Voting Rights

Featured

Mississippi
Dec 2025
Mississippi

Voting Rights

White v. Mississippi State Board of Elections

District lines used to elect Mississippi’s Supreme Court have gone unchanged for more than 35 years. We’re suing because the current lines crack the Mississippi Delta and dilute the voting strength of Black Mississippians in state Supreme Court elections, in violation of the Voting Rights Act.
White V. Mississippi State Board Of Elections. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Nov 2025
Alabama on a map of the United States of America

Voting Rights

Racial Justice

Allen v. Milligan

Whether Alabama’s congressional districts violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because they discriminate against Black voters. We succeeded in winning a new map for 2024 elections which, for the first time, has two congressional district that provide Black voters a fair opportunity to elect candidates of their choosing despite multiple attempts by Alabama to stop us at the Supreme Court. Despite this win, Alabama is still defending its discriminatory map, and a trial was held in February 2025 to determine the map for the rest of the decade. In May 2025, a federal court ruled that Alabama's 2023 congressional map both violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and was enacted by the Alabama Legislature with racially discriminatory intent.
Allen V. Milligan. Explore Case.
Washington, D.C.
Oct 2025
trump

Voting Rights

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 ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµand co-counsel filed a lawsuit to block the Executive Order as an unconstitutional power grab.
League Of Women Voters Education Fund V. Trump. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Oct 2025
Mississippi

Voting Rights

State Board of Election Commissioners v. Mississippi State Conference of the NAACP

Mississippi has a growing Black population, which is already the largest Black population percentage of any state in the country. Yet. Black Mississippians continue to be significantly under-represented in the state legislature, as Mississippi’s latest districting maps fail to reflect the reality of the state’s changing demographics. During the 2022 redistricting process, the Mississippi legislature refused to create any new districts where Black voters have a chance to elect their preferred representative. The current district lines therefore dilute the voting power of Black Mississippians and continue to deprive them of political representation that is responsive to their needs and concerns, including severe disparities in education and healthcare.
State Board Of Election Commissioners V. Mississippi State Conference Of The Naacp. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Oct 2025
Louisiana

Voting Rights

Louisiana v. Callais (Callais v. Landry)

Whether the congressional map Louisiana adopted to cure a Voting Rights Act violation in Robinson v. Ardoin is itself unlawful as a gerrymander.
Louisiana V. Callais (callais V. Landry). Explore Case.
Missouri
Sep 2025
A close up of an "I Voted" sticker.

Voting Rights

Wise v. Missouri

In unprecedented fashion, the State of Missouri has redrawn the district lines used for electing members of Congress for a second time this decade. These new district lines are gerrymandered and will harm political representation for all Missourians, particularly Black residents in Kansas City, who have been divided along racial lines.
Wise V. Missouri. Explore Case.

All Cases

190 Voting Rights Cases

League of Women Voters v. Brian D. Newby and the United States Election Assistance Commission
Court Case
Dec 2016

Voting Rights

League of Women Voters v. Brian D. Newby and the United States Election Assistance Commission

U.S. Election Assistance Commission Executive Director Brian D. Newby’s action to allow three states to require documentary proof of citizenship on the federal voter registration form is illegal, argued the League of Women Voters of the United States, along with its Alabama, Georgia, and Kansas state Leagues, and others in a suit filed today in federal court.
Explore case
League Of Women Voters V. Brian D. Newby And The United States Election Assistance Commission. Explore Case.
Court Case
Dec 2016
League of Women Voters v. Brian D. Newby and the United States Election Assistance Commission

Voting Rights

League of Women Voters v. Brian D. Newby and the United States Election Assistance Commission

U.S. Election Assistance Commission Executive Director Brian D. Newby’s action to allow three states to require documentary proof of citizenship on the federal voter registration form is illegal, argued the League of Women Voters of the United States, along with its Alabama, Georgia, and Kansas state Leagues, and others in a suit filed today in federal court.
League Of Women Voters V. Brian D. Newby And The United States Election Assistance Commission. Explore Case.
Wisconsin
Dec 2016

