Voting Rights Litigation Tracker
As state legislatures enact policies to make it harder to vote, court battles loom.
A record number of voting-related lawsuits were filed in 2020, and new lawsuits have continued to be filed. This tracker seeks to aggregate active, pending litigation in state and federal courts pertaining to voters’ ability to cast their ballots and have them counted. This list does not include cases pertaining to candidacy issues, ballot initiatives, or redistricting.
To date, we are tracking 96 active lawsuits in 26 states plus D.C. In 2021, at least 47 voting cases were filed in 15 states. So far in 2022, at least 32 cases have been filed in fifteen states.
Recent Developments:
- A federal court in Indiana issued a preliminary injunction on September 6, allowing voters with print disabilities to complete their mail ballots with the assistance of an individual of their choosing.
- A trial over three restrictive voting laws passed in 2021 took place in Montana in August. The laws, HB 176, SB 169, and HB 530, variously eliminate Election Day registration, limit voters’ ability to use student IDs as eligible voter IDs, and restrict methods of ballot assistance. On September 30, the trial court permanently blocked all three laws.
- Federal courts in Arizona issued preliminary injunctions on September 8 and September 26 blocking enforcement of AZ HB 2243 and AZ SB 1260, respectively.
- A state court in Wisconsin issued a permanent injunction on October 3 blocking guidance issued by the WEC that instructed county clerks to fill in missing information on absentee ballot certificate envelopes.
- A state court in Delaware issued a permanent injunction finding that the state’s no-excuse vote-by-mail system violates the state On September 19, the court stayed the injunction while the case is appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court.
Voting Rights Litigation Tracker
Click the states below to view litigation. Click each case to expand and view details. Use the search tool to find keywords within all of the cases.
Key:
States with Voting Rights Litigation
States:
-
Alabama
Alabama
-
Alaska
Alaska
-
Filed: June 8, 2022
Plaintiffs: Executive Director of Alaska State Commission for Human Rights
Defendants: Lt. Gov. of Alaska, Director of Alaska Division of Elections, State of Alaska, Division of Elections
Challenging: Administration of 2022 Special Primary Election
Description: Plaintiffs filed suit challenging the state’s decision to hold an all-mail special primary election on June 11, while offering limited in-person absentee voting options. The complaint argues that visually impaired voters will be denied their right to vote because of the inadequate voting options available to them for the special primary election. The complaint alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, Help America Vote Act, and the Alaska Human Rights Act.
Key Documents:
-
Filed: August 23, 2022
Plaintiffs: Arctic Village Council, League of Women Voters of Alaska, Individual Voters
Defendants: Director of AL Division of Elections, AL Lt. Governor, AL Division of Elections
Challenging: Inadequate Notice and Cure Procedures
Description: Plaintiffs challenge the state’s lack of an adequate notice and cure procedure, arguing that the failure to give voters a meaningful opportunity to cure minor deficiencies in their ballots violates the state constitution’s right to vote and due process.
Key Documents:
- Complaint filed August 23, 2022
-
-
Arizona
Arizona
-
Filed: May 17, 2022
Plaintiffs: Arizona Republican Party, Individual Voter
Defendants: AZ Secretary of State, County Recorders, County Director of Election Services and Early Voting, County Elections Director, County Voter Services Coordinator, State of Arizona
Challenging: A.R.S. § 16–541 et seq
Description: Plaintiffs challenge Arizona’s vote-by-mail system, specifically no-excuse absentee voting, arguing that any form of early voting is prohibited by the state’s constitution, which “require[s] in-person voting at the polls on a specific day.” The trial court dismissed the case. The Arizona Republican Party has appealed the dismissal.
Key Documents:
-
Filed: August 17, 2021
Plaintiffs: Kari Lake, Mark Finchem
Defendants: AZ Secretary of State, Members of Maricopa and Pima County Boards of Supervisors
Challenging: Electronic Voting Machines
Description: Plaintiffs argue that the state’s use of electronic voting machines violates their right to vote and are vulnerable to hacking, tampering, and fraud.
Key Documents:
- Amended complaint filed May 4, 2022
- Order dismissing case entered August 26, 2022
- Notice of Appeal filed by plaintiffs September 14, 2022
-
Filed: August 17, 2021
Plaintiffs: Mi Familia Vota, Arizona Coalition for Change, Living United for Change in Arizona, League of Conservation Voters, Inc. d/b/a Chispa AZ
Defendants: AZ Secretary of State, AZ Attorney General, County Recorders
Challenging: AZ S.B. 1485, AZ S.B. 1003
Description: Plaintiffs argue that S.B. 1485 and S.B. 1003, which purge voters from the state’s permanent early voting rolls and change the cure process for absentee ballots, burden the right to vote in violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments and discriminate against voters of color in violation of the 14th and 15th Amendments and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Key Documents:
- Complaint filed August 17, 2021
- United States’ statement of interest filed November 30, 2021
- Order granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motion to dismiss entered June 24, 2022
-
Filed: March 30, 2022
Plaintiffs: Mi Familia Vota
Defendants: AZ Secretary of State, AZ Attorney General, County Recorders
Challenging: AZ HB 2492
Description: Plaintiffs challenge a newly passed state law requiring proof of citizenship for individuals to register to vote, arguing that the law unconstitutionally infringes on the right to vote and violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the National Voter Registration Act. The Arizona Supreme Court denied jurisdiction over the case on April 5, 2022. The case has been consolidated with Living United for Change in Arizona v. Hobbs, No. 2:22-cv-00519 and other related cases challenging AZ HB 2492.
Key Documents:
- Second amended complaint filed July 18, 2022
-
Filed: March 31, 2022
Plaintiffs: Living United for Change in Arizona, League of United Latin American Citizens, Arizona Students’ Association, ADRC Action
Defendants: AZ Secretary of State
Challenging: AZ HB 2492, AZ HB 2243
Description: Plaintiffs challenge two newly passed state laws requiring proof of citizenship for individuals to register to vote, arguing that the laws violate the Civil Rights Act, the National Voter Registration Act, and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, infringes on the right to vote, and discriminates on the basis of race in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The case has been consolidated with Mi Familia Vota v. Hobbs, No. 2:22-cv-00509 and other related cases challenging AZ HB 2492.
Key Documents:
- Amended complaint filed July 18, 2022
-
Filed: June 9, 2022
Plaintiffs: Poder Latinx
Defendants: AZ Secretary of State, AZ Attorney General, Maricopa County Recorder
Challenging: AZ HB 2492
Description: Plaintiffs challenge a newly passed state law requiring proof of citizenship for individuals to register to vote, arguing that the law violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment.
Key Documents:
- First amended complaint filed September 6, 2022
-
Filed: July 5, 2022
Plaintiffs: United States of America
Defendants: State of Arizona, AZ Secretary of State
Challenging: AZ HB 2492
Description: The Department of Justice filed suit against the State of Arizona challenging the state’s newly passed law that requires individuals to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote. The complaint alleges violations of the National Voter Registration Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case has been consolidated with Mi Familia Vota v. Hobbs, No. 2:22-cv-00509 and other related cases challenging AZ HB 2492.
Key Documents:
- Complaint filed July 5, 2022
-
Filed: August 22, 2022
Plaintiffs: Arizona Asian American Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander for Equity Coalition
Defendants: AZ Secretary of State, AZ Attorney General, County Recorders
Challenging: AZ HB 2492, AZ HB 2243
Description: Plaintiffs challenge two newly passed state laws that require proof of citizenship for individuals to register to vote, and require counties to remove voters from the rolls if they have reason to believe a voter is not a U.S. citizen. The complaint argues that the laws violate the Civil Rights Act and the NVRA, infringe on the right to vote, and are intentionally discriminatory.
Key Documents:
- Complaint filed August 22, 2022
- Preliminary injunction entered September 8, 2022
-
Filed: August 15, 2022
Plaintiffs: Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans, Voto Latino, Priorities USA
Defendants: AZ Secretary of State, AZ Attorney General, County Recorders
Challenging: AZ SB 1260
Description: Plaintiffs challenge a newly enacted law, AZ SB 1260, which creates criminal penalties for anyone who “provides a mechanism for voting” to a person registered to vote in another state, requires counties to cancel a voter’s registration and remove them from the early voting list if the voter is registered to vote in another county, and requires anyone who receives an early ballot belonging to a former resident to write “not at this address” and return the ballot by mail. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 5 and 8 of the NVRA, and the 1st and 14th Amendments in that the law is vague and overbroad, violates due process and equal protection, and infringes on the right to vote.
Key Documents:
-
Filed: August 15, 2022
Plaintiffs: Democratic National Committee, Arizona Democratic Party
Defendants: AZ Secretary of State, AZ Attorney General
Challenging: AZ HB 2492
Description: Plaintiffs challenge a newly passed state law requiring proof of citizenship for individuals to register to vote. The complaint alleges violations of the NVRA, Civil Rights Act, and 1st and 14th Amendments in that the law violates equal protection and due process and infringes on the right to vote.
Key Documents:
Complaint filed August 15, 2022
-
-
Arkansas
Arkansas
-
Filed: May 19, 2021
Plaintiffs: League of Women Voters of Arkansas, Arkansas United, Individual Voters
Defendants: AR Secretary of State, Members of the State Board of Election Commissioners
Challenging: AR H.B. 1715, AR S.B. 643, AR H.B. 1112, AR S.B. 486
Description: Plaintiffs argue that the challenged provisions, which include strict signature matching requirements for absentee ballot applications, shortened in-person ballot receipt deadlines, restrictions on the ability of voters who lack identification to vote by provisional ballot, and a line-warming ban, violate the state constitution’s free and equal elections clause, equal protection clause, voter qualifications clause, right to free speech, and unconstitutionally impose a poll tax. Trial began on March 15, 2022. On March 18, the judge ruled from the bench, striking the laws down and finding that the challenged provisions unduly burden voters in violation of the state’s constitution. On April 1, the Arkansas Supreme Court granted the state’s emergency motion for a stay of the injunction.
