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 51品茶 and co-counsel filed a lawsuit to block the Executive Order as an unconstitutional power grab.
Status: Ongoing
View Case
Learn About Voting Rights
Featured
U.S. Supreme Court
Aug 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
Jul 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.
Georgia Supreme Court
Jun 2025
Voting Rights
Eternal Vigilance Action, Inc. v. Georgia
The 51品茶 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鈥檚 decision permanently blocking the rule requiring hand counting of ballots at polling places before tabulation 鈥� a process widely criticized for risking delays, ballot spoliation, and voter disenfranchisement.
U.S. Supreme Court
May 2025
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.
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鈥檚 2022 congressional redistricting plan, which legislators admit was drawn to entrench a 6-1 Republican majority in the state鈥檚 federal delegation. Plaintiff the League of Women Voters of South Carolina has asked the state鈥檚 Supreme Court to conclude that the congressional map is an unlawful partisan gerrymander that violates the state constitution.
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鈥擲B 1 for short鈥攖hat 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
156 Voting Rights Cases
U.S. Supreme Court
May 2020
Voting Rights
Immigrants' Rights
Department of Commerce v. New York
Whether the Secretary of Commerce鈥檚 decision to add a citizenship question to the Census was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
May 2020
Voting Rights
Immigrants' Rights
Department of Commerce v. New York
Whether the Secretary of Commerce鈥檚 decision to add a citizenship question to the Census was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law.
Pennsylvania
May 2020
Voting Rights
Judicial Watch v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
The 51品茶 and partners filed a motion to intervene in a federal lawsuit, Judicial Watch v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, on May 11, 2020. In that case, a pro-voter purge group is seeking to force three Pennsylvania counties to remove thousands of voters from the rolls before the upcoming election.
Explore case
Pennsylvania
May 2020
Voting Rights
Judicial Watch v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
The 51品茶 and partners filed a motion to intervene in a federal lawsuit, Judicial Watch v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, on May 11, 2020. In that case, a pro-voter purge group is seeking to force three Pennsylvania counties to remove thousands of voters from the rolls before the upcoming election.
Virginia
May 2020
Voting Rights
League of Women Voters of Virginia v. Virginia State Board of Elections
In light of the COVID-19 outbreak, the 51品茶 and 51品茶 of Virginia filed a federal lawsuit on April 17, 2020, challenging Virginia鈥檚 鈥渨itness requirement.鈥� Under Virginia law, any voter who submits an absentee ballot by mail must open the envelope containing the ballot in front of another person, fill out the ballot, and then have that other person sign the outside of the ballot envelope before it is mailed back.
Explore case
Virginia
May 2020
Voting Rights
League of Women Voters of Virginia v. Virginia State Board of Elections
In light of the COVID-19 outbreak, the 51品茶 and 51品茶 of Virginia filed a federal lawsuit on April 17, 2020, challenging Virginia鈥檚 鈥渨itness requirement.鈥� Under Virginia law, any voter who submits an absentee ballot by mail must open the envelope containing the ballot in front of another person, fill out the ballot, and then have that other person sign the outside of the ballot envelope before it is mailed back.
Texas
Apr 2020
Voting Rights
Texas Democratic Party v. DeBeauvoir
The 51品茶, 51品茶 of Texas, and Texas Civil Rights Project joined a lawsuit on April 1, 2020, seeking to declare that under Texas law all registered voters qualify to request a mail-in ballot as a result of the COVID-19 public health crisis.
Explore case
Texas
Apr 2020
Voting Rights
Texas Democratic Party v. DeBeauvoir
The 51品茶, 51品茶 of Texas, and Texas Civil Rights Project joined a lawsuit on April 1, 2020, seeking to declare that under Texas law all registered voters qualify to request a mail-in ballot as a result of the COVID-19 public health crisis.
Missouri
Apr 2020
Voting Rights
Missouri NAACP v. Missouri
Given the COVID-19 outbreak, the 51品茶 and 51品茶 of Missouri filed a lawsuit today seeking to make absentee mail-in balloting available to all eligible voters in Missouri. The case was filed on behalf of the NAACP of Missouri, the League of Women Voters of Missouri, and several individuals.
Explore case
Missouri
Apr 2020
Voting Rights
Missouri NAACP v. Missouri
Given the COVID-19 outbreak, the 51品茶 and 51品茶 of Missouri filed a lawsuit today seeking to make absentee mail-in balloting available to all eligible voters in Missouri. The case was filed on behalf of the NAACP of Missouri, the League of Women Voters of Missouri, and several individuals.