Voting Rights

Frank v. Walker: Fighting Voter Suppression in Wisconsin

Wisconsin’s voter ID law is one of the harshest in the country and requires voters to produce one of a few specified forms of photo identification in order to vote. This restriction imposes a substantial burden on the right to vote by requiring photo identification that many voters do not have, and that many voters cannot easily obtain, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. In addition, the Wisconsin voter ID law violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits the use of voting practices that have a negative impact on racial and language minorities. The law has a disproportionate impact on black and Latino voters, who are twice as likely to lack photo ID accepted for voting in Wisconsin compared to white voters.
Explore case
Frank V. Walker: Fighting Voter Suppression In Wisconsin. Explore Case.
Wisconsin
Dec 2016

Voting Rights

Frank v. Walker: Fighting Voter Suppression in Wisconsin

Wisconsin’s voter ID law is one of the harshest in the country and requires voters to produce one of a few specified forms of photo identification in order to vote. This restriction imposes a substantial burden on the right to vote by requiring photo identification that many voters do not have, and that many voters cannot easily obtain, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. In addition, the Wisconsin voter ID law violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits the use of voting practices that have a negative impact on racial and language minorities. The law has a disproportionate impact on black and Latino voters, who are twice as likely to lack photo ID accepted for voting in Wisconsin compared to white voters.
Frank V. Walker: Fighting Voter Suppression In Wisconsin. Explore Case.
Brown v. Kobach
Kansas
Nov 2016

Voting Rights

Brown v. Kobach

The ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµfiled a lawsuit challenging Kansas’ dual voter registration system, charging it violates the Kansas Constitution and state law. The dual system prevents qualified Kansas voters from voting in state and local elections due solely to their method of registration. In mid-July, Secretary of State Kris Kobach received administrative approval of a temporary regulation aimed at formalizing this system, which a court has already declared violates state law.
Explore case
Brown V. Kobach. Explore Case.
Kansas
Nov 2016
Brown v. Kobach

Voting Rights

Brown v. Kobach

The ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµfiled a lawsuit challenging Kansas’ dual voter registration system, charging it violates the Kansas Constitution and state law. The dual system prevents qualified Kansas voters from voting in state and local elections due solely to their method of registration. In mid-July, Secretary of State Kris Kobach received administrative approval of a temporary regulation aimed at formalizing this system, which a court has already declared violates state law.
Brown V. Kobach. Explore Case.
Davidson v. City of Cranston
Rhode Island
Sep 2016

Voting Rights

Davidson v. City of Cranston

Cranston, Rhode Island residents joined the ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµof Rhode Island to sue the City of Cranston, charging that the 2012 redistricting plan for the City Council and School Committee violates the one person, one vote principle of the U.S. Constitution by counting incarcerated people in their prison location as if they were all residents of Cranston.
Explore case
Davidson V. City Of Cranston. Explore Case.
Rhode Island
Sep 2016
Davidson v. City of Cranston

Voting Rights

Davidson v. City of Cranston

Cranston, Rhode Island residents joined the ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµof Rhode Island to sue the City of Cranston, charging that the 2012 redistricting plan for the City Council and School Committee violates the one person, one vote principle of the U.S. Constitution by counting incarcerated people in their prison location as if they were all residents of Cranston.
Davidson V. City Of Cranston. Explore Case.
Veasey v. Abbott
Court Case
Jul 2016

Voting Rights

Veasey v. Abbott

The ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµfiled an amicus brief in Veasey v. Abbott, a case that challenges Texas’s voter ID law. The district court struck down the law, finding that the law was passed with a discriminatory purpose, creates an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, and disproportionately burdens Latino and African-American voters.
Explore case
Veasey V. Abbott. Explore Case.
Court Case
Jul 2016
Veasey v. Abbott

Voting Rights

Veasey v. Abbott

The ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµfiled an amicus brief in Veasey v. Abbott, a case that challenges Texas’s voter ID law. The district court struck down the law, finding that the law was passed with a discriminatory purpose, creates an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, and disproportionately burdens Latino and African-American voters.
Veasey V. Abbott. Explore Case.
3031
32
3334...