Key Documents:
- Amended complaint filed July 1, 2021
- Trial court final ruling striking down the challenged laws
- Arkansas Supreme Court order granting emergency stay entered April 1, 2022
-
Filed: November 2, 2020
Plaintiffs: Arkansas United and Individual Voter
Defendants: AR Secretary of State, Members of the State Board of Election Commissioners, Members of Washington County Election Commission, Members of Benton County Election Commission, Members of Sebastian County Election Commission
Challenging: Arkansas Election Code §§ 7–5–310(b)(4)(B), 7–5–310(b)(5), 7–1–103(a)(19) and 7–1–103(b)(1)
Description: Plaintiffs challenge state laws that prohibit those providing voter assistance from assisting more than six voters. The complaint alleges violations of Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act, in that the challenged laws prevent voters who qualify for assistance from choosing their assistor.
Key Documents:
-
-
California
California
-
Filed: January 4, 2021
Plaintiffs: Election Integrity Project California, Inc., Individual Voters/Candidates
Defendants: CA Secretary of State, CA Attorney General, CA Governor, County Registrars of Voters
Challenging: Various State Laws, Regulations, and Policies
Description: Plaintiffs challenge various state laws and policies that, among other things, expand voting access and make it easier for voters to cast their ballots, alleging constitutional violations of the Elections Clause, the Guarantee Clause, and the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment. Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order was denied and the case was dismissed with prejudice by the district court. Plaintiffs have appealed the case to the 9th Circuit.
Key Documents:
- Order denying motion for temporary restraining order January 11, 2021
- Amended complaint filed March 8, 2021
- Order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss issued June 14, 2021
-
-
Colorado
Colorado
-
Filed: March 9, 2022
Plaintiffs: Colorado Montana Wyoming State Area Conference of the NAACP, League of Women Voters of Colorado, Mi Familia Vota
Defendants: United States Election Integrity Plan, Members of USEIP
Challenging: Intimidation of Voters
Description: Plaintiffs allege that the USEIP is engaging in unlawful voter intimidation, including by showing up at voters’ homes, sometimes armed, taking pictures, asking how they voted in the 2020 election, and accusing them of casting fraudulent ballots. The complaint alleges that the group’s practices violate the Voting Rights Act and the Ku Klux Klan Act.
Key Documents:
-
Filed: October 5, 2020
Plaintiffs: Judicial Watch, Individual Voters
Defendants: CO Secretary of State, State of CO
Challenging: Voter List Maintenance
Description: Plaintiffs challenge the state’s voter list maintenance procedures and allege violations of the National Voter Registration Act, seeking to compel more aggressive purges of the state’s voter registration lists.
Key Documents:
- Complaint filed October 5, 2020
- Order granting in part motion to dismiss entered August 16, 2021
- Order denying Voto Latino and Vote.org’s motion to intervene filed September 20, 2021
- Order denying motion for reconsideration entered August 25, 2022
-
Filed: August 29, 2022
Plaintiffs: Candidate for State House of Representatives
Defendants: Boulder County Clerk
Challenging: Drop Boxes
Description: Plaintiff challenges Boulder County’s use of drop boxes, arguing that they are not adequately monitored according to state law.
Key Documents:
- Complaint filed August 29, 2022
-
-
Connecticut
Connecticut
-
Delaware
Delaware
-
Filed: February 24, 2022
Plaintiffs: Delaware Elections Inspector
Defendants: State Election Commissioner, State of Delaware Department of Elections
Challenging: 15 Del. C. § 5402, et seq., 15 Del. C. § 5503(k)
Description: Plaintiffs challenge the state’s statutes allowing early voting and permanent absentee voting status, arguing that the laws violate the state’s constitution in that early voting expands the general election beyond its designated day and allowing permanent absentee status grants eligibility to vote absentee indefinitely, without consideration for the voter’s eligibility at each election.
Key Documents:
- Complaint filed February 24, 2022
-
Filed: July 22, 2022
Plaintiffs: Individual Voters
Defendants: DE Department of Elections, State Election Commissioner
Challenging: DE SB 320
Description: Plaintiffs challenge a state law providing for no-excuse vote-by-mail, arguing that the law violates the state constitution.
Key Documents:
-
Filed: July 20, 2022
Plaintiffs: Candidate for State Representative, Individual Voter
Defendants: DE Department of Elections, State Election Commissioner
Challenging: DE SB 320, DE HB 25
Description: Plaintiffs challenge two newly enacted state laws that provide for no-excuse vote-by-mail and same-day registration, arguing that the laws violate the state constitution and dilute plaintiffs’ votes.
Key Documents:
- Complaint filed July 20, 2022
- Opinion granting in part/denying in part plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment filed September 14, 2022
- Defendants’ motion to stay the injunction of the Vote-by-Mail Statute pending the outcome of their appeal filed September 16, 2022
- Order granting motion for stay pending appeal filed September 19, 2022
-
-
District of Columbia
District of Columbia
-
Filed: November 20, 2020
Plaintiffs: Michigan Welfare Rights Organization, NAACP, Individual Voters
Defendants: Donald Trump, Donald J. Trump for President, RNC
Challenging: Intimidation of Election Officials
Description: Plaintiffs challenge defendants’ attempts to disenfranchise Black voters, including those in Detroit, Michigan, by intimidating state and local officials, in violation of Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act.
Key Documents:
- Amended complaint filed December 21, 2020
- Order entered April 1, 2022 granting in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss
-
-
Florida
Florida
-
Filed: June 14, 2021
Plaintiffs: Harriet Tubman Freedom Fighters Corp., Head Count, Inc., Paralyzed Veterans of American Florida Chapter, Paralyzed Veterans of America Central Florida Chapter, Individual Voters
Defendants: FL Secretary of State, FL Attorney General, County Supervisors of Elections
Challenging: FL S.B. 90
Description: Plaintiffs challenge provisions of Senate Bill 90 that require third-party voter registration organizations to warn voter registration applicants that their applications may not be timely submitted and to inform applicants how to register online. The complaint alleges that the law violates Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act, the 1st Amendment’s right to free speech and association, and is unconstitutionally vague in violation of the 14th Amendment. The case has been consolidated with League of Women Voters of Florida v. Lee, No. 4:21-cv-186 and other related cases challenging S.B. 90. Following a two-week trial in February, the court struck down three provisions of Senate Bill 90. The court found that the challenged provisions intentionally discriminate against Black voters in the state, in violation of the Voting Rights Act, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Fifteenth Amendment. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the trial court’s order on May 6 pending the outcome of the appeal.
Key Documents:
- Amended complaint filed July 15, 2021
- Trial court’s final order granting permanent injunction entered March 31, 2022
- 11th Circuit Court of Appeals order granting a stay of the trial court’s order entered May 6, 2022
-
Filed: May 17, 2021
Plaintiffs: Florida Rising Together, Faith in Florida, Unidosus, Equal Ground Education Fund, Hispanic Federation, Poder Latinx, Haitian Neighborhood Center Sant LA, Mi Familiar Vota Education Fund
Defendants: FL Secretary of State, County Supervisors of Elections
Challenging: FL S.B. 90
Description: Plaintiffs challenge various provisions of Senate Bill 90, an omnibus law containing several voting restrictions including restricting the use of drop boxes and absentee ballot assistance and imposing a line-warming ban. Plaintiffs allege that the law violates Sections 2 and 208 of the Voting Rights Act and the 1st Amendment’s right to free speech, unduly burdens the right to vote in violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments, is vague and overbroad in violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments, and intentionally discriminates on the basis of race in violation of the 14th and 15th Amendments. The case has been consolidated with League of Women Voters of Florida v. Lee, No. 4:21-cv-186 and other related cases challenging S.B. 90. Following a two-week trial in February, the court struck down three provisions of Senate Bill 90. The court found that the challenged provisions intentionally discriminate against Black voters in the state, in violation of the Voting Rights Act, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Fifteenth Amendment. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the trial court’s order on May 6 pending the outcome of the appeal.
Key Documents:
- Amended complaint filed July 9, 2021
- Trial court’s final order granting permanent injunction entered March 31, 2022
- 11th Circuit Court of Appeals order granting a stay of trial court’s order entered May 6, 2022
-
Filed: May 6, 2021
Plaintiffs: Florida State Conference of the NAACP, Disability Rights Florida, Common Cause
Defendants: FL Secretary of State, County Supervisors of Elections
Challenging: FL S.B. 90
Description: Plaintiffs challenge various provisions of Senate Bill 90, an omnibus law containing several voting restrictions including restricting the use of drop boxes and absentee ballot assistance and imposing a line-warming ban. Plaintiffs allege that the law violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the 1st Amendment’s right to free speech, is an undue burden on the right to vote, is overbroad and vague in violation of the 14th Amendment, and intentionally discriminates on the basis of race in violation of the 14th and 15th Amendments. The case has been consolidated with League of Women Voters of Florida v. Lee, No. 4:21-cv-186 and other related cases challenging S.B. 90. Following a two-week trial in February, the court struck down three provisions of Senate Bill 90. The court found that the challenged provisions intentionally discriminate against Black voters in the state, in violation of the Voting Rights Act, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Fifteenth Amendment. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the trial court’s order on May 6 pending the outcome of the appeal.
