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 红杏视频 and co-counsel filed a lawsuit to block the Executive Order as an unconstitutional power grab.
Status: Ongoing
View Case
Learn 红杏视频 Voting Rights
Featured
U.S. Supreme Court
Oct 2025
Voting Rights
State Board of Election Commissioners v. Mississippi State Conference of the NAACP
Mississippi has a growing Black population, which is already the largest Black population percentage of any state in the country. Yet. Black Mississippians continue to be significantly under-represented in the state legislature, as Mississippi鈥檚 latest districting maps fail to reflect the reality of the state鈥檚 changing demographics. During the 2022 redistricting process, the Mississippi legislature refused to create any new districts where Black voters have a chance to elect their preferred representative. The current district lines therefore dilute the voting power of Black Mississippians and continue to deprive them of political representation that is responsive to their needs and concerns, including severe disparities in education and healthcare.
U.S. Supreme Court
Oct 2025
Voting Rights
Louisiana v. Callais (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.
Missouri
Sep 2025
Voting Rights
Wise v. Missouri
In unprecedented fashion, the State of Missouri has redrawn the district lines used for electing members of Congress for a second time this decade. These new district lines are gerrymandered and will harm political representation for all Missourians, particularly Black residents in Kansas City, who have been divided along racial lines.
U.S. Supreme Court
Sep 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.
Mississippi
Aug 2025
Voting Rights
White v. Mississippi State Board of Elections
District lines used to elect Mississippi鈥檚 Supreme Court have gone unchanged for more than 35 years. We鈥檙e suing because this dilutes the voting strength of Black residents in state Supreme Court elections, in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution.
Louisiana
Aug 2025
Voting Rights
Nairne v. Landry
Nairne v. Landry poses a challenge under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to Louisiana鈥檚 House and Senate legislative maps on behalf of plaintiff Black voters and Black voters across the state.
All Cases
167 Voting Rights Cases
Georgia
Sep 2024
Voting Rights
Abhiraman v. State Election Board (Amicus)
The Georgia鈥檚 State Election Board recently passed two new rules about local election certification that threaten to disenfranchise thousands of Georgia voters. The rule changes are part of a nationwide effort by 2020 election-deniers to obtain positions on county election boards and weaponize certification for partisan ends at the expense of voters.
Explore case
Georgia
Sep 2024
Voting Rights
Abhiraman v. State Election Board (Amicus)
The Georgia鈥檚 State Election Board recently passed two new rules about local election certification that threaten to disenfranchise thousands of Georgia voters. The rule changes are part of a nationwide effort by 2020 election-deniers to obtain positions on county election boards and weaponize certification for partisan ends at the expense of voters.
Delaware
Aug 2024
Voting Rights
Prisoner鈥檚 Legal Advocacy Network v. Carney
Right now, an entire class of eligible voters in Delaware 鈥� those incarcerated in Delaware facilities while awaiting trial (鈥減retrial detainees鈥�) or who have been convicted of misdemeanors, which are not disqualifying under state law (together with pretrial detainees, 鈥渆ligible incarcerated voters鈥�)鈥攈ave no constitutional means of voting. Delaware does not permit in-person voting in its correctional facilities. And a recent Delaware Supreme Court decision has now foreclosed these voters from voting absentee. This leaves these voters completely disenfranchised ahead of the 2024 elections, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Explore case
Delaware
Aug 2024
Voting Rights
Prisoner鈥檚 Legal Advocacy Network v. Carney
Right now, an entire class of eligible voters in Delaware 鈥� those incarcerated in Delaware facilities while awaiting trial (鈥減retrial detainees鈥�) or who have been convicted of misdemeanors, which are not disqualifying under state law (together with pretrial detainees, 鈥渆ligible incarcerated voters鈥�)鈥攈ave no constitutional means of voting. Delaware does not permit in-person voting in its correctional facilities. And a recent Delaware Supreme Court decision has now foreclosed these voters from voting absentee. This leaves these voters completely disenfranchised ahead of the 2024 elections, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Arizona
Aug 2024
Voting Rights
Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes (Amicus)
Does Congress have authority (as it has long done) to regulate all federal elections, including presidential elections鈥攕uch as through key federal voting rights laws like the NVRA, UOCAVA, and the MOVE Act?
Explore case
Arizona
Aug 2024
Voting Rights
Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes (Amicus)
Does Congress have authority (as it has long done) to regulate all federal elections, including presidential elections鈥攕uch as through key federal voting rights laws like the NVRA, UOCAVA, and the MOVE Act?
Mississippi
Aug 2024
Voting Rights
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鈥檙e suing to block this law.
Explore case
Mississippi
Aug 2024
Voting Rights
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鈥檙e suing to block this law.
Minnesota Supreme Court
Aug 2024
Voting Rights
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Hunt
The 红杏视频 and 红杏视频 of 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
Voting Rights
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Hunt
The 红杏视频 and 红杏视频 of 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."