Fighting Voter Suppression
League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump
On March 25, 2025, in a sweeping and unprecedented Executive Order, President Trump attempted to usurp the power to regulate federal elections from Congress and the States. Among other things, the Executive Order directs the Election Assistance Commissionan agency that Congress specifically established to be bipartisan and independentto 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 勛圖眻畦 and co-counsel filed a lawsuit to block the Executive Order as an unconstitutional power grab.
Status: Ongoing
View Case
Learn 勛圖眻畦 Fighting Voter Suppression
Featured
Georgia Supreme Court
Jun 2025

Fighting Voter Suppression
Eternal Vigilance Action, Inc. v. Georgia
The 勛圖眻畦 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 courts 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.
Texas
Oct 2024

Fighting Voter Suppression
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 1SB 1 for shortthat 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
68 Fighting Voter Suppression Cases

U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2025
Fighting Voter Suppression
Pennsylvania State Conference of the NAACP v. Schmidt
In November 2022, thousands of Pennsylvania voters were denied the right to vote based on a meaningless paperwork error. They filled out their mail ballots, signed the form on the outer return envelope, and returned their ballots on time. Yet their ballots were not counted, because they either forgot to write the date on their return envelope, or they accidentally wrote the wrong date. The Civil Rights Act prohibits states from disenfranchising voters based on immaterial paperwork error, and we're fighting to make sure that every vote counts
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2025

Fighting Voter Suppression
Pennsylvania State Conference of the NAACP v. Schmidt
In November 2022, thousands of Pennsylvania voters were denied the right to vote based on a meaningless paperwork error. They filled out their mail ballots, signed the form on the outer return envelope, and returned their ballots on time. Yet their ballots were not counted, because they either forgot to write the date on their return envelope, or they accidentally wrote the wrong date. The Civil Rights Act prohibits states from disenfranchising voters based on immaterial paperwork error, and we're fighting to make sure that every vote counts

Texas
Jan 2025
Fighting Voter Suppression
United Sovereign Americans, Inc. v. Nelson
The 勛圖眻畦 and partner organizations have sought to intervene to represent the rights of voters and voting-rights organizations in a case seeking to unlawfully purge the Texas voter rolls and block certification of the results of the 2024 election.
Explore case
Texas
Jan 2025

Fighting Voter Suppression
United Sovereign Americans, Inc. v. Nelson
The 勛圖眻畦 and partner organizations have sought to intervene to represent the rights of voters and voting-rights organizations in a case seeking to unlawfully purge the Texas voter rolls and block certification of the results of the 2024 election.

Georgia
Dec 2024
Fighting Voter Suppression
Sixth District of the African Methodist Episcopal Church v. Kemp
Civil rights groups filed a federal lawsuit on March 29, 2021, against Georgias sweeping law that makes it much harder for all Georgians to vote, particularly voters of color and voters with disabilities. This law spans all aspects of Georgias voting process, including imposing a criminal ban on providing food and water to voters waiting in line, limiting dropbox access and ballot return assistance, rejecting absentee ballots for forgetting to add a birthdate to an envelope or for failing to provide more restrictive identifying information or photo ID copies along with absentee ballots. Premised on low voter confidence and born out of the Big Lie about the 2020 election, this law targets methods of voting disproportionately used more and more by Black voters and others voters of color just as they began to exercise greater political power.
Explore case
Georgia
Dec 2024

Fighting Voter Suppression
Sixth District of the African Methodist Episcopal Church v. Kemp
Civil rights groups filed a federal lawsuit on March 29, 2021, against Georgias sweeping law that makes it much harder for all Georgians to vote, particularly voters of color and voters with disabilities. This law spans all aspects of Georgias voting process, including imposing a criminal ban on providing food and water to voters waiting in line, limiting dropbox access and ballot return assistance, rejecting absentee ballots for forgetting to add a birthdate to an envelope or for failing to provide more restrictive identifying information or photo ID copies along with absentee ballots. Premised on low voter confidence and born out of the Big Lie about the 2020 election, this law targets methods of voting disproportionately used more and more by Black voters and others voters of color just as they began to exercise greater political power.

Arizona
Nov 2024
Fighting Voter Suppression
勛圖眻畦 of Arizona v. Richer
We sued elections officials in Arizona to extend the mail ballot cure deadline after ballot processing delays threatened to disenfranchise thousands of voters without notice.
Explore case
Arizona
Nov 2024

Fighting Voter Suppression
勛圖眻畦 of Arizona v. Richer
We sued elections officials in Arizona to extend the mail ballot cure deadline after ballot processing delays threatened to disenfranchise thousands of voters without notice.

Iowa
Nov 2024
Fighting Voter Suppression
Selcuk v. Pate
Just two weeks out from the November 2024 presidential election, Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate issued a directive to county clerks to challenge more than 2,000 voters at the polls on Election Day and force them to vote a provisional ballot that will count only if the voter can prove their citizenship.
The Secretarys list of more than 2,000 voters does not adequately account for Iowans who have recently become U.S. citizens through naturalization, and thus risks disenfranchising scores of eligible voters based on national origin. The Secretarys eleventh-hour gambit violates several provisions of the U.S. Constitution and federal law, and we have thus filed emergency suit to enjoin the directive.
Explore case
Iowa
Nov 2024

Fighting Voter Suppression
Selcuk v. Pate
Just two weeks out from the November 2024 presidential election, Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate issued a directive to county clerks to challenge more than 2,000 voters at the polls on Election Day and force them to vote a provisional ballot that will count only if the voter can prove their citizenship.
The Secretarys list of more than 2,000 voters does not adequately account for Iowans who have recently become U.S. citizens through naturalization, and thus risks disenfranchising scores of eligible voters based on national origin. The Secretarys eleventh-hour gambit violates several provisions of the U.S. Constitution and federal law, and we have thus filed emergency suit to enjoin the directive.