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 Ƶand 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

NAACP v. Husted
Ohio
Apr 2015

Voting Rights

NAACP v. Husted

Ohio voters will gain greater access to the ballot in a settlement announced April 17, 2015 by the Ƶ. The agreement with Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted stems from a federal lawsuit, NAACP v. Husted, which challenged Ohio's attempt to slash early voting opportunities.
Explore case
Naacp V. Husted. Explore Case.
Ohio
Apr 2015
NAACP v. Husted

Voting Rights

NAACP v. Husted

Ohio voters will gain greater access to the ballot in a settlement announced April 17, 2015 by the Ƶ. The agreement with Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted stems from a federal lawsuit, NAACP v. Husted, which challenged Ohio's attempt to slash early voting opportunities.
Naacp V. Husted. Explore Case.
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, et al.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2015

Voting Rights

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, et al.

Whether an independent redistricting commission created by Arizona voters through the initiative process is constitutional.
Explore case
Arizona State Legislature V. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, Et Al.. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2015
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, et al.

Voting Rights

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, et al.

Whether an independent redistricting commission created by Arizona voters through the initiative process is constitutional.
Arizona State Legislature V. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, Et Al.. Explore Case.
Shelby County v. Holder
U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2014

Voting Rights

Shelby County v. Holder

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of our nation’s most critical federal civil rights statutes. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which is a key element of the Act, requires certain jurisdictions that have a history of discriminatory voting practices to get advance approval from the federal government before changing their election laws.
Explore case
Shelby County V. Holder. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2014
Shelby County v. Holder

Voting Rights

Shelby County v. Holder

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of our nation’s most critical federal civil rights statutes. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which is a key element of the Act, requires certain jurisdictions that have a history of discriminatory voting practices to get advance approval from the federal government before changing their election laws.
Shelby County V. Holder. Explore Case.
Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2013

Voting Rights

Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona

Whether Arizona may require proof of citizenship before registering to vote in federal elections when federal law does not.
Explore case
Arizona V. Inter Tribal Council Of Arizona. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2013
Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona

Voting Rights

Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona

Whether Arizona may require proof of citizenship before registering to vote in federal elections when federal law does not.
Arizona V. Inter Tribal Council Of Arizona. Explore Case.
Nix v. Holder
Court Case
Nov 2012

Voting Rights

Nix v. Holder

The Ƶintervened in Nix v Holder (previously Laroque v Holder) on behalf of residents of Kinston, N.C. and the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP in order to ensure that the Voting Rights Act is protected and upheld. The case challenges the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act.
Explore case
Nix V. Holder. Explore Case.
Court Case
Nov 2012
Nix v. Holder

Voting Rights

Nix v. Holder

The Ƶintervened in Nix v Holder (previously Laroque v Holder) on behalf of residents of Kinston, N.C. and the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP in order to ensure that the Voting Rights Act is protected and upheld. The case challenges the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act.
Nix V. Holder. Explore Case.
3233
34
3536...