, the loss of rights under Mississippi’s scheme is mandatory, permanent, and effectively irrevocable. In Hopkins, plaintiffs, a class of formerly incarcerated individuals who lost their right to vote despite completing their sentences, argued that their disenfranchisement violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor and struck down Mississippi’s disenfranchisement scheme as cruel and unusual punishment. But the Fifth Circuit decided to rehear the case en banc, a rare occurrence in which a case is reconsidered by the entire panel of the circuit’s active judges.
Explore case
Mississippi
Dec 2023
Voting Rights
Hopkins v. Watson (Amicus)
Mississippi is home to one of the strictest felon disenfranchisement schemes in the nation. The Mississippi Constitution permanently disenfranchises citizens upon a single felony conviction for certain crimes, including minor offenses like writing a bad check. As a result, the loss of rights under Mississippi’s scheme is mandatory, permanent, and effectively irrevocable. In Hopkins, plaintiffs, a class of formerly incarcerated individuals who lost their right to vote despite completing their sentences, argued that their disenfranchisement violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor and struck down Mississippi’s disenfranchisement scheme as cruel and unusual punishment. But the Fifth Circuit decided to rehear the case en banc, a rare occurrence in which a case is reconsidered by the entire panel of the circuit’s active judges.