吃瓜直播 Moves to Intervene In Voting Rights Act Challenge
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
PHOENIX 鈥� The 吃瓜直播 and the 吃瓜直播 of Arizona filed a motion in a Washington, D.C. federal court today to intervene in the state of Arizona鈥檚 challenge to the federal Voting Rights Act (VRA). The 吃瓜直播 argues that Section 5 of the Act, which since 1965 has protected racial and language minorities鈥� access to voting, must remain in place.
鈥淪ection 5 of the Voting Rights Act is critical for ensuring that states do not pass election laws that negatively affect minority voters,鈥� said Katie O'Connor, staff attorney with the 吃瓜直播 Voting Rights Project. 鈥淲e are intervening in this case to make sure that this critical piece of legislation is upheld, so that everyone's fundamental right to vote is protected.鈥�
On Aug. 25, Arizona became the first state to challenge this section of the VRA since it was reauthorized in 2006. In Arizona v. Holder, Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne claims that during the 2006 reauthorization of the law, Congress did not provide evidence of continuing discrimination in Arizona and that Section 5 imposes a severe burden on the state.
鈥淭his latest move by Tom Horne to bail out of the VRA is part of a nationwide effort to rob people of color of their voice at the ballot box,鈥� said Alessandra Soler Meetze, executive director of the 吃瓜直播 of Arizona. 鈥淐onsidering he is leading efforts to defend SB1070 and the Mexican-American studies ban 鈥� two laws that scapegoat U.S. citizens of Latino descent 鈥� it鈥檚 shameful and disingenuous for him to say that discrimination in Arizona doesn鈥檛 exist.鈥�
Because of Arizona鈥檚 long history of implementing procedures that have had a discriminatory impact on voters, especially Latino voters and those with limited English proficiency, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires the state to get approval from the U.S. Department of Justice before implementing any new voting practices or procedures that could negatively impact or dilute their future votes.
鈥淭he ongoing attempts to politicize the re-districting process by the Arizona legislative and executive branches in total disregard of voters鈥� choice of an independent commission demonstrate the fragile state of the fundamental right to an effective vote for all Arizonans,鈥� added Daniel Pochoda, Legal Director of the 吃瓜直播 Foundation of Arizona.
The 吃瓜直播 filed the motion to intervene on behalf of seven voters who live in Arizona. They are: Latino voter and immigrant rights activist Luis Avila, who currently serves as President of the Somos America Coalition, Napoleon Pisa帽o, a Latino activist from Mesa who worked for the Maricopa County Juvenile Court Center, and Eric Mante, a Filipino American voter who attends Arizona State University; African American voters Dionne Thomas, Director of Youth and Young Adult Ministries at Progressive Baptist Church in Mesa, Calvin Goode, who served over a period of 22 years on the Phoenix City Council, and Melvin Hannah, former Director of Community Outreach and Job Development of the Greater Phoenix Urban League; and Japanese American voter Kathryn Nakagawa, a board member of the Japanese American Citizens League.
鈥淐ivic engagement in Arizona, especially among Latinos, is now more important than ever,鈥� said Luis Avila, 29, who became a citizen in 2009. 鈥淲e can鈥檛 just sit on the sidelines and ignore discriminatory attempts to make it harder for Americans to cast votes. We need to do everything we can to ensure that everyone has access to the polls and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act plays an important role in making that happen.鈥�
The 吃瓜直播 is arguing the state has a long and persistent history of implementing measures that have a discriminatory impact on voters. For example, despite the absence of significant fraud, Prop 200 dramatically altered Arizona election law by requiring citizens to present documentary proof of citizenship in order to register to vote, and by imposing a restrictive identification requirement as a condition of casting a ballot at the polls. The law, passed in 2004, made it increasingly difficult for voting-age citizens, particularly elderly Native American voters, to register or vote because of lack of requisite documentation, including birth certificates and other federal or state forms of identification. More than 30,000 voter-registration applications in Arizona have been rejected as a result of the law鈥檚 onerous identification requirements. A portion of the law relating to registration requirements was struck down in 2010.
More recently, the Arizona Senate passed SB1409, a measure that requires all documents issued by any Arizona agency or political subdivision to be written in English. Although the bill created an exemption for official ballots, there are lingering questions about its potential impact on minority voters because all non-ballot voting materials must be printed in English. This could include important voting guidance and instructions, and summaries of ballot initiatives and referenda. The bill was held in the House of Representatives.
There are currently two other cases filed by sub-jurisdictions in the DC District Court challenging the constitutionality of Section 5: LaRoque v. Holder, filed by residents of Kinston, North Carolina, and Shelby County v. Holder, filed on behalf of Shelby County, Alabama. On September 21, a district court judge issued a 151-page opinion in the Shelby County case upholding Section 5鈥檚 constitutionality. That decision has been appealed. A lower court decision is still pending in the North Carolina case on the constitutionality of Section 5. The 吃瓜直播 represents voter minorities in these challenges.
Attorneys on the case include O'Connor and Laughlin McDonald of the 吃瓜直播 Voting Rights Project, Pochoda of the 吃瓜直播 Foundation of Arizona, and Art Spitzer with the 吃瓜直播 of the Nation's Capital.
