Fighting Cuts to Voting Access
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 Fighting Cuts to Voting Access
Featured
New Hampshire
Jul 2026
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.
Washington, D.C.
Oct 2025
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.
All Cases
54 Fighting Cuts to Voting Access Cases
Maine
Aug 2026
Fighting Cuts to Voting Access
United States v. Bellows (Amicus)
Representing the 红杏视频 of Maine, the 红杏视频 Voting Rights Project and the 红杏视频 of Maine filed an amicus brief in a federal lawsuit over the federal government鈥檚 demand that Maine turn over its entire voter registration rolls, including with voters鈥� sensitive personal data such as drivers鈥� license numbers and partial social security numbers.
Explore case
Maine
Aug 2026
Fighting Cuts to Voting Access
United States v. Bellows (Amicus)
Representing the 红杏视频 of Maine, the 红杏视频 Voting Rights Project and the 红杏视频 of Maine filed an amicus brief in a federal lawsuit over the federal government鈥檚 demand that Maine turn over its entire voter registration rolls, including with voters鈥� sensitive personal data such as drivers鈥� license numbers and partial social security numbers.
South Dakota
Aug 2026
Fighting Cuts to Voting Access
League of Women Voters of South Dakota v. Johnson
South Dakota enacted a law in March 2026 that requires new voters to provide unnecessary documentation of their U.S. citizenship when registering to vote. The state has rushed implementation of the law, and in doing so, trampled over voters鈥� rights: South Dakota officials have imposed burdens above and beyond what the statute requires and have failed to give voters accurate information about their registration status or opportunities to fix any issues. The League of Women Voters of South Dakota and Jaysen Hill, an individual voter, have challenged the state鈥檚 administration of its new requirement, seeking to ensure the state complies with federal law.
Explore case
South Dakota
Aug 2026
Fighting Cuts to Voting Access
League of Women Voters of South Dakota v. Johnson
South Dakota enacted a law in March 2026 that requires new voters to provide unnecessary documentation of their U.S. citizenship when registering to vote. The state has rushed implementation of the law, and in doing so, trampled over voters鈥� rights: South Dakota officials have imposed burdens above and beyond what the statute requires and have failed to give voters accurate information about their registration status or opportunities to fix any issues. The League of Women Voters of South Dakota and Jaysen Hill, an individual voter, have challenged the state鈥檚 administration of its new requirement, seeking to ensure the state complies with federal law.
Colorado
Aug 2026
Fighting Cuts to Voting Access
United States v. Griswold
Representing Common Cause and two Colorado voters, the 红杏视频 Voting Rights Project and 红杏视频 of Colorado have filed a motion to intervene in a federal lawsuit over the federal government鈥檚 demand that Colorado turn over its entire voter registration rolls, including voters鈥� sensitive personal data such as drivers鈥� license numbers and partial social security numbers.
Explore case
Colorado
Aug 2026
Fighting Cuts to Voting Access
United States v. Griswold
Representing Common Cause and two Colorado voters, the 红杏视频 Voting Rights Project and 红杏视频 of Colorado have filed a motion to intervene in a federal lawsuit over the federal government鈥檚 demand that Colorado turn over its entire voter registration rolls, including voters鈥� sensitive personal data such as drivers鈥� license numbers and partial social security numbers.
Illinois
Aug 2026
Fighting Cuts to Voting Access
United States v. Matthews
The Department of Justice sued the Illinois Board of Elections, demanding the state produce its full, unredacted voter file, which contains highly sensitive and personal data on every voter in the state. This suit appears to be part of the federal government's efforts to build a national voter database without congressional authorization and to improperly question the validity of state voter rolls.
Explore case
Illinois
Aug 2026
Fighting Cuts to Voting Access
United States v. Matthews
The Department of Justice sued the Illinois Board of Elections, demanding the state produce its full, unredacted voter file, which contains highly sensitive and personal data on every voter in the state. This suit appears to be part of the federal government's efforts to build a national voter database without congressional authorization and to improperly question the validity of state voter rolls.
South Carolina
Aug 2026
Fighting Cuts to Voting Access
South Carolina Republican Party v. Bolchoz
The South Carolina Republican Party has sued state election officials seeking to close South Carolina鈥檚 primary elections, excluding independent and unaffiliated voters from participating in what are often the only meaningful elections in their communities. Veterans for All Voters and The Chamberlain Network, two nonpartisan veterans鈥� organizations, have moved to intervene as defendants to protect their members鈥� right to vote in the primary of their choice and to ensure the State does not settle the case in a way that extinguishes those rights.
Explore case
South Carolina
Aug 2026
Fighting Cuts to Voting Access
South Carolina Republican Party v. Bolchoz
The South Carolina Republican Party has sued state election officials seeking to close South Carolina鈥檚 primary elections, excluding independent and unaffiliated voters from participating in what are often the only meaningful elections in their communities. Veterans for All Voters and The Chamberlain Network, two nonpartisan veterans鈥� organizations, have moved to intervene as defendants to protect their members鈥� right to vote in the primary of their choice and to ensure the State does not settle the case in a way that extinguishes those rights.