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 ºìÐÓÊÓƵ and co-counsel filed a lawsuit to block the Executive Order as an unconstitutional power grab.
Status: Ongoing
View Case
Learn ºìÐÓÊÓƵ Fighting Voter Suppression
Featured
Georgia Supreme Court
Jun 2025
Fighting Voter Suppression
Eternal Vigilance Action, Inc. v. Georgia
The ºìÐÓÊÓƵ and 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.
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
68 Fighting Voter Suppression Cases
Court Case
Dec 2016
Fighting Voter Suppression
League of Women Voters v. Brian D. Newby and the United States Election Assistance Commission
U.S. Election Assistance Commission Executive Director Brian D. Newby’s action to allow three states to require documentary proof of citizenship on the federal voter registration form is illegal, argued the League of Women Voters of the United States, along with its Alabama, Georgia, and Kansas state Leagues, and others in a suit filed today in federal court.
Explore case
Court Case
Dec 2016
Fighting Voter Suppression
League of Women Voters v. Brian D. Newby and the United States Election Assistance Commission
U.S. Election Assistance Commission Executive Director Brian D. Newby’s action to allow three states to require documentary proof of citizenship on the federal voter registration form is illegal, argued the League of Women Voters of the United States, along with its Alabama, Georgia, and Kansas state Leagues, and others in a suit filed today in federal court.
Wisconsin
Dec 2016
Fighting Voter Suppression
Frank v. Walker: Fighting Voter Suppression in Wisconsin
Wisconsin’s voter ID law is one of the harshest in the country and requires voters to produce one of a few specified forms of photo identification in order to vote. This restriction imposes a substantial burden on the right to vote by requiring photo identification that many voters do not have, and that many voters cannot easily obtain, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. In addition, the Wisconsin voter ID law violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits the use of voting practices that have a negative impact on racial and language minorities. The law has a disproportionate impact on black and Latino voters, who are twice as likely to lack photo ID accepted for voting in Wisconsin compared to white voters.
Explore case
Wisconsin
Dec 2016
Fighting Voter Suppression
Frank v. Walker: Fighting Voter Suppression in Wisconsin
Wisconsin’s voter ID law is one of the harshest in the country and requires voters to produce one of a few specified forms of photo identification in order to vote. This restriction imposes a substantial burden on the right to vote by requiring photo identification that many voters do not have, and that many voters cannot easily obtain, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. In addition, the Wisconsin voter ID law violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits the use of voting practices that have a negative impact on racial and language minorities. The law has a disproportionate impact on black and Latino voters, who are twice as likely to lack photo ID accepted for voting in Wisconsin compared to white voters.
Court Case
Jul 2016
Fighting Voter Suppression
Veasey v. Abbott
The ºìÐÓÊÓƵ filed an amicus brief in Veasey v. Abbott, a case that challenges Texas’s voter ID law. The district court struck down the law, finding that the law was passed with a discriminatory purpose, creates an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, and disproportionately burdens Latino and African-American voters.
Explore case
Court Case
Jul 2016
Fighting Voter Suppression
Veasey v. Abbott
The ºìÐÓÊÓƵ filed an amicus brief in Veasey v. Abbott, a case that challenges Texas’s voter ID law. The district court struck down the law, finding that the law was passed with a discriminatory purpose, creates an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, and disproportionately burdens Latino and African-American voters.