Key Documents:
- Amended complaint filed June 11, 2021
- Trial court’s final order granting permanent injunction entered March 31, 2022
- 11th Circuit Court of Appeals order granting a stay of the trial court’s order entered May 6, 2022
-
Filed: May 6, 2021
Plaintiffs: League of Women Voters of Florida, Inc., League of Women Voters of Florida Education Fund, Inc., League of United Latin American Citizens, Black Voters Matter Fund, Inc., Florida Alliance for Retired Americans, Inc., Individual Voters/Advocates
Defendants: FL Secretary of State, FL Attorney General, County Supervisors of Elections
Challenging: FL S.B. 90
Description: Plaintiffs challenge various provisions of Senate Bill 90, an omnibus law containing several voting restrictions including restricting the use of drop boxes and absentee ballot assistance and imposing a line-warming ban. Plaintiffs allege that the law violates the 1st Amendment’s right to free speech and association, unduly burdens the right to vote in violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments, and is vague and overbroad in violation of the 14th Amendment. The case has been consolidated with other related cases challenging S.B. 90. Following a two-week trial in February, the court struck down three provisions of Senate Bill 90. The court found that the challenged provisions intentionally discriminate against Black voters in the state, in violation of the Voting Rights Act, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Fifteenth Amendment. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the trial court’s order on May 6 pending the outcome of the appeal.
Key Documents:
- Amended complaint filed July 22, 2021
- Trial court’s final order granting permanent injunction entered March 31, 2022
- 11th Circuit Court of Appeals order granting a stay of the trial court’s order entered May 6, 2022
-
-
Georgia
Georgia
-
Filed: April 1, 2021
Plaintiffs: Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Atlanta, Individual Voters
Defendants: GA Secretary of State, Vice Chair of the State Election Board, Members of the State Election Board, County Boards of Elections and Registration, Members of County Boards of Elections and Registration, County Elections Directors
Challenging: GA S.B. 202
Description: Plaintiffs challenge various provisions of Senate Bill 202, an omnibus law containing several voting restrictions including restricting access to drop boxes, imposing new identification requirements, and making vote-by-mail more difficult, alleging that the law unduly burdens the right to vote in violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments, and intentionally discriminates on the basis of race in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the 14th and 15th Amendments. The case has been consolidated with other related cases challenging S.B. 202 in In re: Georgia Senate Bill 202.
Key Documents:
- Amended complaint filed April 27, 2021
- Order denying motions to dismiss entered December 9, 2021
-
Filed: May 17, 2021
Plaintiffs: Coalition for Good Governance, Members of County Boards of Elections, Jackson County Democratic Committee, Georgia Advancing Progress Political Action Committee, Members of Political Parties/Voters/Election Volunteers
Defendants: GA Governor, GA Secretary of State, Members of the State Election Board
Challenging: GA S.B. 202
Description: Plaintiffs challenge various provisions of Senate Bill 202, an omnibus law containing several voting restrictions including imposing new identification requirements and shortening the period for applying for absentee ballots, among others, alleging various violations of the 1st and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Key Documents:
- Amended complaint filed June 11, 2021
- Motion for preliminary injunction denied July 7, 2021
- Order granting motion for preliminary injunction in part entered August 20, 2021, enjoining the state from implementing a photography ban of completed ballots
- Order denying motions to dismiss entered December 9, 2021
-
Filed: April 27, 2021
Plaintiffs: Concerned Black Clergy of Metropolitan Atlanta, Inc., Justice Initiative, Inc., Samuel Dewitt Proctor Conference, Inc., Mijente, Inc., Sankofa United Church of Christ Limited, New Birth Missionary Baptist Church, Inc., Metropolitan Atlanta Baptist Ministers Union, Inc., First Congregational Church, United Church of Christ Incorporated, Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights, Inc., Faith in Action Network, Greater Works Ministries Network, Inc., Exousia Lighthouse International C.M., Inc.
Defendants: GA Secretary of State, Vice Chair of the State Election Board, Members of the State Election Board
Challenging: GA S.B. 202
Description: Plaintiffs challenge various provisions of Senate Bill 202, an omnibus law containing several voting restrictions including restricting access to drop boxes and mobile voting units and imposing new identification requirements. Plaintiffs allege violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the 1st, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, in that the law was intended to discriminate and has the result of discriminating on the basis of race or color, unduly burdens the right to vote, abridges the freedom of speech and expression, and discriminates against voters with disabilities. The case has been consolidated with other related cases challenging S.B. 202 in In re: Georgia Senate Bill 202.
Key Documents:
-
Filed: November 26, 2018
Plaintiffs: Fair Fight Action, Care in Action, Ebenezer Baptist Church of Atlanta, Georgia, Baconton Missionary Baptist Church, Virginia-Highland Church, the Sixth Episcopal District
Defendants: GA Secretary of State, Members of the State Election Board, State Election Board
Challenging: Exact Match Policy, Voter List Maintenance, Absentee Ballot Cancellations
Description: Plaintiffs challenge various policies regarding election administration in Georgia, including the state’s exact match policy for verifying voters’ identification, its list maintenance procedures, and its procedures for cancelling absentee ballots. The complaint alleges violations of the 1st, 14th, and 15th Amendments and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Trial began on April 11, 2022.
Key Documents:
- Second amended complaint filed December 3, 2020
- Order granting and denying in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment entered February 16, 2021
- Second order granting and denying in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment entered March 31, 2021
- Order denying Defendants’ renewed motion for summary judgment entered November 15, 2021
-
Filed: December 23, 2020
Plaintiffs: Fair Fight Inc., Individual Voters
Defendants: True the Vote, Inc., Catherine Engelbrecht (Founder and Executive Director of True the Vote), Derek Somerville, Mark Davis, Mark Williams, Ron Johnson, James Cooper, John Does 1–10
Challenging: Voter Intimidation
Description: Plaintiffs challenge defendants’ campaign to “preemptively challenge 364,541 potentially ineligible voters” across Georgia based on the U.S. Postal Service’s “National Change of Address” registry. Additionally, defendants have threatened to publicly release the names of the voters they claim are ineligible, thus subjecting those individuals to threats and harassment and have offered a $1 million reward fund to “incentivize” individuals to report suspected “election malfeasance.” The complaint alleges violations of section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act (the Anti-Intimidation provision) in that defendants’ actions attempt to or actually “intimidate, threaten, or coerce” certain individuals from “voting or attempting to vote.”
Key Documents:
- Motion for temporary restraining order filed December 29, 2020
- Motion for a temporary restraining order denied January 1, 2020
- Counterclaims filed by defendants January 8, 2021
- Amended complaint filed March 22, 2021
- Order dismissing defendants’ counterclaims entered on August 17
-
Filed: December 23, 2020
Plaintiffs: Individual Voters
Defendants: Individuals Involved in Ballot Processing
Challenging: 2020 Election Results
Description: Plaintiffs challenge defendants’ failure to provide requested voting records and allege fraud and irregularities in the November 2020 election. The complaint alleges violations of the Georgia Constitution, in that defendants failed to ensure that absentee ballots were treated in accordance with state law and in a uniform manner throughout the county and throughout the state, thus depriving plaintiffs of equal protection and due process, and that voters for third party candidates were treated differently than similarly situated voters. The trial court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims on October 13, 2021, and plaintiffs have filed notices of appeal to the state’s court of appeals and supreme court.
Key Documents:
- Third amended petition filed July 2, 2021
- Order staying case issued on September 20, 2021
- Order granting Respondents’ motion to dismiss issued on October 13, 2021
- Notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia filed November 10, 2021
- Notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of Georgia filed November 12, 2021
-
Filed: March 28, 2021
Plaintiffs: Georgia State Conference of the NAACP, Georgia Coalition for the People’s Agenda, Inc., League of Women Voters of Georgia, Inc., Galeo Latino Community Development Fund, Inc., Common Cause, Lower Muskogee Creek Tribe, The Urban League of Greater Atlanta, Inc.
Defendants: GA Secretary of State, Members of the State Election Board, Chairmen of the Fulton, Gwinnett, & Cobb County Registration and Elections Board, Members of the County Registration and Elections Boards
Challenging: GA S.B. 202
Description: Plaintiffs challenge various provisions of Senate Bill 202, an omnibus law containing several voting restrictions including restricting access to drop boxes and mobile voting units and imposing new identification requirements and a line warming ban. Plaintiffs allege violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the 1st, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, in that the law is intended to discriminate and has the effect of discriminating against voters on account of race or color, unduly burdens the right to vote and abridges the freedom of speech and association. The case has been consolidated with other related cases challenging S.B. 202 in In re: Georgia Senate Bill 202.
Key Documents:
- First amended complaint filed May 28, 2021
- United States’ statement of interest filed July 26, 2021
- Order denying motions to dismiss entered December 9, 2021
- Motion for preliminary injunction filed May 25, 2022
- Order denying motions for preliminary injunction entered August 18, 2022
-
Filed: March 25, 2021
Plaintiffs: The New Georgia Project, Black Voters Matter Fund, Rise, Inc., Individual Voters
Defendants: GA Secretary of State, Vice Chair of the State Election Board, Members of the State Election Board, County Boards of Elections and Registration, Members of County Boards of Elections and Registration, Chairmen, Secretaries, Superintendents of County Elections Boards, Fulton County Solicitor General, Dougherty County District Attorney
Challenging: GA S.B. 202
Description: Plaintiffs challenge various provisions of Senate Bill 202, an omnibus law containing several voting restrictions including restricting access to drop boxes and mobile voting units and imposing new identification requirements and a line warming ban. Plaintiffs allege violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the 1st and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, in that the law has the effect of discriminating against voters on account of race or color and unduly burdens the fundamental right to vote. The case has been consolidated with other related cases challenging S.B. 202 in In re: Georgia Senate Bill 202.
