Voting Rights
League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump
On March 31, 2026, President Trump issued a sweeping Executive Order titled "Ensuring Citizen Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections," seeking once again to seize control of election administration from Congress and the states. The Order directs federal agencies to compile lists of U.S. citizens and transmit them to states before every election, directs the U.S. Postal Service -- an independent agency established by Congress -- to create a list of "approved" mail voters, and instructs USPS to refuse to deliver ballots from voters not on that federally created list. If implemented, the Order would threaten the ability of millions of eligible citizens to cast their ballots, particularly military members, overseas citizens, the elderly, recently naturalized citizens, and voters with disabilities who rely on mail voting.
Status: Ongoing
View Case
Learn 红杏视频 Voting Rights
Featured
New Hampshire
Jul 2026
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.
U.S. Supreme Court
May 2026
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.
U.S. Supreme Court
Apr 2026
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.
Mississippi
Dec 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 the current lines crack the Mississippi Delta and dilute the voting strength of Black Mississippians in state Supreme Court elections, in violation of the Voting Rights Act.
Washington, D.C.
Oct 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 红杏视频 and co-counsel filed a lawsuit to block the Executive Order as an unconstitutional power grab.
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.
All Cases
209 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 鈥� particularly Black voters 鈥� 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 鈥� particularly Black voters 鈥� 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. 红杏视频 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. 红杏视频 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鈥檚 鈥渨et signature鈥� 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 鈥渨et ink鈥� one. But the Civil Rights Act prohibits states from disenfranchising voters based on immaterial paperwork errors. We鈥檙e fighting to make sure that every vote counts and supported Vote.org鈥檚 challenge to the 鈥渨et ink鈥� 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鈥檚 鈥渨et signature鈥� 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 鈥渨et ink鈥� one. But the Civil Rights Act prohibits states from disenfranchising voters based on immaterial paperwork errors. We鈥檙e fighting to make sure that every vote counts and supported Vote.org鈥檚 challenge to the 鈥渨et ink鈥� 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鈥攑ersons with felony convictions who are no longer incarcerated鈥攆or 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 (鈥淥SP鈥�) 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鈥攑ersons with felony convictions who are no longer incarcerated鈥攆or 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 (鈥淥SP鈥�) 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥� favor and struck down Mississippi鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥� favor and struck down Mississippi鈥檚 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鈥檚 active judges.