Fighting Voter Suppression

All Cases

94 Fighting Voter Suppression Cases

A person stands at a voting booth marked with an American flag and the word 鈥淰OTE鈥 inside a community polling place. The room has wooden floors, orange stacked chairs, and colorful landscape paintings on the walls, with a small U.S. flag displayed nearby.
Hawaii
Jan 2026

Fighting Voter Suppression

United States v. Nago

The Department of Justice sued the Hawai鈥榠 Secretary of State, demanding the state produce its full, unredacted voter file, which contains highly sensitive and personal data on every voter in the state. This suit appears to be part of the federal government's efforts to build a national voter database without congressional authorization and to improperly question the validity of state voter rolls.
Explore case
United States V. Nago. Explore Case.
Hawaii
Jan 2026
A person stands at a voting booth marked with an American flag and the word 鈥淰OTE鈥 inside a community polling place. The room has wooden floors, orange stacked chairs, and colorful landscape paintings on the walls, with a small U.S. flag displayed nearby.

Fighting Voter Suppression

United States v. Nago

The Department of Justice sued the Hawai鈥榠 Secretary of State, demanding the state produce its full, unredacted voter file, which contains highly sensitive and personal data on every voter in the state. This suit appears to be part of the federal government's efforts to build a national voter database without congressional authorization and to improperly question the validity of state voter rolls.
United States V. Nago. Explore Case.
NM
Massachusetts
Jan 2026

Fighting Voter Suppression

California v. Trump (Amicus)

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.
Explore case
California V. Trump (amicus). Explore Case.
Massachusetts
Jan 2026
NM

Fighting Voter Suppression

California v. Trump (Amicus)

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.
California V. Trump (amicus). Explore Case.
vote sign
U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2026

Fighting Voter Suppression

Watson v. Republican National Committee (Amicus)

In 2020, in a nearly unanimous bipartisan vote, Mississippi joined eighteen other states in accepting mail ballots postmarked by Election Day that arrived after Election Day (in Mississippi鈥檚 case, up to five business days). This lawsuit by partisan actors seeks to disenfranchise these voters whose ballot is mailed by Election Day but鈥攖hrough no fault of their own鈥攄oes not arrive until afterwards. In Mississippi, this harm will fall disproportionately on voters with disabilities, older voters, and other communities that rely upon absentee voting. Twisting the words and meaning of Congress, the RNC argues that three longstanding federal laws that set a uniform election day for federal races require that ballot may only be counted if they are received by election officials by Election Day. If accepted, this radical argument would not only disenfranchise thousands upon thousands of voters in Mississippi and eighteen other states, but also upend election administration in every state.
Explore case
Watson V. Republican National Committee (amicus). Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2026
vote sign

Fighting Voter Suppression

Watson v. Republican National Committee (Amicus)

In 2020, in a nearly unanimous bipartisan vote, Mississippi joined eighteen other states in accepting mail ballots postmarked by Election Day that arrived after Election Day (in Mississippi鈥檚 case, up to five business days). This lawsuit by partisan actors seeks to disenfranchise these voters whose ballot is mailed by Election Day but鈥攖hrough no fault of their own鈥攄oes not arrive until afterwards. In Mississippi, this harm will fall disproportionately on voters with disabilities, older voters, and other communities that rely upon absentee voting. Twisting the words and meaning of Congress, the RNC argues that three longstanding federal laws that set a uniform election day for federal races require that ballot may only be counted if they are received by election officials by Election Day. If accepted, this radical argument would not only disenfranchise thousands upon thousands of voters in Mississippi and eighteen other states, but also upend election administration in every state.
Watson V. Republican National Committee (amicus). Explore Case.
massachusetts voting
Illinois
Jan 2026

Fighting Voter Suppression

United States v. Matthews

The Department of Justice sued the Illinois Board of Elections, demanding the state produce its full, unredacted voter file, which contains highly sensitive and personal data on every voter in the state. This suit appears to be part of the federal government's efforts to build a national voter database without congressional authorization and to improperly question the validity of state voter rolls.
Explore case
United States V. Matthews. Explore Case.
Illinois
Jan 2026
massachusetts voting

Fighting Voter Suppression

United States v. Matthews

The Department of Justice sued the Illinois Board of Elections, demanding the state produce its full, unredacted voter file, which contains highly sensitive and personal data on every voter in the state. This suit appears to be part of the federal government's efforts to build a national voter database without congressional authorization and to improperly question the validity of state voter rolls.
United States V. Matthews. Explore Case.
Rhode Island
Rhode Island
Jan 2026

Fighting Voter Suppression

United States v. Amore

The Department of Justice (DOJ) sued the State of Rhode Island, seeking private, confidential voter data. DOJ鈥檚 efforts appear to be part of an effort to build a national voter database without congressional authorization and to improperly question the validity of state voter rolls.
Explore case
United States V. Amore. Explore Case.
Rhode Island
Jan 2026
Rhode Island

Fighting Voter Suppression

United States v. Amore

The Department of Justice (DOJ) sued the State of Rhode Island, seeking private, confidential voter data. DOJ鈥檚 efforts appear to be part of an effort to build a national voter database without congressional authorization and to improperly question the validity of state voter rolls.
United States V. Amore. Explore Case.
12
3
45...