Key Documents:
- Amended complaint filed May 17, 2021
- Order denying motions to dismiss entered December 9, 2021
- Motion for preliminary injunction filed June 3, 2022
- Order denying motions for preliminary injunction entered August 18, 2022
-
Filed: March 29, 2021
Plaintiffs: Sixth District of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, Georgia Muslim Voter Project, Women Watch Afrika, Latino Community Fund Georgia, Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc., The Arc of the United States, Georgia Adapt, Georgia Advocacy Office, Southern Christian Leadership Conference
Defendants: GA Governor, GA Secretary of State, State Election Board, Members of the State Election Board, County Registration and Elections Boards, Directors/Supervisors/Members of County Registration and Elections Boards, County Chief Registrars
Challenging: GA S.B. 202
Description: Plaintiffs challenge various provisions of Senate Bill 202, an omnibus law containing several voting restrictions including restricting access to drop boxes and mobile voting units and imposing new identification requirements and a line warming ban. Plaintiffs allege violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the 1st, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, in that the law is intended to discriminate and has the result of discriminating on account of race or color, unduly burdens the right to vote, and infringes on plaintiffs’ rights of speech and expression. The case has been consolidated with other related cases challenging S.B. 202 in In re: Georgia Senate Bill 202.
Key Documents:
- Amended complaint filed May 24, 2021
- Order denying motions to dismiss entered December 9, 2021
- Motion for preliminary injunction filed May 25, 2022
- Order denying motions for preliminary injunction entered August 18, 2022
-
Filed: June 25, 2021
Plaintiffs: United States of America
Defendants: State of Georgia, GA State Election Board, GA Secretary of State
Challenging: GA S.B. 202
Description: The United States sued the State of Georgia, challenging Senate Bill 202, an omnibus law containing several voting restrictions such as restricting access to drop boxes and imposing new identification requirements and a line warming ban. The federal government alleges violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, in that the law was adopted with the purpose of and has the effect of denying or abridging Black citizens’ equal access to the political process. The case has been consolidated with other related cases challenging S.B. 202 in In re: Georgia Senate Bill 202.
Key Documents:
- Complaint filed June 25, 2021
- Amicus brief of Washington DC and 21 states in support of Plaintiff’s opposition to motions to dismiss filed August 13, 2021
- Order denying motions to dismiss entered December 9, 2021
-
Filed: April 7, 2021
Plaintiffs: VoteAmerica, Voter Participation Center, Center for Voter Information
Defendants: GA Secretary of State, Vice Chair of the State Election Board, Members of the State Election Board
Challenging: GA S.B. 202
Description: Plaintiffs challenge provisions of Senate Bill 202 that restrict volunteers’ ability to assist voters with absentee ballot applications in various ways, alleging violations of the 1st and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, in that the law abridges the plaintiffs’ rights of speech and association and is vague and overbroad.
Key Documents:
- Complaint filed April 7, 2021
- Order denying motions to dismiss entered December 9, 2021
- Motion for preliminary injunction filed April 26, 2022
- Order denying motion for preliminary injunction entered June 30, 2022
-
Filed: May 2, 2022
Plaintiffs: Vote.org, Georgia Alliance for Retired Americans, Priorities USA
Defendants: GA State Election Board, Members of the GA State Election Board, Members of the Fulton County Registration and Elections Board
Challenging: GA S.B. 202
Description: Plaintiffs challenge Senate Bill 202's wet signature requirement for absentee ballot applications. The complaint argues that the requirement violates the materiality provision of the Civil Rights Act.
Key Documents:
Complaint filed May 2, 2022
-
-
Hawaii
Hawaii
-
Filed: October 8, 2020
Plaintiffs: Individual Voters Residing in Guam or U.S. Virgin Islands, Equally American Legal Defense and Education Fund
Defendants: Chief Election Officer for the Hawaii Office of Elections, Clerk of the City and County of Honolulu, Clerk of the County of Maui, United States of America, Acting Secretary of Defense, Federal Voting Assistance Program, Director of the Federal Voting Assistance Program
Challenging: UOCAVA (52 U.S.C. § 20310), Hawaii UMOVA (H.R.S. § 15D-2), and H.A.R. § 3–177–600
Description: Plaintiffs challenge the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (“UOCAVA”), Hawaii statutes, and administrative rules implementing their requirements, which permit former Hawaii residents to continue voting by absentee ballot in presidential and congressional elections if they reside in the Northern Mariana Islands, certain other insular territories, or in a foreign country, while failing to afford that right to residents of Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, or Puerto Rico. The complaint alleges violations of the 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, in that the challenged provisions and policies violate the guarantees of equal protection and due process.
Key Documents:
- Order granting Federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss filed April 23, 2021
- Third amended complaint filed May 14, 2021
- Order denying Federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss entered September 2, 2021
- Order granting Defendants’ motions for summary judgment entered September 6, 2022
-
-
Idaho
Idaho
-
Illinois
Illinois
-
Filed: May 25, 2022
Plaintiffs: Individual Voters, Congressman
Defendants: Illinois State Board of Elections, Executive Director of the Illinois State Board of Elections
Challenging: 10 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. §§ 5/18A-15(a); 5/19–8(c).
Description: Plaintiffs challenge the state’s acceptance of absentee ballots for 14 days after Election Day, arguing that federal law requires states to hold Election Day on a particular day and Illinois’ law effectively extends Election Day beyond that date. The complaint alleges violations of federal statutes and the right to vote under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Key Documents:
- Complaint filed May 25, 2022
- United States’ statement of interest filed August 31, 2022
-
Filed: August 29, 2022
Plaintiffs: Candidate for Mayor, Individual Voters
Defendants: City of Chicago Board of Election Commissioners, Commissioner, Chair, and Members of Chicago Board of Election Commissioners
Challenging: Polling Place Closures and Precinct Removals
Description: Plaintiffs challenge the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners’ decision to close a considerable number of polling locations and remove 779 voting precincts, arguing that the closures violate state law which requires the board to disclose precinct boundaries at least 90 days before a scheduled election. The complaint alleges violations of state law, Section 2 of the VRA, and the right to vote under the 1st and 14th Amendments.
Key Documents:
- Complaint filed August 29, 2022
-
-
Indiana
Indiana
-
Filed: December 3, 2020
Plaintiffs: American Council of the Blind of Indiana, Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission, Individual Voters
Defendants: Indiana Election Commission, Members of the Indiana Election Commission, IN Secretary of State, Indiana Election Division, Directors of the Indiana Election Division
Challenging: Ind. Code §§ 3–11–10–24(b), (d)
Description: Plaintiffs challenge the state’s absentee vote from home program, which requires voters with print disabilities to make an appointment for election officials to visit their home to assist the voter in completing their ballot. The complaint argues that the law discriminates against voters with disabilities in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The judge issued a preliminary injunction allowing voters with print disabilities to complete their mail ballots with the assistance of an individual of their choosing.
Key Documents:
- Amended complaint filed October 14, 2021
- Amended preliminary injunction entered March 24, 2022
- Order granting in part plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment entered September 2, 2022
- Preliminary injunction entered September 6, 2022
-
-
Iowa
Iowa
-
Filed: October 27, 2021
Plaintiffs: League of United Latin American Citizens of Iowa
Defendants: IA Secretary of State, IA Voter Registration Commission, County Auditors
Challenging: Iowa Code § 1.18
Description: Plaintiffs challenge Iowa’s English Language Affirmation Act (otherwise known as its “English-Only Law”) with respect to voting materials and seeking Spanish language voting materials. The petition seeks a declaratory judgment that voting materials, including the National Mail Ballot Voter Registration Form, Iowa Voter Registration Form, and Absentee Ballot Request Forms, are exempt under state law from the state’s English Language Affirmation Act and an order dissolving a previous injunction prohibiting non-English languages on voter registration forms.
Key Documents:
- Amended petition filed January 18, 2022
- Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s motion to dismiss entered March 7, 2022
- Order granting motion for reconsideration and denying motion to dismiss Count II of the petition entered April 23, 2022
-
Filed: March 9, 2021
Plaintiffs: League of United Latin American Citizens of Iowa
Defendants: IA Secretary of State, IA Attorney General
Challenging: IA S.F. 413, IA S.F. 568
Description: Plaintiffs challenge multiple provisions of Senate File 413 and Senate File 568, which variously make registering, requesting an absentee ballot, and voting by mail and in person more difficult, alleging violations of the Iowa Constitution, in that the laws infringe on Iowans’ right to vote, right to free speech and assembly, and right to equal protection, and discriminate based on voters’ political beliefs.
Key Documents:
- Amended complaint filed June 10, 2021
-
-
Kansas
Kansas
-
Filed: June 1, 2021
Plaintiffs: League of Women Voters of Kansas, Loud Light, Kansas Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, Inc., Topeka Independent Living Resource Center, Individual Voters and Voter Assistants
Defendants: KS Secretary of State, KS Attorneys General
Challenging: KS H.B. 2183, KS H.B. 2332
Description: Plaintiffs challenge various provisions of House Bills 2183 and 2332, including multiple restrictions on providing assistance to voters voting by mail, alleging violations of the Kansas Constitution’s Bill of Rights, in that the laws unjustifiably restrict core political expression, severely burden free speech and associational rights, severely burden Kansans’ voting rights, deprive plaintiffs of equal protection, are overly broad and void for vagueness, and deny due process. The district court denied the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction and dismissed the case. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of an injunction.
Key Documents:
- Plaintiffs’ motion for partial temporary injunction in advance of the July 13 registration deadline for the August primary elections filed June 18, 2021
- Amended petition filed August 3, 2021
- Order denying partial temporary injunction issued September 16, 2021
- Order denying Plaintiff/Appellants’ motion to transfer and motion to expedite entered by Kansas Supreme Court on October 18, 2021
- District court order dismissing case entered April 11, 2022
- Court of Appeals order affirming denial of injunction issued June 17, 2022
-
Filed: June 2, 2021
Plaintiffs: VoteAmerica, Voter Participation Center
Defendants: KS Secretary of State, KS Attorney General, District Attorney of Johnson County
Challenging: KS H.B. 2332
Description: Plaintiffs challenge House Bill 2332, which prohibits non-Kansas residents from sending vote-by-mail applications in the state and prohibits mailing any mail ballot application that has been pre-filled with the voter’s information. The complaint alleges violations of the 1st and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, in that the law obstructs plaintiffs’ free speech and freedom of association, is substantially overbroad, and discriminates against and unjustifiably burdens interstate commerce in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause. The trial court granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of HB 2332. The court than entered a permanent injunction barring enforcement of the out-of-state distributor ban, finding that the provision violates the 1st and 14th Amendments.
