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 ºìÐÓÊÓƵ and co-counsel filed a lawsuit to block the Executive Order as an unconstitutional power grab.
Status: Ongoing
View Case
Learn ºìÐÓÊÓƵ 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 ºìÐÓÊÓƵ 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
U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2025
Voting Rights
Western Native Voice v. Jacobsen
The ºìÐÓÊÓƵ, ºìÐÓÊÓƵ of Montana, Native American Rights Fund (NARF), and the Harvard Election Law Clinic challenged two Montana laws that hinder Native American participation in the state’s electoral process — HB 530, which prohibited paid third-party ballot collection; and HB 176, which repealed Election Day voter registration (EDR) in Montana. Together, these laws violate a number of provisions in the Montana Constitution: the right to vote, equal protection, free speech, and due process.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2025
Voting Rights
Western Native Voice v. Jacobsen
The ºìÐÓÊÓƵ, ºìÐÓÊÓƵ of Montana, Native American Rights Fund (NARF), and the Harvard Election Law Clinic challenged two Montana laws that hinder Native American participation in the state’s electoral process — HB 530, which prohibited paid third-party ballot collection; and HB 176, which repealed Election Day voter registration (EDR) in Montana. Together, these laws violate a number of provisions in the Montana Constitution: the right to vote, equal protection, free speech, and due process.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2025
Voting Rights
Republican National Committee v. Genser
Voters in Butler County, Pennsylvania made a mistake in voting their mail ballots in the April 2024 primary election, forgetting to use the required secrecy envelope. Because their mail ballots could not be counted, they went to the polls in Election Day and voted provisional ballots. The County later determined that it would not count their provisional ballots, and the voter’s appealed, arguing that Pennsylvania law requires that when an eligible voter attempts to vote by mail but the mail ballot is rendered void due to some defect like lacking a secrecy envelope, the eligible voter may cast a provisional ballot and have that ballot counted notwithstanding the failed attempt to vote by mail.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2025
Voting Rights
Republican National Committee v. Genser
Voters in Butler County, Pennsylvania made a mistake in voting their mail ballots in the April 2024 primary election, forgetting to use the required secrecy envelope. Because their mail ballots could not be counted, they went to the polls in Election Day and voted provisional ballots. The County later determined that it would not count their provisional ballots, and the voter’s appealed, arguing that Pennsylvania law requires that when an eligible voter attempts to vote by mail but the mail ballot is rendered void due to some defect like lacking a secrecy envelope, the eligible voter may cast a provisional ballot and have that ballot counted notwithstanding the failed attempt to vote by mail.
Texas
Jan 2025
Voting Rights
United Sovereign Americans, Inc. v. Nelson
The ºìÐÓÊÓƵ and partner organizations have sought to intervene to represent the rights of voters and voting-rights organizations in a case seeking to unlawfully purge the Texas voter rolls and block certification of the results of the 2024 election.
Explore case
Texas
Jan 2025
Voting Rights
United Sovereign Americans, Inc. v. Nelson
The ºìÐÓÊÓƵ and partner organizations have sought to intervene to represent the rights of voters and voting-rights organizations in a case seeking to unlawfully purge the Texas voter rolls and block certification of the results of the 2024 election.
Alabama
Jan 2025
Voting Rights
Alabama State Conference of the NAACP v. Allen
Alabama State Conference of the NAACP v. Allen challenges Alabama’s most recently drawn state legislative maps as dilutive of Black voting power in the state in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The case is scheduled for trial in fall 2024.
Explore case
Alabama
Jan 2025
Voting Rights
Alabama State Conference of the NAACP v. Allen
Alabama State Conference of the NAACP v. Allen challenges Alabama’s most recently drawn state legislative maps as dilutive of Black voting power in the state in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The case is scheduled for trial in fall 2024.
U.S. Supreme Court
Dec 2024
Voting Rights
Pennsylvania State Conference of the NAACP v. Schmidt
In November 2022, thousands of Pennsylvania voters were denied the right to vote based on a meaningless paperwork error. They filled out their mail ballots, signed the form on the outer return envelope, and returned their ballots on time. Yet their ballots were not counted, because they either forgot to write the date on their return envelope, or they accidentally wrote the wrong date. The Civil Rights Act prohibits states from disenfranchising voters based on immaterial paperwork error, and we're fighting to make sure that every vote counts
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Dec 2024
Voting Rights
Pennsylvania State Conference of the NAACP v. Schmidt
In November 2022, thousands of Pennsylvania voters were denied the right to vote based on a meaningless paperwork error. They filled out their mail ballots, signed the form on the outer return envelope, and returned their ballots on time. Yet their ballots were not counted, because they either forgot to write the date on their return envelope, or they accidentally wrote the wrong date. The Civil Rights Act prohibits states from disenfranchising voters based on immaterial paperwork error, and we're fighting to make sure that every vote counts