ÌÒ×ÓÊÓƵ

Representing itself and two journalists from Lawfare, the ÌÒ×ÓÊÓƵ brought a lawsuit to enforce Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests made to the Social Security Administration and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services regarding changes made to the SAVE program, which has been touted as being used by states in order to remove voters from the registration rolls. While the government made public statements about the SAVE program being updated, the details of those changes, such as the particular programs and databases that have been altered, the ways they have been altered, and the nature and extent of any use and sharing of individuals’ personal information by the federal agencies entrusted with that information, have all been kept secret.

Congressman Darrell Issa sued to prevent California from counting mail ballots postmarked by election day and received within the following seven days, consistent with California law. If successful, literally hundreds of thousands of Californians will be disenfranchised at each election. The ÌÒ×ÓÊÓƵand its three California affiliates have sought to intervene in the case on behalf of the League of Women Voters of California to ensure that California voters are able to have their ballots counted consistent with state procedures.

Congressman Michael Bost brought suit trying to prevent Illinois from counting mail ballots that are voted by election day and received within the following fourteen days, consistent with Illinois law. The Seventh Circuit ruled that Congressman Bost lacks standing to sue. Bost sought certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court on the question whether he has standing as a federal candidate to bring his lawsuit and have it decided on the merits.   While the ÌÒ×ÓÊÓƵstrongly opposes Congressman Bost’s position on the merits and has repeatedly defended similar state laws from challenge, the rules that determine whether Bost has standing to even bring his anti-voter lawsuit also apply to civil rights groups when they bring suit to expand or protect the rights of voters.

In Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment, the 8th Circuit became the first federal appeals court to rule that private plaintiffs cannot enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In doing so, the court left open the question whether private plaintiffs could enforce Section 2 through an alternative civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In this case, a divided panel on the 8th Circuit has held that plaintiffs may not use Section 1983, either. If the holding stands, Section 2 of the VRA will be functionally out of reach for voters across the 8th Circuit in Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. On behalf of the NAACP Arkansas State Conference and the Arkansas Public Policy Panel, the ÌÒ×ÓÊÓƵand ÌÒ×ÓÊÓƵof Arkansas has filed a brief supporting the plaintiffs' request that the full Eighth Circuit rehear and correct this decision.

Virginia permanently disenfranchises all people with felony convictions unless the governor restores their rights. This lawsuit—brought by the ÌÒ×ÓÊÓƵof Virginia and co-counsel partners—argues that the policy violates the Readmissions Act of 1870, which bars Virginia from denying the vote based on convictions that didn’t exist at common law in 1870. The state tried to dismiss the case by invoking sovereign immunity, but the courts rejected that argument. Now, the case moves forward with the potential to restore voting rights to thousands of Virginians.