Key Documents:
- Complaint filed June 2, 2021
- Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction filed July 8, 2021
- Order overruling Defendants’ motion to dismiss and granting motion for preliminary injunction entered November 19, 2021
- Stipulated order for permanent injunction entered February 25, 2022
-
-
Kentucky
Kentucky
-
Louisiana
Louisiana
-
Maine
Maine
-
Maryland
Maryland
-
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
-
Filed: June 23, 2022
Plaintiffs: Chairman of the MA Republican Party, Candidates for State and Federal Office
Defendants: MA Secretary of State
Challenging: MA SB 2924
Description: Plaintiffs challenge a newly passed law, MA SB 2924, that expands early voting and makes no-excuse mail voting permanent, arguing that the law violates the state’s constitution. The Massachusetts Supreme Court found the law to be constitutional on July 11, 2022.
Key Documents:
-
-
Michigan
Michigan
-
Filed: November 3, 2021
Plaintiffs: Public Interest Legal Foundation
Defendants: MI Secretary of State
Challenging: Voter List Maintenance
Description: Plaintiff challenges the state’s voter list maintenance procedures and allege violations of the National Voter Registration Act, seeking to compel Defendants to aggressively purge voters from their registration lists.
Key Documents:
-
Filed: September 2, 2022
Plaintiffs: Individual Voters, Macomb County Republican Party, Candidate for Governor, Election Integrity Fund and Force, Clerk of Irving Township Barry County
Defendants: MI Governor, MI Secretary of State
Challenging: 2020 Election Certification, Electronic Voting Machines
Description: Plaintiffs challenge the state’s use of electronic voting machines in the 2020 election, arguing that the electronic voting system used was not accredited in accordance with state law. The complaint asks the court to decertify the results of, and rerun, the 2020 presidential election in Michigan.
Key Documents:
- First amended complaint filed September 11, 2022
- Order denying temporary restraining order entered on September 8, 2022.
-
Filed: September 1, 2022
Plaintiffs: Promote the Vote 2022
Defendants: Board of State Canvassers, MI Secretary of State, MI Director of Elections
Challenging: Board of State Canvassers’ Rejection of PTV2022 Ballot Initiative for November 2022 Ballots
Description: Plaintiffs challenge the Board of State Canvassers’ decision to block the Promote the Vote 2022 ballot initiative from appearing on the state’s ballots in November. The initiative would amend the the state constitution to add a fundamental right to vote and adopt various policies making it easier for voters to cast their ballots. The complaint alleges violations to due process under the state constitution and the 14th Amendment.
Key Documents:
Complaint filed September 1, 2022
-
-
Minnesota
Minnesota
-
Mississippi
Mississippi
-
Missouri
Missouri
-
Filed: June 22, 2022
Plaintiffs: Missouri Protection & Advocacy Services, VozKC, Individual Voters
Defendants: MO Secretary of State, Kansas City Board of Election Commissioners, St. Louis County Board of Elections, Boone County Clerk
Challenging: Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.445.3
Description: Plaintiffs challenge a state law prohibiting anyone who is not a family member or election judge from providing assistance to more than one voter with a disability in completing their ballots. The complaint alleges violations of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act.
Key Documents:
- Complaint filed June 22, 2022
-
Filed: August 23, 2022
Plaintiffs: Missouri Conference of the NAACP, League of Women Voters of Missouri, Individual Voters
Defendants: State of Missouri, MO Secretary of State
Challenging: MO HB 1878
Description: Plaintiffs challenge a recently enacted law, HB 1878, which imposes a strict voter ID requirement. The complaint alleges violations of the state constitution’s right to vote and equal protection clauses.
Key Documents:
- Complaint filed August 23, 2022
-
Filed: August 22, 2022
Plaintiffs: League of Women Voters of Missouri, Missouri Conference of the NAACP
Defendants: State of Missouri, MO Secretary of State, Cole County Prosecuting Attorney
Challenging: MO HB 1878
Description: Plaintiffs challenge four provisions of a recently enacted law, HB 1878, that impose various restrictions on individuals soliciting voter registrations and prohibit the provision of unsolicited absentee ballot applications. The complaint alleges violations of the state constitution’s right to free speech, free association, and due process.
Key Documents:
- Complaint filed August 22, 2022
- United States’ statement of interest filed September 16, 2022.
-
-
Montana
Montana
-
Filed: April 19, 2021
Plaintiffs: Montana Democratic Party and Individual Voter
Defendants: MT Secretary of State
Challenging: MT H.B. 176, MT S.B. 169, MT H.B. 530
Description: Plaintiffs challenge three newly passed laws that eliminate Election Day registration, limit the use of student ID cards as proof of identity when voting, and limit certain kinds of ballot assistance. The complaint alleges violations of the Montana Constitution, in that the laws deprive voters of equal protection, discriminate based on age and unduly burden the right of suffrage. Following a trial, on September 30, 2022 the trial court permanently blocked H.B. 176, S.B. 169 and H.B. 530.
Key Documents:
- Amended complaint filed May 14, 2021
- Order denying motion to dismiss entered November 5, 2021
- Order granting motion for preliminary injunction entered April 6, 2022
- Montana Supreme Court order staying preliminary injunction in part entered May 17, 2022
- Order denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment entered July 27, 2022
- Montana Supreme Court order affirming preliminary injunction entered September 21, 2022
- Order granting permanent injunction of H.B. 176, S.B. 169 and H.B. 530 entered September 30, 2022
-
Filed: September 22, 2021
Plaintiffs: Montana Federation of Public Employees, Montana American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations, Montana Association of Centers for Independent Living, Individual Voters
Defendants: State of Montana, MT Secretary of State
Challenging: MT H.B. 176
Description: Plaintiffs challenge MT HB 176, which eliminates most forms of Election Day Registration in Montana, arguing that the ban on election day registration burdens voters with disabilities, working women, young voters and union members in violation of the right to suffrage and equal protection in the Montana Constitution.
Key Documents:
- Complaint filed September 22, 2021
-
Filed: September 9, 2021
Plaintiffs: Montana Youth Action, Forward Montana Foundation, Montana Public Interest Research Group
Defendants: MT Secretary of State
Challenging: MT S.B. 169, MT H.B. 506, MT H.B. 176
Description: Plaintiffs challenge SB 169, HB 506 and HB 176, which eliminate election-day voter registration, restrict ballot distribution to soon-to-be-eligible voters, and limit use of student IDs for voter registration. The complaint alleges violations of the Montana Constitution, in that the laws deprive voters of equal protection, discriminate based on age and unduly burden the right of suffrage. Following a trial, on September 30, 2022 the trial court permanently blocked H.B. 176, S.B. 169 and H.B. 530.
Key Documents:
- Complaint filed September 9, 2021
- Order granting motion for preliminary injunction entered April 6, 2022
- Montana Supreme Court order staying preliminary injunction in part entered May 17, 2022
- Order denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment and entering permanent injunction as to HB 506 entered July 27, 2022
- Montana Supreme Court order affirming preliminary injunction entered September 21, 2022
- Order granting permanent injunction of H.B. 176, S.B. 169 and H.B. 530 entered September 30, 2022
-
Filed: May 17, 2021
Plaintiffs: Western Native Voice, Montana Native Vote, Blackfeet Nation, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Fort Belknap Indian Community, and Northern Cheyenne Tribe
Defendants: MT Secretary of State
Challenging: MT H.B. 176, MT H.B. 530
Description: Plaintiffs challenge two newly enacted laws—House Bill 176 and House Bill 530—that, variously, eliminate Election Day registration and prohibit compensated distribution, collection, and delivery of absentee ballots. The complaint alleges violations of the Montana Constitution, in that the laws infringe on the fundamental right to vote of Montanans in general, and Native American voters in particular, deprive Native American voters of equal protection, are overbroad in their infringement of free expression and core political speech, and are unconstitutionally vague, in violation of the guarantee of due process. Following a trial, on September 30, 2022 the trial court permanently blocked H.B. 176, S.B. 169 and H.B. 530.
Key Documents:
- Complaint filed May 17, 2021
- Order granting motion for preliminary injunction entered April 6, 2022
- Montana Supreme Court order staying preliminary injunction in part entered May 17, 2022
- Order denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment entered July 27, 2022
- Montana Supreme Court order affirming preliminary injunction entered September 21, 2022
- Order granting permanent injunction of H.B. 176, S.B. 169 and H.B. 530 entered September 30, 2022
-
-
Nebraska
Nebraska
-
Nevada
Nevada
-
Filed: August 31, 2022
Plaintiffs: Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada
Defendants: NV Secretary of State
Challenging: Secretary of State’s Temporary Regulation
Description: Plaintiffs challenge the Secretary of State’s recent temporary regulation allowing county recorders to hand count ballots at their discretion. The complaint argues that the regulation violates voters’ rights to have votes counted according to a uniform standard across the state.
Key Documents:
- Complaint filed August 31, 2022
-
-
New Hampshire
New Hampshire
-
Filed: June 17, 2022
Plaintiffs: 603 Forward, Open Democracy, Individual Voters
Defendants: NH Secretary of State, NH Attorney General
Challenging: NH SB 418
Description: Plaintiffs challenge a newly passed law, NH SB 418, that requires voters registering to vote on Election Day who do not have a valid photo ID to vote by separate affidavit ballot, which will not be counted unless the voter provides proof of identity within seven days. The complaint alleges violations of various provisions of the state’s constitution, including the free and equal elections, equal protection, and due process clauses.
