Fighting Voter Suppression
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.
Status: Ongoing
View Case
Learn Թֱ Fighting Voter Suppression
Featured
Washington, D.C.
Apr 2025

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 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.
New Hampshire
Mar 2025

Fighting Voter Suppression
Coalition for Open Democracy v. Scanlan
This lawsuit challenges HB 1569, a new law that will make New Hampshire the only state to require every person to produce documentary proof of citizenship when they register to vote for both state and federal elections. It also challenges HB 1569’s elimination a preexisting protection for voters—namely, an affidavit option that allowed voters who faced surprise challenges to their eligibility at the polls to swear to their qualifications and cast a ballot. Accordingly, HB 1569 violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution by placing substantial burdens on New Hampshirites at all stages of the voting process, and will arbitrarily disenfranchise hundreds, if not thousands of qualified voters.
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 1—SB 1 for short—that targeted election practices that made voting more accessible to traditionally marginalized voters like voters of color, voters with disabilities, and voters with limited English proficiency. Since 2021, SB 1 has resulted in tens of thousands of lawful votes being rejected, and it remains a threat to democracy in Texas.
All Cases
65 Fighting Voter Suppression Cases

Indiana
Jul 2021
Fighting Voter Suppression
Common Cause Indiana v. Lawson
The Թֱ, Թֱ of Indiana, and Demōs filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of Common Cause Indiana challenging a state law that permitted election officials to immediately purge the registrations of Indiana voters based on an interstate matching program known as the “Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck Program” (Crosscheck).
Explore case
Indiana
Jul 2021

Fighting Voter Suppression
Common Cause Indiana v. Lawson
The Թֱ, Թֱ of Indiana, and Demōs filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of Common Cause Indiana challenging a state law that permitted election officials to immediately purge the registrations of Indiana voters based on an interstate matching program known as the “Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck Program” (Crosscheck).

U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2021
Fighting Voter Suppression
Immigrants' Rights
New York Immigration Coalition v. Trump
The Թֱ, New York Civil Liberties Union, Թֱ of Texas, and Arnold & Porter filed a federal lawsuit July 24, 2020, on behalf of immigrants’ rights groups challenging President Trump’s order seeking to block people who are undocumented from being counted in the U.S. census.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2021

Fighting Voter Suppression
Immigrants' Rights
New York Immigration Coalition v. Trump
The Թֱ, New York Civil Liberties Union, Թֱ of Texas, and Arnold & Porter filed a federal lawsuit July 24, 2020, on behalf of immigrants’ rights groups challenging President Trump’s order seeking to block people who are undocumented from being counted in the U.S. census.

Pennsylvania
Nov 2020
Fighting Voter Suppression
Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar
The Թֱ and partners intervened in a Trump-campaign lawsuit that attempted to block the certification of the Pennsylvania Nov. 3 election results. On November 21, 2020, the district court dismissed the lawsuit, noting it was "presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations ... unsupported by evidence." "In the United States of America," District Judge William Brann added, "this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state."
Explore case
Pennsylvania
Nov 2020

Fighting Voter Suppression
Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar
The Թֱ and partners intervened in a Trump-campaign lawsuit that attempted to block the certification of the Pennsylvania Nov. 3 election results. On November 21, 2020, the district court dismissed the lawsuit, noting it was "presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations ... unsupported by evidence." "In the United States of America," District Judge William Brann added, "this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state."

Court Case
Oct 2020
Fighting Voter Suppression
Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar
Explore case
Court Case
Oct 2020

Fighting Voter Suppression
Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar

Montana
Sep 2020
Fighting Voter Suppression
Western Native Voice v. Stapleton
The Թֱ, Թֱ of Montana, and Native American Rights Fund challenged a Montana law that severely restricted Native Americans’ access to the ballot. In September 2020, the court issued its ruled for plaintiffs, finding that they presented “cold, hard data” about the law's impact on Native Americans, and how its costs were “simply too high and too burdensome to remain the law of the State of Montana.”
Explore case
Montana
Sep 2020

Fighting Voter Suppression
Western Native Voice v. Stapleton
The Թֱ, Թֱ of Montana, and Native American Rights Fund challenged a Montana law that severely restricted Native Americans’ access to the ballot. In September 2020, the court issued its ruled for plaintiffs, finding that they presented “cold, hard data” about the law's impact on Native Americans, and how its costs were “simply too high and too burdensome to remain the law of the State of Montana.”