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 51Ć·˛č 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’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.
Georgia Supreme Court
Jun 2025
Voting Rights
Eternal Vigilance Action, Inc. v. Georgia
The 51Ć·˛č 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
May 2025
Voting Rights
Racial Justice
Allen v. Milligan
Whether Alabama’s 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’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.
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
156 Voting Rights Cases
Mississippi
Sep 2024
Voting Rights
Republican National Committee v. Wetzel (Amicus)
In 2020, in a nearly unanimous bipartisan vote, Mississippi joined eighteen other states in accepting mail ballots postmarked by Election Day that arrived after Election Day (in Mississippi’s case, up to five business days). This lawsuit by partisan actors seeks to disenfranchise these voters whose ballot is mailed by Election Day but—through no fault of their own—does not arrive until afterwards. In Mississippi, this harm will fall disproportionately on voters with disabilities, older voters, and other communities that rely upon absentee voting. Twisting the words and meaning of Congress, the RNC argues that three longstanding federal laws that set a uniform election day for federal races require that ballot may only be counted if they are received by election officials by Election Day. If accepted, this radical argument would not only disenfranchise thousands upon thousands of voters in Mississippi and eighteen other states, but also upend election administration in every state.
Explore case
Mississippi
Sep 2024
Voting Rights
Republican National Committee v. Wetzel (Amicus)
In 2020, in a nearly unanimous bipartisan vote, Mississippi joined eighteen other states in accepting mail ballots postmarked by Election Day that arrived after Election Day (in Mississippi’s case, up to five business days). This lawsuit by partisan actors seeks to disenfranchise these voters whose ballot is mailed by Election Day but—through no fault of their own—does not arrive until afterwards. In Mississippi, this harm will fall disproportionately on voters with disabilities, older voters, and other communities that rely upon absentee voting. Twisting the words and meaning of Congress, the RNC argues that three longstanding federal laws that set a uniform election day for federal races require that ballot may only be counted if they are received by election officials by Election Day. If accepted, this radical argument would not only disenfranchise thousands upon thousands of voters in Mississippi and eighteen other states, but also upend election administration in every state.
Georgia
Sep 2024
Voting Rights
Abhiraman v. State Election Board (Amicus)
The Georgia’s State Election Board recently passed two new rules about local election certification that threaten to disenfranchise thousands of Georgia voters. The rule changes are part of a nationwide effort by 2020 election-deniers to obtain positions on county election boards and weaponize certification for partisan ends at the expense of voters.
Explore case
Georgia
Sep 2024
Voting Rights
Abhiraman v. State Election Board (Amicus)
The Georgia’s State Election Board recently passed two new rules about local election certification that threaten to disenfranchise thousands of Georgia voters. The rule changes are part of a nationwide effort by 2020 election-deniers to obtain positions on county election boards and weaponize certification for partisan ends at the expense of voters.
Delaware
Aug 2024
Voting Rights
Prisoner’s Legal Advocacy Network v. Carney
Right now, an entire class of eligible voters in Delaware — those incarcerated in Delaware facilities while awaiting trial (“pretrial detainees”) or who have been convicted of misdemeanors, which are not disqualifying under state law (together with pretrial detainees, “eligible incarcerated voters”)—have no constitutional means of voting. Delaware does not permit in-person voting in its correctional facilities. And a recent Delaware Supreme Court decision has now foreclosed these voters from voting absentee. This leaves these voters completely disenfranchised ahead of the 2024 elections, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Explore case
Delaware
Aug 2024
Voting Rights
Prisoner’s Legal Advocacy Network v. Carney
Right now, an entire class of eligible voters in Delaware — those incarcerated in Delaware facilities while awaiting trial (“pretrial detainees”) or who have been convicted of misdemeanors, which are not disqualifying under state law (together with pretrial detainees, “eligible incarcerated voters”)—have no constitutional means of voting. Delaware does not permit in-person voting in its correctional facilities. And a recent Delaware Supreme Court decision has now foreclosed these voters from voting absentee. This leaves these voters completely disenfranchised ahead of the 2024 elections, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Arizona
Aug 2024
Voting Rights
Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes (Amicus)
Does Congress have authority (as it has long done) to regulate all federal elections, including presidential elections—such as through key federal voting rights laws like the NVRA, UOCAVA, and the MOVE Act?
Explore case
Arizona
Aug 2024
Voting Rights
Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes (Amicus)
Does Congress have authority (as it has long done) to regulate all federal elections, including presidential elections—such as through key federal voting rights laws like the NVRA, UOCAVA, and the MOVE Act?
Mississippi
Aug 2024
Voting Rights
Disability Rights Mississippi v. Fitch
A law passed in 2023 significantly diminishes access to the ballot for Mississippians with disabilities by restricting who may return an absentee ballot for a voter to only a narrow category of assistors. We’re suing to block this law.
Explore case
Mississippi
Aug 2024
Voting Rights
Disability Rights Mississippi v. Fitch
A law passed in 2023 significantly diminishes access to the ballot for Mississippians with disabilities by restricting who may return an absentee ballot for a voter to only a narrow category of assistors. We’re suing to block this law.