Key Documents:
- Complaint filed June 17, 2022
-
Filed: June 21, 2022
Plaintiffs: Individual Voters
Defendants: NH Secretary of State, NH Attorney General
Challenging: NH SB 418
Description: Plaintiffs challenge a newly passed law, NH SB 418, that requires voters registering to vote on Election Day who do not have a valid photo ID to vote by separate affidavit ballot, which will not be counted unless the voter provides proof of identity within seven days. The complaint alleges a violation of the state constitution’s right to privacy.
Key Documents:
- Complaint filed June 21, 2022
-
-
New Jersey
New Jersey
-
New Mexico
New Mexico
-
New York
New York
-
Filed: September 14, 2021
Plaintiffs: Brooklyn Branch of the NAACP
Defendants: Co-Chairs/Commissioners/Co-Executive Directors of the State Board of Elections, President/Secretary/Commissioners of the New York City Board of Elections
Challenging: N.Y. Elec. Law § 17–140
Description: Plaintiffs challenge the New York Elec. Law 17–140, otherwise known as the “line-warming ban,” which makes it illegal for nonpartisan groups to provide food and drink to individuals waiting in line to vote. The complaint alleges that the law violates the 1st and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution on grounds that the ban criminalizes free speech, burdens the ability of civic engagement organizations to participate in the political process, and is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.
Key Documents:
- Amended complaint filed March 22, 2022
-
Filed: February 4, 2022
Plaintiffs: Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
Defendants: Co-chairs of the State Board of Elections, Commissioners of the State Board of Elections, Co-executive Directors of the State Board of Elections
Challenging: Ballot Rejection Processes
Description: Plaintiffs challenge several state election practices that result in the rejection of absentee ballots, including the state’s failure to provide an adequate cure process for ballots with minor defects. The complaint alleges violations of the right to vote, due process, and equal protection under the 1st and 14th Amendments as well as violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1965. The court issued a preliminary injunction requiring election officials to allow voters to cure absentee ballots missing postmarks that are received up to seven days after Election Day.
Key Documents:
-
Filed: January 20, 2022
Plaintiffs: Individual Voters, Elected NY Representatives, NY Republican State Committee, Republican National Committee
Defendants: NYC Mayor, NYC Board of Elections, NYC City Council
Challenging: Intro 1867-A (Noncitizen Voting Law)
Description: Plaintiffs challenge New York City’s new noncitizen voting law, which allows legal residents who have lived in NYC for at least 30 consecutive days to vote in local elections (not state or federal). The complaint alleges violations of the New York Constitution and state election law and argues that the law will result in the dilution of citizens’ votes.
Key Documents:
-
Filed: July 6, 2022
Plaintiffs: Judicial Watch
Defendants: Executive Directors of the New York State Board of Elections, Board of Elections of the City of New York, Commissioners of the Bronx, Kings, New York, Queens, and Richmond County Boards of Elections
Challenging: Voter List Maintenance
Description: Plaintiff challenges the state’s voter list maintenance procedures and allege violations of the National Voter Registration Act, seeking to compel Defendants to aggressively purge voters from their registration lists.
Key Documents:
- Complaint filed July 6, 2022
-
Filed: October 16, 2020
Plaintiffs: National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, Individual Voters
Defendants: Jacob Wohl, Jack Burkman, J.M. Burkman & Associates, LLC, Project 1599, John and Jane Does 1–10
Challenging: Voter Intimidation, Spreading of Disinformation
Description: Plaintiffs sued Project 1599, a lobbying firm, challenging defendants’ sending of robocalls for the alleged purpose of misinforming and intimidating would-be voters and alleging violations of Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act and Section 2 of the Ku Klux Klan Act. The parties entered into a consent decree on June 2, 2022.
Key Documents:
- Complaint filed October 16, 2020
- Motion for temporary restraining order granted October 28, 2020
- Order denying motion to dismiss entered January 12, 2021
- Notice of interlocutory appeal of January 12 order filed February 8, 2021
- Second Circuit Court of Appeals mandate issued July 13, 2021, granting Plaintiff-Appellees’ motion to dismiss appeal and denying Defendant-Appellants’ motion for stay and for writ of mandamus
- Order denying motion dismiss issued September 17, 2021
- Consent Decree entered June 2, 2022
-
Filed: August 29, 2022
Plaintiffs: individual Voters
Defendants: Public Interest Legal Foundation
Challenging: Local Law 11 (NYC Noncitizen Voting Law)
Description: Plaintiffs filed suit challenging New York City’s new noncitizen voting law, which allows legal residents who have lived in NYC for at least 30 consecutive days to vote in local elections (not state or federal). The complaint alleges violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the 15th Amendment in that the law discriminates on the basis of race.
Key Documents:
- Complaint filed August 29, 2022
-
-
North Carolina
North Carolina
-
Filed: November 20, 2019
Plaintiffs: Community Success Initiative, Justice Served NC, Inc., North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP
Defendants: Speaker of the NC House of Representatives, President Pro Tempore of the NC Senate, State Board of Elections, Chairman/Secretary/Members of the State Board of Elections,
Challenging: N.C.G.S. § 13–1
Description: Plaintiffs challenge state laws that prohibit persons convicted of felonies from voting until they have fully discharged their sentences, including parole and probation, and further condition restoration of voting rights on full payment of all court fines, fees and restitution, alleging violations of the North Carolina Constitution, in that the laws deny the state constitutional guarantees of “substantially equal voting power,” and to participate in free and fair elections. The court issued injunctive relief, allowing individuals on probation, parole, or suspended sentence due to a prior felony conviction to vote. The North Carolina Court of Appeals stayed the trial court’s order, blocking the registration of individuals with prior felony convictions. The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ stay of the injunction prospectively but ordered the state not to remove anyone who registered while the injunction was in effect. On March 28, 2022, the trial court struck down the law, finding that the law discriminates against Black voters and interferes with the right to vote in violation of the North Carolina Constitution. On April 5, 2022, the Court of Appeals granted a stay, meaning the law is back in effect for now.
Key Documents:
- Complaint filed November 20, 2019
- Motion for summary judgment or in the alternative for a preliminary injunction granted in part and denied in part September 4, 2020
- Order issued August 27, 2021, expanding the September 2020 preliminary injunction
- Court of Appeals order staying the expanded preliminary injunction entered on September 3, 2021
- North Carolina Supreme Court order affirming the Court of Appeal’s stay of the expanded preliminary injunction entered on September 10, 2021
- Trial court’s final judgment and order entered March 28, 2022
- Court of Appeals order granting a stay of the permanent injunction entered April 5, 2022
-
Filed: December 20, 2018
Plaintiffs: North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, Chapel Hill-Carrboro NAACP, Greensboro NAACP, High Point NAACP, Moore County NAACP, Stokes County Branch of the NAACP, Winston Salem-Forsyth County NAACP
Defendants: NC Governor, Chair of the NC State Board of Elections, Secretary of the NC State Board of Elections, Members of the NC State Board of Elections
Challenging: NC S.B. 824
Description: Plaintiffs challenge several provisions of S.B. 824, including added voter identification requirements, expanded number of poll observers, and increased numbers of people who can challenge ballots. The complaint argues that these provisions violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in that they result in the denial and abridgment of the right to vote based on race and that the law intentionally discriminates against African American voters. The NC General Assembly moved to intervene in the suit, but its motion was denied by the district court and the denial was affirmed by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the holdings of the lower courts, finding the NC General Assembly is entitled to intervene.
Key Documents:
- Complaint filed December 20, 2018
- Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction entered December 31, 2019
- Fourth Circuit opinion reversing district court’s issuance of preliminary injunction entered December 2, 2020
- Fourth Circuit order affirming district court’s denial of intervention entered June 7, 2021
- Supreme Court order granting intervention published June 23, 2022
-
Filed: December 19, 2018
Plaintiffs: Individual Voters
Defendants: Speaker of the NC House of Representatives, President Pro Tempore of the NC Senate, State Board of Elections, Chairmen of the House Select Committee on Elections for the 2018 Third Extra Session, State of North Carolina
Challenging: NC SB 824
Description: Plaintiffs challenge the state’s voter ID law, arguing that the law discriminates against Black voters, burdens the right to vote, and violates the equal protection clause of the state constitution. The trial court entered a permanent injunction, striking the law down as a violation of the state constitution. The Supreme Court of North Carolina has accepted discretionary review of the case. The North Carolina Supreme Court heard oral arguments on October 3, 2022.
Key Documents:
-
Filed: August 6, 2018
Plaintiffs: North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP
Defendants: Speaker of the NC House of Representatives, President Pro Tempore of the NC Senate
Challenging: 2018–128, 2018–119
Description: Plaintiffs challenge amendments to the state constitution that impose a voter ID requirement and lower the state income tax, arguing that the amendments were put on the ballot by an unconstitutionally gerrymandered General Assembly. The trial court voided the amendments, but the decision was reversed on appeal by the Court of Appeals. On August 19, 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision and remanded to the district court.
Key Documents:
-
Filed: August 22, 2022
Petitioners: NC Republican Party, Board of Elections Member, Republican Nominee for Board of Commissioners
Challenging: NCSBE Decision
Description: Plaintiffs challenge a decision by the State Board of Elections denying a request to allow counties to impose a signature matching procedure. The petition requests that the court reverse the NCSBE’s decision, alleging violations of state law and the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution. On October 3, a judge ruled from the bench and denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
Key Documents:
- Petition filed August 22, 2022
- Petitioners’ motion for a preliminary injunction filed September 27, 2022.
- Petitioners’ motion for temporary restraining order filed September 28, 2022.