Click to read the 吃瓜直播鈥檚 response to the lawsuit filed by the state of Arizona.
Click to read the state鈥檚 complaint in the case, State of Arizona v. Holder, which was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
For more information about the individuals who are serving as interveners, click .
More information on the work of the 吃瓜直播 Voting Rights Project is available at:
Voting Rights
Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona
Voting Rights
Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona
Learn More 吃瓜直播 the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseMay 2025
Voting Rights
Black Alabama Voters Win Fair Congressional Representation For Remainder Of The Decade. Explore Press Release.Black Alabama Voters Win Fair Congressional Representation for Remainder of the Decade
BIRMINGHAM, AL 鈥� A federal court has ruled after a full trial that Alabama鈥檚 2023 congressional map not only violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act but was enacted by the Alabama Legislature with racially discriminatory intent. This ruling establishes that the Alabama congressional map must include two districts where Black voters have the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice (like the map ordered by the court in October 2023) for the remainder of the decade. The court-ordered map used in the 2024 elections resulted in Alabama electing two Black representatives to Congress for the first time in history. The court鈥檚 decision follows a series of legal challenges where a group of voters argued that Alabama鈥檚 congressional districts violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting Black voting power. The Supreme Court agreed in a 2023 ruling that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on that claim, and in its decision in Allen v. Milligan, mandated the creation of a second opportunity district that resulted in the current map. Despite these previous decisions, Alabama insisted on a full trial of the case, and once again the Court ruled against its congressional map as unfairly harming Black voters. This time, however, also ruled that Alabama had intentionally discriminated against its Black citizens in enacting the map. The case was originally brought in November 2021 on behalf of Evan Milligan, Khadidah Stone, Letetia Jackson, Shalela Dowdy, Greater Birmingham Ministries, and the Alabama State Conference of the NAACP who are represented by the 吃瓜直播, 吃瓜直播 of Alabama, Legal Defense Fund, Hogan Lovells LLP, and Wiggins, Childs, Pantazis, Fisher & Goldfarb. 鈥淭his win is a testament to the dedication and persistence of many generations of Black Alabamians who pursued political equality at great cost. We stand on the shoulders of our predecessors. We know that all Alabamians will benefit from today鈥檚 victory just as we have benefited from the work of others. We hope our win will benefit Black voters in the rest of the country as well. This is a triumph for voting rights, an independent judiciary, and offers us hope for the future of our democracy,鈥� a joint comment from plaintiffs of the case. 鈥淭he court has once again recognized that in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act,鈥� said Davin Rosborough, deputy director of the 吃瓜直播鈥檚 Voting Rights Project, "it is essential that Alabama鈥檚 congressional map have two opportunity districts for Black voters.鈥� 鈥淭oday鈥檚 decision is a testament to the persistence and resilience of Black voters in Alabama, including our clients,鈥� said Deuel Ross, deputy director of litigation at the Legal Defense Fund. 鈥淎labama鈥檚 unprecedented defiance of the Supreme Court and the lower court orders harkens back to the darkest days of American history. The court鈥檚 ruling reaffirms the rule of law and the importance of protecting the fundamental right to vote of Black Alabamians in the Black belt and all Americans.鈥� "This ruling is not just a legal win 鈥� it鈥檚 an overdue acknowledgment of Alabama lawmakers' persistent attempts to shut out Black voters from the electoral process,鈥� said Laurel Hattix, senior attorney at the 吃瓜直播 of Alabama. 鈥淔or decades, Black Alabamians have organized and fought for not just their voting rights, but the voting rights of all Americans. Today, the courts have affirmed what Black voters have long known: fair representation is not optional 鈥� it鈥檚 a right.鈥� Read the court's ruling here: https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2025/05/490-FOF-COL-Injunction.pdf -
Press ReleaseApr 2025
Voting Rights
Court Blocks Documentary Proof-of-citizenship Provision In Voting Executive Order. Explore Press Release.Court Blocks Documentary Proof-of-Citizenship Provision in Voting Executive Order
WASHINGTON, D.C. 鈥� Today, a federal court judge issued a ruling in League of Women Voters et. al. v. Trump et. al., temporarily blocking the U.S. Election Assistance Commission from implementing a mandate in the president鈥檚 executive order to add a requirement to show a passport or similar document proving citizenship when registering to vote via the federal form. While the case proceeds, this injunction preserves the status quo wherein would-be-voters already affirm under penalty of perjury that they are U.S. citizens on the federal form. Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the 吃瓜直播's Voting Rights Project, released the following statement: 鈥淧resident Trump's attempt to impose a documentary proof of citizenship requirement on the federal voter registration form is an unconstitutional abuse of power. If implemented, it would place serious and unnecessary burdens on everyday Americans and strain already overburdened election officials. This executive order is part of a broader attack on our democratic elections by promoting baseless nativist conspiracy theories. Today, the court blocked a key strategy of this attack. And we will keep fighting to ensure every eligible voter can make their voice heard without interference or intimidation." The 吃瓜直播 and co-counsel partners representing the League of Women Voters plaintiffs also made the following joint statement in reaction to the preliminary injunction: 鈥淭he court鈥檚 decision today provides crucial protections for eligible voters, and the organizations that help them register to vote, while the fight continues against this illegal executive order. Millions of U.S. citizens lack easy access to a passport or other documents proving citizenship, and that shouldn鈥檛 interfere with their ability to register to vote. 