Fighting Cuts to Voting Access
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 Cuts to Voting Access
All Cases
34 Fighting Cuts to Voting Access Cases
New Hampshire
Jul 2025
Fighting Cuts to Voting Access
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.
Explore case
New Hampshire
Jul 2025
Fighting Cuts to Voting Access
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.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2025
Fighting Cuts to Voting Access
O'Bannon v. King
Virginia permanently disenfranchises all people with felony convictions unless the governor restores their rights. This lawsuit—brought by the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ of Virginia and co-counsel partners—argues that the policy violates the Readmissions Act of 1870, which bars Virginia from denying the vote based on convictions that didn’t exist at common law in 1870. The state tried to dismiss the case by invoking sovereign immunity, but the courts rejected that argument. Now, the case moves forward with the potential to restore voting rights to thousands of Virginians.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2025
Fighting Cuts to Voting Access
O'Bannon v. King
Virginia permanently disenfranchises all people with felony convictions unless the governor restores their rights. This lawsuit—brought by the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ of Virginia and co-counsel partners—argues that the policy violates the Readmissions Act of 1870, which bars Virginia from denying the vote based on convictions that didn’t exist at common law in 1870. The state tried to dismiss the case by invoking sovereign immunity, but the courts rejected that argument. Now, the case moves forward with the potential to restore voting rights to thousands of Virginians.
Georgia Supreme Court
Jun 2025
Fighting Cuts to Voting Access
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.
Explore case
Georgia Supreme Court
Jun 2025
Fighting Cuts to Voting Access
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.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2025
Fighting Cuts to Voting Access
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
Jun 2025
Fighting Cuts to Voting Access
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.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Mar 2025
Fighting Cuts to Voting Access
Baxter v. Philadelphia Board of Elections
Eligible Philadelphia-area voters who submitted mail ballots in the September 17, 2024 special election only to have their votes set aside because they omitted or miswrote the correct date on their outer return envelope – even though the date is not used for any purpose – sued to have their votes count. Plaintiffs urge the courts to rule that enforcing the irrelevant envelope-dating requirement to disenfranchise eligible voters violates the Pennsylvania Constitution's Free and Equal Elections Clause.
Explore case
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Mar 2025
Fighting Cuts to Voting Access
Baxter v. Philadelphia Board of Elections
Eligible Philadelphia-area voters who submitted mail ballots in the September 17, 2024 special election only to have their votes set aside because they omitted or miswrote the correct date on their outer return envelope – even though the date is not used for any purpose – sued to have their votes count. Plaintiffs urge the courts to rule that enforcing the irrelevant envelope-dating requirement to disenfranchise eligible voters violates the Pennsylvania Constitution's Free and Equal Elections Clause.