-
-
North Dakota
North Dakota
-
Ohio
Ohio
-
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
-
Oregon
Oregon
-
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
-
Filed:
Plaintiffs: 14 State Representatives
Defendants: Commonwealth of PA, Department of State, Secretary of PA
Challenging: Act 77
Description: A member of the Bradford County Board of Elections challenges Act 77, passed in 2019, which expanded access to vote by mail and eliminated the state’s excuse requirement. The complaint argues that Act 77’s no excuse vote by mail violates the state’s constitution and the 14th and 17th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The case was consolidated with McLinko v. Degraffenreid. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Act 77 on August 2, 2022.
Key Documents:
-
Filed: September 17, 2021
Plaintiffs: Senator Jay Costa, Senator Anthony H. Williams, Senator Vincent J. Hughes, Senator Steven J. Santarsiero, Senate Democratic Caucus
Defendants: Senator Jacob Corman III, Senate President Pro Tempore, Senator Cris Dush, Senate Secretary-Parliamentarian Megan Martin
Challenging: Subpoena Duces Tecum Issued by State Senate Intergovernmental Operations Committee
Description: Plaintiffs sued the leadership of the Pennsylvania State Senate Intergovernmental Operations Committee to block an audit and subpoena seeking the “names, dates of birth, driver’s license numbers, portions of social security numbers and addresses of all registered voters” in Pennsylvania as part of an investigation into alleged irregularities in the 2020 elections. The petition alleges that the audit violates the Pennsylvania Constitution and Pennsylvania Election Code in that it usurps the power to conduct election contests from the judiciary, constitutes an unauthorized election contest and that the subpoena violates privacy by seeking voters’ personal information in violation of state law.
Key Documents:
- Petition filed September 17, 2021
-
Filed: July 26, 2021
Plaintiffs: Member of Bradford County Board of Elections
Defendants: Commonwealth of PA, Department of State, Secretary of PA
Challenging: Act 77
Description: A member of the Bradford County Board of Elections challenges Act 77, passed in 2019, which expanded access to vote by mail and eliminated the state’s excuse requirement. The complaint argues that no excuse vote by mail violates the state’s constitution. The case was consolidated with Bonner v. Degraffenreid. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Act 77 on August 2, 2022.
Key Documents:
-
Filed: September 23, 2021
Plaintiffs: Commonwealth of PA, PA Department of State, Secretary of PA
Defendants: Senator Cris Dush, Senator Jake Corman, PA State Senate Intergovernmental Operations Committee
Challenging: Subpoena Duces Tecum Issued by State Senate Intergovernmental Operations Committee
Description: Plaintiffs seek to quash a subpoena issued by the State Senate Intergovernmental Operations Committee requesting “names, dates of birth, driver’s license numbers, portions of social security numbers and addresses of all registered voters” in Pennsylvania as well as audit information as part of an investigation into alleged irregularities in the 2020 elections. The petition argues that the subpoena violates the Pennsylvania Constitution “free and equal” elections guarantee, infringes on Pennsylvanians’ right to privacy, exceeds the state Senate’s authority and is overbroad.
Key Documents:
- Petition filed September 23, 2021
-
Filed: January 31, 2022
Plaintiffs: Individual Voters
Defendants: Lehigh County Board of Elections
Challenging: Rejection of Undated Ballots
Description: Plaintiffs challenge Lehigh County’s rejection of their absentee ballots in an election for judges of the Court of Common Pleas on the basis that the ballots were missing a handwritten date. The complaint argues that the rejection of these ballots violates the Materiality provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and their right to vote and due process under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s order, thus requiring Lehigh County to count the undated ballots. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to issue an emergency stay.
Key Documents:
-
Filed: May 31, 2022
Plaintiffs: PA Secretary of State, PA Department of State
Defendants: Berks County Board of Elections, Fayette County Board of Elections, Lancaster County Board of Elections
Challenging: Rejection of Undated Ballots
Description: The Pennsylvania Secretary of State sued the boards of elections for three counties that refused to count undated mail ballots in their election certifications for the state’s 2022 primary elections.
Key Documents:
-
Filed: September 1, 2022
Plaintiffs: RNC, NRSC, NRCC, PA Republican Party, Individual Voters
Defendants: PA Secretary of State, Director of PA Bureau of Election Services and Notaries, County Boards of Elections
Challenging: County Ballot Cure Procedures
Description: Plaintiffs challenge the ballot cure procedures offered by various counties, arguing that the county policies violate state law and the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Key Documents:
-
Filed: September 1, 2022
Plaintiffs: Individual Voters
Defendants: Lehigh County Board of Elections, Members, Chief Clerk, and Deputy Chief Clerk of Lehigh County Board of Elections
Challenging: Unmanned Drop Boxes
Description: Plaintiffs challenge Lehigh County’s use of drop boxes, arguing that all drop boxes must be monitored in-person to assure compliance with state election laws. The complaint alleges violations of state laws that require absentee ballots to be delivered by the voter herself. The hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction will be held on October 7, 2022.
Key Documents:
-
Filed: July 22, 2022
Plaintiffs: Individual Voters
Defendants: PA Secretary of State, PA Department of State
Challenging: Act 77
Description: Plaintiffs challenge Act 77, passed in 2019, which expanded access to vote by mail and eliminated the state’s excuse requirement. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Act 77 in a previous case. This complaint now argues that, because the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals prohibited application of two provisions of Act 77 in a separate case and Act 77 contains a nonseverability provision, the entirety of Act 77 should be void.
Key Documents:
- Complaint filed July 22, 2022
-
-
Rhode Island
Rhode Island
-
South Carolina
South Carolina
-
South Dakota
South Dakota
-
Tennessee
Tennessee
-
Texas
Texas
-
Filed: February 1, 2022
Plaintiffs: Campaign Legal Center, ACLU of Texas, MALDEF, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Demos
Defendants: TX Secretary of State
Challenging: Voter List Maintenance
Description: Plaintiffs challenge the state’s failure to produce requested documents relating to the state’s new list maintenance process whereby the state has chosen to use driver’s license data as a basis for removing registered voters from the rolls. Plaintiffs seek documents showing all registered voters identified as potential noncitizens through the state’s new program to ensure eligible voters are not removed and argue that the state’s failure to provide the requested records violates the NVRA’s Public Disclosure provision. A trial took place in May, and on August 2, the court entered final judgment for plaintiffs.
Key Documents:
- Complaint filed February 1, 2022
- Final judgment and permanent injunction entered for plaintiffs August 2, 2022
- 5th Circuit order granting temporary administrative stay entered August 12, 2022
-
Filed: September 7, 2021
Plaintiffs: Houston Justice, Houston Area Urban League, Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc., The Arc of Texas, Jeffrey Lamar Clemmons
Defendants: TX Governor, TX Deputy Secretary of State, TX Attorney General, Bexar/Harris County Elections Administrators, District Attorneys for Bexar, Harris, and Travis Counties
Challenging: TX S.B. 1
Description: Plaintiffs challenge various provisions of Senate Bill 1, an omnibus law containing several voting restrictions including restricting access to drop boxes, limiting early voting, and imposing new identification requirements. Plaintiffs allege that the law disproportionately burdens voters of color and voters with disabilities in violation of the First, 14th and 15th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, as well as the Voting Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. This case has been consolidated with La Union del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott, 5:21-cv-00844 (W.D. TX) and other related cases challenging Senate Bill 1.
Key Documents:
- Order consolidating this with La Union del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott, 5:21-cv-00844 (W.D. TX) and others
- See La Union del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott, 5:21-cv-00844 (W.D. TX) for further filings
-
Filed: September 3, 2021
Plaintiffs: La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Friendship-West Baptist Church, the Anti-Defamation League Austin, Southwest, and Texoma Regions, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Texas Impact, Mexican American Bar Association of Texas, Texas Hispanics Organized for Political Education, Jolt Action, William C. Velasquez Institute, Fiel Houston Inc., James Lewin
Defendants: State of Texas, TX Secretary of State, TX Attorney General, Dallas and El Paso County Elections Administrators, District Attorneys for Dallas, El Paso, and Travis Counties
Challenging: TX S.B. 1
Description: Plaintiffs challenge various provisions of Senate Bill 1, an omnibus law containing several voting restrictions including restricting access to drop boxes, limiting early voting, imposing new identification requirements, and restricting volunteer voter assistance. Plaintiffs argue that the challenged provisions violate the 1st, 14th, and 15th Amendments of the United States Constitution, as well as the Voting Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, by imposing undue burdens on the right to vote—particularly for voters of color and voters with disabilities—infringing on free speech, and intentionally discriminating against voters of color. This case has been consolidated with other related cases challenging Senate Bill 1.
Key Documents:
- See case page
- United States’ statement of interest filed November 4, 2021
- United States’ amended complaint filed November 30, 2021
- LULAC amended complaint filed December 1, 2021
- OCA-Greater Houston, Mi Familia Vota and Houston Justice’s second amended complaint filed January 18, 2022
- LUPE second amended complaint filed January 22, 2022
- Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals order granting Republican Committees’ motion to intervene
- Order denying motion to dismiss United States’ complaint entered May 24, 2022
- Order granting and denying in part motion to dismiss LULAC plaintiffs’ complaint entered July 12, 2022
- Order granting and denying in part motion to dismiss OCA-Great Houston complaint entered August 2, 2022
- Order granting and denying in part motion to dismiss Houston Justice’s complaint entered August 2, 2022
- Order granting and denying in part motion to dismiss LUPE complaint entered August 2, 2022
- Order granting and denying in part Defendant Ogg’s motion to dismiss entered August 2, 2022
-
Filed: September 7, 2021
Plaintiffs: LULAC Texas, Voto Latino, Texas Alliance for Retired Americans, Texas AFT
Defendants: TX Secretary of State, TX Attorney General, Bexar, Hidalgo, Dallas, El Paso, and Harris County Elections Administrators, Travis County Clerk, District Attorneys for Bexar, Harris, Hidalgo, Dallas, El Paso and Travis Counties
Challenging: TX S.B. 1
Description: Plaintiffs challenge various provisions of Senate Bill 1, an omnibus law containing several voting restrictions including restricting access to drop boxes, limiting early voting, and imposing new identification requirements. Plaintiffs allege that the law imposes an undue burden on the right to vote in violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments, infringes on free speech in violation of the 1st Amendment, was enacted with discriminatory intent to limit minority voters’ access to the ballot box in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), and law disproportionately impacts voters with disabilities and limited English proficiency in violation of Section 208 of the VRA. This case has been consolidated with La Union del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott, 5:21-cv-00844 (W.D. TX) and other related cases challenging Senate Bill 1.