鈥淭he president鈥檚 attempted takeover of federal elections is a blatant overreach to seize power that doesn鈥檛 belong to him. Under the Constitution, that power belongs to the U.S. Congress and states. The president lacks authority to rewrite the country鈥檚 election rules on his own by weaponizing an independent, bipartisan commission to harm eligible voters. The order should ultimately be struck down. 鈥淥ur clients are conducting voter registration using the federal form on an ongoing basis, including for elections scheduled for this summer and fall. Not only would our clients be harmed by the mandate to include this unnecessary and cumbersome requirement but the voters they serve would be too.鈥� The plaintiffs in League of Women Voters et. al. v. Trump et. al. are Asian and Pacific Islander American Vote,鈥� Hispanic Federation, National League of Women Voters, League of Women Voters of Arizona, League of Women Voters Education Fund, NAACP, and OCA 鈥� Asian Pacific American Advocates. They are represented by the 吃瓜直播, 吃瓜直播 of D.C., Asian Americans Advancing Justice 鈥� AAJC (Advancing Justice 鈥� AAJC), Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, the Legal Defense Fund, and LatinoJustice PRLDEF. See a copy of the ruling here: https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2025/04/2025-04-24-Memorandum-Opinion-dckt-104_0-1.pdf -
CaliforniaApr 2025
Voting Rights
Issa V. Weber. Explore Case.Issa v. Weber
Congressman Darrell Issa sued to prevent California from counting mail ballots postmarked by election day and received within the following seven days, consistent with California law. If successful, literally hundreds of thousands of Californians will be disenfranchised at each election. The 吃瓜直播 and its three California affiliates have sought to intervene in the case on behalf of the League of Women Voters of California to ensure that California voters are able to have their ballots counted consistent with state procedures. -
Press ReleaseApr 2025
Voting Rights
Federal Court Rules Mississippi's Legislative Remedial Maps Still Violate Voting Rights Act In Desoto County. Explore Press Release.Federal Court Rules Mississippi's Legislative Remedial Maps Still Violate Voting Rights Act in Desoto County
JACKSON, Miss. 鈥� A federal court yesterday ruled that remedial state Senate maps passed by the Legislature earlier this year still do not remedy unlawful vote dilution in the DeSoto County area. New maps for the area will now be ordered into place by the court in advance of special elections set for November 2025. In March, the Mississippi Legislature proposed new legislative maps intended to comply with a 2024 federal court order to create additional legislative districts 鈥渋n which Black voters have an opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.鈥� The court order came after a group of plaintiffs, including the State Conference of the NAACP and individual Black voters from across the state, successfully proved at trial that the state House and Senate maps enacted after the 2020 Census diluted Black voting strength in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The court directed lawmakers to enact three remedial districts in the DeSoto County and Hattiesburg areas in the state Senate, and the Chickasaw and Monroe County area in the state House. Representing the plaintiffs, a coalition including the 吃瓜直播鈥檚 Voting Rights Project, the 吃瓜直播 of Mississippi, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Mississippi Center for Justice, and attorney Carroll Rhodes filed partial objections to the Legislature鈥檚 remedial plans as to the lines in the DeSoto County area and the Chickasaw/Monroe County area. The court鈥檚 decision accepted the Legislature鈥檚 remedial plans in the Hattiesburg area (which plaintiffs did not challenge) and in the Chickasaw/Monroe County area, but sustained plaintiffs鈥� objections in DeSoto County. Plaintiffs submitted alternative plans for the Senate districts in the DeSoto County area which the court will now consider as a potential remedy. The court also gave the state defendants seven days to propose their own alternative remedial map for the area. The following is reaction to the court ruling: 鈥淭his is an important win for Black voters in the DeSoto County area, who deserve nothing less than a fully equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice,鈥� said Ari Savitzky, senior staff attorney with the 吃瓜直播鈥檚 Voting Rights Project. 鈥淭he court鈥檚 decision makes that possible. We will keep fighting to enforce voters鈥� rights under the Voting Rights Act.鈥� 鈥淭he court rightly rejected the proposed DeSoto County senate districts. The Mississippi Legislature鈥檚 attempt to skirt the law would have actually diminished Black voting power in the northwest corner of the state.鈥� Jarvis Dortch, executive director of the 吃瓜直播 of Mississippi. 鈥淥ur goal in this case is to achieve fair representation for Black people in Mississippi. This ruling striking down the state鈥檚 legislative map for DeSoto County takes an important step toward that goal. The court gave the state another chance to get its map right. We will carefully review the state鈥檚 new map to ensure that it enables Black voters to participate fully in the political process and to elect candidates of their choice,鈥� said Jennifer Nwachukwu, senior counsel from the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. The ruling is here.