Fighting Cuts to Voting Access
League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump
On March 25, 2025, in a sweeping and unprecedented Executive Order, President Trump attempted to usurp the power to regulate federal elections from Congress and the States. Among other things, the Executive Order directs the Election Assistance Commission—an agency that Congress specifically established to be bipartisan and independent—to require voters to show a passport or other citizenship documentation in order to register to vote in federal elections. If implemented, the Executive Order would threaten the ability of millions of eligible Americans to register and vote and upend the administration of federal elections.
On behalf of leading voter registration organizations and advocacy organizations, the Թֱ and co-counsel filed a lawsuit to block the Executive Order as an unconstitutional power grab.
Status: Ongoing
View Case
Learn Թֱ Fighting Cuts to Voting Access
Featured
Georgia Supreme Court
Jun 2025

Fighting Cuts to Voting Access
Eternal Vigilance Action, Inc. v. Georgia
The Թֱ and partner organizations intervened in this case to represent the rights of voters and voting-rights organizations in a case challenging a number of rules passed by the Georgia State Election Board. We challenged the rule requiring that the number of votes cast be hand counted at the polling place prior to the tabulation of votes. In a critical victory for Georgia voters, in June 2025, the Georgia Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s decision permanently blocking the rule requiring hand counting of ballots at polling places before tabulation — a process widely criticized for risking delays, ballot spoliation, and voter disenfranchisement.
All Cases
27 Fighting Cuts to Voting Access Cases

Georgia
Sep 2024
Fighting Cuts to Voting Access
Frazier v. Fulton County Department of Registration and Elections
The Թֱ, along with several partner organizations, have intervened in this case to represent the rights of voters and voting-rights organizations in a case that asks a federal court to compel the purge of nearly 2,000 Fulton County, Georgia voters from the state’s rolls on the eve of a presidential election. The relief that the private plaintiffs seek is presumptively unlawful because this purge would happen within 90 days of a federal election, in violation of the National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”).
Explore case
Georgia
Sep 2024

Fighting Cuts to Voting Access
Frazier v. Fulton County Department of Registration and Elections
The Թֱ, along with several partner organizations, have intervened in this case to represent the rights of voters and voting-rights organizations in a case that asks a federal court to compel the purge of nearly 2,000 Fulton County, Georgia voters from the state’s rolls on the eve of a presidential election. The relief that the private plaintiffs seek is presumptively unlawful because this purge would happen within 90 days of a federal election, in violation of the National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”).

Arizona Supreme Court
Sep 2024
Fighting Cuts to Voting Access
Richer v. Fontes (Amicus)
Will nearly 100,000 Arizona voters who have long been registered as “full ballot” voters who can vote in all federal, state, and local elections in Arizona be penalized and disenfranchised from voting due to a technical error by the State of Arizona discovered on the eve of the November 2024 election?
Explore case
Arizona Supreme Court
Sep 2024

Fighting Cuts to Voting Access
Richer v. Fontes (Amicus)
Will nearly 100,000 Arizona voters who have long been registered as “full ballot” voters who can vote in all federal, state, and local elections in Arizona be penalized and disenfranchised from voting due to a technical error by the State of Arizona discovered on the eve of the November 2024 election?

Texas
Sep 2024
Fighting Cuts to Voting Access
America First Policy Institute v. Biden
The Թֱ, along with several partner organizations, are representing the rights of voters by intervening in a lawsuit that seeks to make it harder for Americans across the country to register to vote, including in the upcoming 2024 election. In 2021, President Biden signed an executive order aimed at promoting access to voter registration and election information to eligible voters on a nonpartisan basis. Now, on the eve of the 2024 election, a small group of political candidates and election administrators seek to block the executive order, based on speculation and unfounded claims of election manipulation and noncitizen voting. The Թֱ and its partners are fighting to preserve the ability of eligible Americans to register to vote, in accordance with federal law.
Explore case
Texas
Sep 2024

Fighting Cuts to Voting Access
America First Policy Institute v. Biden
The Թֱ, along with several partner organizations, are representing the rights of voters by intervening in a lawsuit that seeks to make it harder for Americans across the country to register to vote, including in the upcoming 2024 election. In 2021, President Biden signed an executive order aimed at promoting access to voter registration and election information to eligible voters on a nonpartisan basis. Now, on the eve of the 2024 election, a small group of political candidates and election administrators seek to block the executive order, based on speculation and unfounded claims of election manipulation and noncitizen voting. The Թֱ and its partners are fighting to preserve the ability of eligible Americans to register to vote, in accordance with federal law.

Mississippi
Sep 2024
Fighting Cuts to Voting Access
Republican National Committee v. Wetzel (Amicus)
In 2020, in a nearly unanimous bipartisan vote, Mississippi joined eighteen other states in accepting mail ballots postmarked by Election Day that arrived after Election Day (in Mississippi’s case, up to five business days). This lawsuit by partisan actors seeks to disenfranchise these voters whose ballot is mailed by Election Day but—through no fault of their own—does not arrive until afterwards. In Mississippi, this harm will fall disproportionately on voters with disabilities, older voters, and other communities that rely upon absentee voting. Twisting the words and meaning of Congress, the RNC argues that three longstanding federal laws that set a uniform election day for federal races require that ballot may only be counted if they are received by election officials by Election Day. If accepted, this radical argument would not only disenfranchise thousands upon thousands of voters in Mississippi and eighteen other states, but also upend election administration in every state.
Explore case
Mississippi
Sep 2024

Fighting Cuts to Voting Access
Republican National Committee v. Wetzel (Amicus)
In 2020, in a nearly unanimous bipartisan vote, Mississippi joined eighteen other states in accepting mail ballots postmarked by Election Day that arrived after Election Day (in Mississippi’s case, up to five business days). This lawsuit by partisan actors seeks to disenfranchise these voters whose ballot is mailed by Election Day but—through no fault of their own—does not arrive until afterwards. In Mississippi, this harm will fall disproportionately on voters with disabilities, older voters, and other communities that rely upon absentee voting. Twisting the words and meaning of Congress, the RNC argues that three longstanding federal laws that set a uniform election day for federal races require that ballot may only be counted if they are received by election officials by Election Day. If accepted, this radical argument would not only disenfranchise thousands upon thousands of voters in Mississippi and eighteen other states, but also upend election administration in every state.

Arizona
Aug 2024
Fighting Cuts to Voting Access
Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes (Amicus)
Does Congress have authority (as it has long done) to regulate all federal elections, including presidential elections—such as through key federal voting rights laws like the NVRA, UOCAVA, and the MOVE Act?
Explore case
Arizona
Aug 2024

Fighting Cuts to Voting Access
Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes (Amicus)
Does Congress have authority (as it has long done) to regulate all federal elections, including presidential elections—such as through key federal voting rights laws like the NVRA, UOCAVA, and the MOVE Act?