Key Documents:
- Order consolidating case with La Union del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott, 5:21-cv-00844 (W.D. TX) and others
- See La Union del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott, 5:21-cv-00844 (W.D. TX) for further filings
-
Filed: September 27, 2021
Plaintiffs: Mi Familia Vota, Individual Voters
Defendants: TX Governor, TX Secretary of State, TX Attorney General, Elections Administrators of Bexar and Harris Counties, District Attorneys of Bexar and Harris Counties
Challenging: TX S.B. 1
Description: Plaintiffs challenge various provisions of Senate Bill 1, an omnibus law containing several voting restrictions including restricting access to drop boxes, limiting early voting, and imposing new identification requirements. Plaintiffs allege that the law violates the 1st, 14th, and 15th Amendments, and Section 2 and Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act, in that the law poses an undue burden on the right to vote, has a disparate impact on Black and Hispanic voters, was enacted with a discriminatory intent. This case has been consolidated with La Union del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott, 5:21-cv-00844 (W.D. TX) and other related cases challenging Senate Bill 1.
Key Documents:
- Order issued September 30, 2021 consolidating case with La Union del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott, 5:21-cv-00844 (W.D. TX) and others
- See La Union del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott, 5:21-cv-00844 (W.D. TX) for further filings
-
Filed: September 3, 2021
Plaintiffs: OCA-Greater Houston, League of Women Voters of Texas, Revup-Texas, Texas Organizing Project, Workers Defense Action Fund
Defendants: TX Secretary of State, TX Attorney General, Harris County Elections Administrator, Travis County Clerk, District Attorneys for Harris and Travis Counties
Challenging: TX S.B. 1
Description: Plaintiffs challenge various provisions of Senate Bill 1, including identification requirements for mail-in ballots, a restriction on providing assistance to voters who need help completing or returning their ballots, and a ballot collection ban. The complaint alleges the challenged provisions violate the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the 1st and Fourteenth Amendments by intentionally making it difficult for voters of color, voters with limited English proficiencies and voters with disabilities to cast a ballot. This case has been consolidated with La Union del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott, 5:21-cv-00844 (W.D. TX) and other related cases challenging Senate Bill 1.
Key Documents:
- Order consolidating case with La Union del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott, 5:21-cv-00844 (W.D. TX) and others
- See La Union del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott, 5:21-cv-00844 (W.D. TX) for further filings
-
Filed: September 7, 2021
Plaintiffs: Texas State Conference of the NAACP, Common Cause Texas, Individual Voters
Defendants: TX Governor, TX Secretary of State, TX Deputy Secretary of State, TX Attorney General
Challenging: TX S.B. 1
Description: Plaintiffs challenge various provisions of Senate Bill 1, an omnibus law containing several voting restrictions including restricting access to drop boxes, limiting early voting, and imposing new identification requirements. Plaintiffs allege that the law violates the Texas Constitution, in that it was enacted with a discriminatory intent and burdens the right to vote for Texas voters, disproportionately voters of color.
Key Documents:
- Petition filed September 7, 2021
-
Filed: June 22, 2021
Plaintiffs: Texas State LULAC, Voto Latino
Defendants: County Tax Assessor-Collector, County Elections Administrators
Challenging: TX S.B. 1111
Description: Plaintiffs challenge a newly enacted law—Senate Bill 1111—which prohibits the establishment of residence to influence elections, prohibits voters from designating previous residences as fixed places of habitation even if they consider those residences to be their homes, and requires additional documentation from voters who rely on post office boxes for their residences in order to register. Plaintiffs allege violations of the 1st, 14th, and 26th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, in that the law unduly burdens the fundamental right to vote, restricts registration opportunities for college students, and intrudes upon the freedoms of speech and expression guaranteed to voters, volunteers and political candidates, and creates the risk of criminal prosecution based on vague, overbroad restrictions.
Key Documents:
- Complaint filed June 22, 2021
- Order granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and entering permanent injunction entered August 2, 2022
- 5th Circuit order granting temporary administrative stay entered August 26, 2022
- 5th Circuit order granting motion for reconsideration on September 20, 2022
- Amended order granting summary judgment entered on September 21
-
Filed: November 4, 2021
Plaintiffs: United States of America
Defendants: State of Texas, TX Secretary of State
Challenging: TX S.B. 1
Description: The U.S. Department of Justice filed suit against Texas, challenging two provisions of Senate Bill 1. Specifically, the complaint argues that the bill’s voter assistance requirements violate Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and the strict rules requiring rejection of mail-in ballots for minor errors violate Section 101 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This case has been consolidated with La Union del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott, 5:21-cv-00844 (W.D. TX) and other related cases challenging Senate Bill 1.
Key Documents:
- Order consolidating case with La Union del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott, 5:21-cv-00844 (W.D. TX) and others
- See La Union del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott, 5:21-cv-00844 (W.D. TX) for further filings
-
Filed: July 8, 2021
Plaintiffs: Vote.org
Defendants: County Election Administrators, County Tax Assessor-Collector
Challenging: TX H.B. 3107
Description: Plaintiffs challenge House Bill 3107, which codifies Texas’ “wet signature” rule and requires that voter registration applications must be signed with the applicant’s original “wet” signature. The complaint alleges the law infringes on the right to vote in violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and Section 1971 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Key Documents:
-
-
Utah
Utah
-
Vermont
Vermont
-
Virginia
Virginia
-
Filed: December 21, 2021
Plaintiffs: Democratic Party of Virginia, DCCC
Defendants: Chairman of the Board of Elections, Vice Chair of the Board of Elections, Secretary of Board of Elections, Commissioner of the Department of Elections
Challenging: Va. Const. art. II, § 2 (SSN requirement), Notice and Cure Process
Description: Plaintiffs challenge two of Virginia’s election laws, which require voters to provide their social security number to register to vote and set a strict deadline for curing absentee ballots. The complaint alleges violations of the 1st and 14th Amendments, in that the law infringes on free speech, unduly burdens the right to vote, and violates due process, as well as violations of the Civil Rights Act and the Privacy Act.
Key Documents:
-
-
Washington
Washington
-
Filed: May 7, 2021
Plaintiffs: Marissa Reyes, League of United Latin American Citizens, Latino Community Fund
Defendants: County Auditor, Canvassing Review Board Members, County Prosecutor
Challenging: Application of Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §29A.40.110
Description: Plaintiffs challenge the defendants’ mail ballot signature verification practices, alleging violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the 1st, 14th & 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, in that defendants’ signature matching policy intentionally discriminates against Latino voters’, deprives plaintiffs of equal protection and procedural due process, and unduly burdens the plaintiffs’ fundamental right to vote.
Key Documents:
- Second amended complaint filed November 22, 2021
-
-
West Virginia
West Virginia
-
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
-
Filed: December 22, 2021
Plaintiffs: League of Women Voters of Wisconsin
Defendants: Members of the Wisconsin Elections Commission, Administrator of the Wisconsin Elections Commission
Challenging: Voter Purge
Description: The Wisconsin Elections Commission deactivated 31,854 voters registered voters in July 2021. Plaintiffs argue that these voters were deactivated without proper notice and an opportunity to respond in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The parties filed a stipulated agreement in which WEC agreed to reactivate all 31,854 voters. The case was dismissed on August 17, 2022.
Key Documents:
- Complaint filed December 22, 2021
- Stipulated agreement filed July 13, 2022
-
Filed: May 29, 2015
Plaintiffs: One Wisconsin Institute, Inc., Citizen Action of Wisconsin Education Fund, Inc., Individual Voters
Defendants: Staff and Members of the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board
Challenging: Voter ID Petition Process
Description: Plaintiffs filed suit challenging several state election laws, including the state’s limited early voting locations and hours, strict registration requirements, and voter ID law. The case was consolidated with another to determine the legality of the ID petition process.
Key Documents:
- Complaint filed May 29, 2015
-
Filed: July 22, 2022
Plaintiffs: Individual Voters
Defendants: Wisconsin Elections Commission, Administrator of WEC
Challenging: WEC Guidance
Description: Plaintiffs challenge the Wisconsin Elections Commission’s guidance prohibiting voters from using a third party’s assistance to return their absentee ballots. The complaint alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 105 of the Voting Rights Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the right to vote under the 1st and 14th Amendments.
Key Documents:
- Complaint filed July 22, 2022
- Permanent injunction and opinion entered August 31, 2022
-
Filed: July 12, 2022
Plaintiffs: Individual Voters, Republican Party of Waukesha County
Defendants: Wisconsin Elections Commission
Challenging: WEC Guidance
Description: Plaintiffs challenge the Wisconsin Elections Commission’s guidance instructing clerks to fill in missing information on absentee ballot certificate envelopes. The court issued a temporary injunction prohibiting clerks from following the guidance on September 7, 2022. The court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the WEC from issuing such guidance on October 3, 2022.
Key Documents:
- Complaint filed July 12, 2022
- Temporary injunction entered September 7, 2022
- Order granting preliminary injunction entered September 7, 2022
- Order granting permanent injunction judgement to Plaintiffs entered on October 3, 2022
-
-
Wyoming
Wyoming