Fighting Voter Suppression

All Cases

94 Fighting Voter Suppression Cases

hand count
Georgia Supreme Court
Jun 2025

Fighting Voter Suppression

Eternal Vigilance Action, Inc. v. Georgia

The ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµand partner organizations intervened in this case to represent the rights of voters and voting-rights organizations in a case challenging a number of rules passed by the Georgia State Election Board. We challenged the rule requiring that the number of votes cast be hand counted at the polling place prior to the tabulation of votes. In a critical victory for Georgia voters, in June 2025, the Georgia Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s decision permanently blocking the rule requiring hand counting of ballots at polling places before tabulation — a process widely criticized for risking delays, ballot spoliation, and voter disenfranchisement.
Explore case
Eternal Vigilance Action, Inc. V. Georgia. Explore Case.
Georgia Supreme Court
Jun 2025
hand count

Fighting Voter Suppression

Eternal Vigilance Action, Inc. v. Georgia

The ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµand partner organizations intervened in this case to represent the rights of voters and voting-rights organizations in a case challenging a number of rules passed by the Georgia State Election Board. We challenged the rule requiring that the number of votes cast be hand counted at the polling place prior to the tabulation of votes. In a critical victory for Georgia voters, in June 2025, the Georgia Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s decision permanently blocking the rule requiring hand counting of ballots at polling places before tabulation — a process widely criticized for risking delays, ballot spoliation, and voter disenfranchisement.
Eternal Vigilance Action, Inc. V. Georgia. Explore Case.
Pittsburgh
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2025

Fighting Voter Suppression

Republican National Committee v. Genser

Voters in Butler County, Pennsylvania made a mistake in voting their mail ballots in the April 2024 primary election, forgetting to use the required secrecy envelope. Because their mail ballots could not be counted, they went to the polls in Election Day and voted provisional ballots. The County later determined that it would not count their provisional ballots, and the voter’s appealed, arguing that Pennsylvania law requires that when an eligible voter attempts to vote by mail but the mail ballot is rendered void due to some defect like lacking a secrecy envelope, the eligible voter may cast a provisional ballot and have that ballot counted notwithstanding the failed attempt to vote by mail.
Explore case
Republican National Committee V. Genser. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2025
Pittsburgh

Fighting Voter Suppression

Republican National Committee v. Genser

Voters in Butler County, Pennsylvania made a mistake in voting their mail ballots in the April 2024 primary election, forgetting to use the required secrecy envelope. Because their mail ballots could not be counted, they went to the polls in Election Day and voted provisional ballots. The County later determined that it would not count their provisional ballots, and the voter’s appealed, arguing that Pennsylvania law requires that when an eligible voter attempts to vote by mail but the mail ballot is rendered void due to some defect like lacking a secrecy envelope, the eligible voter may cast a provisional ballot and have that ballot counted notwithstanding the failed attempt to vote by mail.
Republican National Committee V. Genser. Explore Case.
mail ballot
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Mar 2025

Fighting Voter Suppression

Baxter v. Philadelphia Board of Elections

Eligible Philadelphia-area voters who submitted mail ballots in the September 17, 2024 special election only to have their votes set aside because they omitted or miswrote the correct date on their outer return envelope – even though the date is not used for any purpose – sued to have their votes count. Plaintiffs urge the courts to rule that enforcing the irrelevant envelope-dating requirement to disenfranchise eligible voters violates the Pennsylvania Constitution's Free and Equal Elections Clause.
Explore case
Baxter V. Philadelphia Board Of Elections. Explore Case.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Mar 2025
mail ballot

Fighting Voter Suppression

Baxter v. Philadelphia Board of Elections

Eligible Philadelphia-area voters who submitted mail ballots in the September 17, 2024 special election only to have their votes set aside because they omitted or miswrote the correct date on their outer return envelope – even though the date is not used for any purpose – sued to have their votes count. Plaintiffs urge the courts to rule that enforcing the irrelevant envelope-dating requirement to disenfranchise eligible voters violates the Pennsylvania Constitution's Free and Equal Elections Clause.
Baxter V. Philadelphia Board Of Elections. