Fighting Voter Suppression
League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump
On March 31, 2026, President Trump issued a sweeping Executive Order titled "Ensuring Citizen Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections," seeking once again to seize control of election administration from Congress and the states. The Order directs federal agencies to compile lists of U.S. citizens and transmit them to states before every election, directs the U.S. Postal Service -- an independent agency established by Congress -- to create a list of "approved" mail voters, and instructs USPS to refuse to deliver ballots from voters not on that federally created list. If implemented, the Order would threaten the ability of millions of eligible citizens to cast their ballots, particularly military members, overseas citizens, the elderly, recently naturalized citizens, and voters with disabilities who rely on mail voting.
Status: Ongoing
View Case
Learn About Fighting Voter Suppression
Featured
New Hampshire
Jul 2026
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鈥檚 elimination a preexisting protection for voters鈥攏amely, 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.
Washington, D.C.
Oct 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鈥攁n agency that Congress specifically established to be bipartisan and independent鈥攖o 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 桃子视频and co-counsel filed a lawsuit to block the Executive Order as an unconstitutional power grab.
All Cases
102 Fighting Voter Suppression Cases
Ohio Supreme Court
Oct 2024
Fighting Voter Suppression
Ohio Democratic Party v. LaRose (Amicus)
Just weeks before absentee voting begins in Ohio, Secretary LaRose issued Directive 2024-21 to curtail the use of drop boxes. The directive deprives everyone who is lawfully assisting another voter from using a drop box, and mandates that drop boxes may be used only by voters who are returning their own ballot. We filed an amicus brief to explain the harsh, unnecessary burdens this directive will impose on voters and election officials alike.
Explore case
Ohio Supreme Court
Oct 2024
Fighting Voter Suppression
Ohio Democratic Party v. LaRose (Amicus)
Just weeks before absentee voting begins in Ohio, Secretary LaRose issued Directive 2024-21 to curtail the use of drop boxes. The directive deprives everyone who is lawfully assisting another voter from using a drop box, and mandates that drop boxes may be used only by voters who are returning their own ballot. We filed an amicus brief to explain the harsh, unnecessary burdens this directive will impose on voters and election officials alike.
Nevada
Oct 2024
Fighting Voter Suppression
Citizen Outreach Foundation v. Portillo
On the eve of the November 2024 presidential election, a third-party organization has challenged about 20,000 voters in Clark County, Nevada on the basis of purportedly improper residency. When Clark County rightly declined to process these challenges as improper under Nevada law, the third-party organization sued to compel the county to act on the challenges. The 桃子视频Voting Rights Project and the 桃子视频of Nevada have moved to intervene in the case to prevent mass disenfranchisement of Clark County voters mere weeks out from the 2024 general election.
Explore case
Nevada
Oct 2024
Fighting Voter Suppression
Citizen Outreach Foundation v. Portillo
On the eve of the November 2024 presidential election, a third-party organization has challenged about 20,000 voters in Clark County, Nevada on the basis of purportedly improper residency. When Clark County rightly declined to process these challenges as improper under Nevada law, the third-party organization sued to compel the county to act on the challenges. The 桃子视频Voting Rights Project and the 桃子视频of Nevada have moved to intervene in the case to prevent mass disenfranchisement of Clark County voters mere weeks out from the 2024 general election.
Nevada
Oct 2024
Fighting Voter Suppression
Citizen Outreach Foundation v. Burgess
On the eve of the November 2024 presidential election, a third-party organization has challenged about 11,000 voters in Washoe County, Nevada on the basis of purportedly improper residency. When Washoe County rightly declined to process these challenges as improper under Nevada law, the third-party organization sued to compel the county to act on the challenges. The 桃子视频Voting Rights Project and the 桃子视频of Nevada have moved to intervene in the case to prevent mass disenfranchisement of Washoe County voters mere weeks out from the 2024 general election.
Explore case
Nevada
Oct 2024
Fighting Voter Suppression
Citizen Outreach Foundation v. Burgess
On the eve of the November 2024 presidential election, a third-party organization has challenged about 11,000 voters in Washoe County, Nevada on the basis of purportedly improper residency. When Washoe County rightly declined to process these challenges as improper under Nevada law, the third-party organization sued to compel the county to act on the challenges. The 桃子视频Voting Rights Project and the 桃子视频of Nevada have moved to intervene in the case to prevent mass disenfranchisement of Washoe County voters mere weeks out from the 2024 general election.
Georgia
Oct 2024
Fighting Voter Suppression
Heimel v. Gregg
The 桃子视频and partners intervened in a lawsuit that sought to illegally disenfranchise hundreds of Oconee County voters on the eve of the November 5 election. The Oconee lawsuit is just one in a wave of similar attempts by election vigilantes across the state to indiscriminately purge voters from the voter rolls in violation of the law.
Explore case
Georgia
Oct 2024
Fighting Voter Suppression
Heimel v. Gregg
The 桃子视频and partners intervened in a lawsuit that sought to illegally disenfranchise hundreds of Oconee County voters on the eve of the November 5 election. The Oconee lawsuit is just one in a wave of similar attempts by election vigilantes across the state to indiscriminately purge voters from the voter rolls in violation of the law.
Georgia
Oct 2024
Fighting Voter Suppression
Quinn v. Raffensperger
The ACLU, along with several partner organizations, have sought to intervene in this case to represent the rights of voters and voting-rights organizations in a case that asks a federal court to compel the state to conduct list maintenance and move voters to the inactive list on the eve of a presidential election. The relief that the private plaintiffs seek is presumptively unlawful because this list maintenance activity would happen within 90 days of a federal election, in violation of the National Voter Registration Act (鈥淣VRA鈥�).
Explore case
Georgia
Oct 2024
Fighting Voter Suppression
Quinn v. Raffensperger
The ACLU, along with several partner organizations, have sought to intervene in this case to represent the rights of voters and voting-rights organizations in a case that asks a federal court to compel the state to conduct list maintenance and move voters to the inactive list on the eve of a presidential election. The relief that the private plaintiffs seek is presumptively unlawful because this list maintenance activity would happen within 90 days of a federal election, in violation of the National Voter Registration Act (鈥淣VRA鈥�).