Fighting Voter Suppression

All Cases

94 Fighting Voter Suppression Cases

allegheny
Pennsylvania
Oct 2025

Fighting Voter Suppression

United States v. Pennsylvania

The Department of Justice (DOJ) sued the State of Pennsylvania, seeking private, confidential voter data that is protected by state privacy laws. DOJ’s 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. Pennsylvania. Explore Case.
Pennsylvania
Oct 2025
allegheny

Fighting Voter Suppression

United States v. Pennsylvania

The Department of Justice (DOJ) sued the State of Pennsylvania, seeking private, confidential voter data that is protected by state privacy laws. DOJ’s 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. Pennsylvania. Explore Case.
Credit: Right to Democracy
Alaska
Sep 2025

Fighting Voter Suppression

Racial Justice

Smith v. State of Alaska (Amicus)

The Ƶand Ƶof Alaska have filed an amicus in support of Tupe Smith, a woman born in American Samoa who now lives in Whittier, Alaska charged with falsely affirming that she was a U.S. citizen when she registered to vote. But Tupe Smith is not an “alien” under the law. People, like her, born in the U.S. territory of American Samoa are the only remaining individuals recognized as “non-citizen U.S. nationals,” a unique status that falls short of “citizen” but nonetheless recognizes that American Samoa has been part of the United States for over 125 years.   All evidence indicates that Ms. Smith believed that, as a non-citizen U.S. national, she was eligible to vote in local elections when she registered to vote. In fact, local election officials encouraged her to check the box labeled U.S. citizen when she registered, given the fact that there was no option for U.S. national.   Our amicus brief urges Alaska’s Court of Appeals to dismiss Tupe Smith’s indictment because of well-settled principles that election-crime statutes should be construed to avoid punishing innocent mistakes. Separately, we warn that upholding a different view of the law would make Alaska an outlier among the states.
Explore case
Smith V. State Of Alaska (amicus). Explore Case.
Alaska
Sep 2025
Credit: Right to Democracy

Fighting Voter Suppression

Racial Justice

Smith v. State of Alaska (Amicus)

The Ƶand Ƶof Alaska have filed an amicus in support of Tupe Smith, a woman born in American Samoa who now lives in Whittier, Alaska charged with falsely affirming that she was a U.S. citizen when she registered to vote. But Tupe Smith is not an “alien” under the law. People, like her, born in the U.S. territory of American Samoa are the only remaining individuals recognized as “non-citizen U.S. nationals,” a unique status that falls short of “citizen” but nonetheless recognizes that American Samoa has been part of the United States for over 125 years.   All evidence indicates that Ms. Smith believed that, as a non-citizen U.S. national, she was eligible to vote in local elections when she registered to vote. In fact, local election officials encouraged her to check the box labeled U.S. citizen when she registered, given the fact that there was no option for U.S. national.   Our amicus brief urges Alaska’s Court of Appeals to dismiss Tupe Smith’s indictment because of well-settled principles that election-crime statutes should be construed to avoid punishing innocent mistakes. Separately, we warn that upholding a different view of the law would make Alaska an outlier among the states.
Smith V. State Of Alaska (amicus). Explore Case.
With and American flag in the background, four people in the act of voting, stand behind voter booths as they make their selections.
Montana
Sep 2025

Fighting Voter Suppression

Montana Federation of Public Employees v. Montana

Representing Western Native Voice and four sovereign tribal nations in Montana, the Ƶ, Ƶof Montana, and Native American Rights Fund (NARF) challenged the latest in a line of Montana laws that hinder Native American participation in the state’s electoral process — SB 490, which drastically limits access to Election Day voter registration (EDR) in Montana. These laws violate a number of provisions in the Montana Constitution: the right to vote, equal protection, and due process.
Explore case
Montana Federation Of Public Employees V. Montana. Explore Case.
Montana
Sep 2025
With and American flag in the background, four people in the act of voting, stand behind voter booths as they make their selections.

Fighting Voter Suppression

Montana Federation of Public Employees v. Montana

Representing Western Native Voice and four sovereign tribal nations in Montana, the Ƶ, Ƶof Montana, and Native American Rights Fund (NARF) challenged the latest in a line of Montana laws that hinder Native American participation in the state’s electoral process — SB 490, which drastically limits access to Election Day voter registration (EDR) in Montana. These laws violate a number of provisions in the Montana Constitution: the right to vote, equal protection, and due process.
Montana Federation Of Public Employees V. Montana. Explore Case.
A volunteer prepares "I Voted" stickers at a polling station.
Iowa
Aug 2025

Fighting Voter Suppression

Selcuk v. Pate

Just two weeks out from the November 2024 presidential election, Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate issued a directive to county clerks to challenge more than 2,000 voters at the polls on Election Day and force them to vote a provisional ballot that will count only if the voter can prove their citizenship. The Secretary’s list of more than 2,000 voters does not adequately account for Iowans who have recently become U.S. citizens through naturalization, and thus risks disenfranchising scores of eligible voters based on national origin. The Secretary’s eleventh-hour gambit violates several provisions of the U.S. Constitution and federal law, and we have thus filed emergency suit to enjoin the directive.
Explore case
Selcuk V. Pate. Explore Case.
Iowa
Aug 2025
A volunteer prepares "I Voted" stickers at a polling station.

Fighting Voter Suppression

Selcuk v. Pate

Just two weeks out from the November 2024 presidential election, Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate issued a directive to county clerks to challenge more than 2,000 voters at the polls on Election Day and force them to vote a provisional ballot that will count only if the voter can prove their citizenship. The Secretary’s list of more than 2,000 voters does not adequately account for Iowans who have recently become U.S. citizens through naturalization, and thus risks disenfranchising scores of eligible voters based on national origin. The Secretary’s eleventh-hour gambit violates several provisions of the U.S. Constitution and federal law, and we have thus filed emergency suit to enjoin the directive.
Selcuk V. Pate. Explore Case.
With and American flag in the background, four people in the act of voting, stand behind voter booths as they make their selections.
Pennsylvania
Aug 2025

Fighting Voter Suppression

Eakin v. Adams County Board of Elections (Amicus)

In November 2022, thousands of Pennsylvania voters were denied the right to vote based on a meaningless paperwork error. They filled out their mail ballots, signed the form on the outer return envelope, and returned their ballots on time. Yet their ballots were not counted, because they either forgot to write the date on their return envelope, or they accidentally wrote the wrong date. We're fighting to make sure that every vote counts
Explore case
Eakin V. Adams County Board Of Elections (amicus). Explore Case.
Pennsylvania
Aug 2025
With and American flag in the background, four people in the act of voting, stand behind voter booths as they make their selections.

Fighting Voter Suppression

Eakin v. Adams County Board of Elections (Amicus)

In November 2022, thousands of Pennsylvania voters were denied the right to vote based on a meaningless paperwork error. They filled out their mail ballots, signed the form on the outer return envelope, and returned their ballots on time. Yet their ballots were not counted, because they either forgot to write the date on their return envelope, or they accidentally wrote the wrong date. We're fighting to make sure that every vote counts
Eakin V. Adams County Board Of Elections (amicus). Explore Case.
45
6
78...