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
All Cases
77 Fighting Voter Suppression Cases
Washington, D.C.
Aug 2025
Fighting Voter Suppression
Bower v. Social Security Administration
Representing itself and two journalists from Lawfare, the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ brought a lawsuit to enforce Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests made to the Social Security Administration and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services regarding changes made to the SAVE program, which has been touted as being used by states in order to remove voters from the registration rolls. While the government made public statements about the SAVE program being updated, the details of those changes, such as the particular programs and databases that have been altered, the ways they have been altered, and the nature and extent of any use and sharing of individuals’ personal information by the federal agencies entrusted with that information, have all been kept secret.
Explore case
Washington, D.C.
Aug 2025
Fighting Voter Suppression
Bower v. Social Security Administration
Representing itself and two journalists from Lawfare, the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ brought a lawsuit to enforce Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests made to the Social Security Administration and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services regarding changes made to the SAVE program, which has been touted as being used by states in order to remove voters from the registration rolls. While the government made public statements about the SAVE program being updated, the details of those changes, such as the particular programs and databases that have been altered, the ways they have been altered, and the nature and extent of any use and sharing of individuals’ personal information by the federal agencies entrusted with that information, have all been kept secret.
California
Jul 2025
Fighting Voter Suppression
Issa v. Weber
Congressman Darrell Issa sued to prevent California from counting mail ballots postmarked by election day and received within the following seven days, consistent with California law. If successful, literally hundreds of thousands of Californians will be disenfranchised at each election. The ºìÐÓÊÓƵ and its three California affiliates have sought to intervene in the case on behalf of the League of Women Voters of California to ensure that California voters are able to have their ballots counted consistent with state procedures.
Explore case
California
Jul 2025
Fighting Voter Suppression
Issa v. Weber
Congressman Darrell Issa sued to prevent California from counting mail ballots postmarked by election day and received within the following seven days, consistent with California law. If successful, literally hundreds of thousands of Californians will be disenfranchised at each election. The ºìÐÓÊÓƵ and its three California affiliates have sought to intervene in the case on behalf of the League of Women Voters of California to ensure that California voters are able to have their ballots counted consistent with state procedures.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jul 2025
Fighting Voter Suppression
Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections (Amicus)
Congressman Michael Bost brought suit trying to prevent Illinois from counting mail ballots that are voted by election day and received within the following fourteen days, consistent with Illinois law. The Seventh Circuit ruled that Congressman Bost lacks standing to sue. Bost sought certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court on the question whether he has standing as a federal candidate to bring his lawsuit and have it decided on the merits.
While the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ strongly opposes Congressman Bost’s position on the merits and has repeatedly defended similar state laws from challenge, the rules that determine whether Bost has standing to even bring his anti-voter lawsuit also apply to civil rights groups when they bring suit to expand or protect the rights of voters.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jul 2025
Fighting Voter Suppression
Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections (Amicus)
Congressman Michael Bost brought suit trying to prevent Illinois from counting mail ballots that are voted by election day and received within the following fourteen days, consistent with Illinois law. The Seventh Circuit ruled that Congressman Bost lacks standing to sue. Bost sought certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court on the question whether he has standing as a federal candidate to bring his lawsuit and have it decided on the merits.
While the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ strongly opposes Congressman Bost’s position on the merits and has repeatedly defended similar state laws from challenge, the rules that determine whether Bost has standing to even bring his anti-voter lawsuit also apply to civil rights groups when they bring suit to expand or protect the rights of voters.
New Hampshire
Jul 2025
Fighting Voter Suppression
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 Voter Suppression
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.
North Dakota
Jul 2025
Fighting Voter Suppression
Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe (Amicus)
In Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment, the 8th Circuit became the first federal appeals court to rule that private plaintiffs cannot enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In doing so, the court left open the question whether private plaintiffs could enforce Section 2 through an alternative civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In this case, a divided panel on the 8th Circuit has held that plaintiffs may not use Section 1983, either. If the holding stands, Section 2 of the VRA will be functionally out of reach for voters across the 8th Circuit in Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. On behalf of the NAACP Arkansas State Conference and the Arkansas Public Policy Panel, the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ and ºìÐÓÊÓƵ of Arkansas has filed a brief supporting the plaintiffs' request that the full Eighth Circuit rehear and correct this decision.
Explore case
North Dakota
Jul 2025
Fighting Voter Suppression
Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe (Amicus)
In Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment, the 8th Circuit became the first federal appeals court to rule that private plaintiffs cannot enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In doing so, the court left open the question whether private plaintiffs could enforce Section 2 through an alternative civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In this case, a divided panel on the 8th Circuit has held that plaintiffs may not use Section 1983, either. If the holding stands, Section 2 of the VRA will be functionally out of reach for voters across the 8th Circuit in Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. On behalf of the NAACP Arkansas State Conference and the Arkansas Public Policy Panel, the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ and ºìÐÓÊÓƵ of Arkansas has filed a brief supporting the plaintiffs' request that the full Eighth Circuit rehear and correct this decision.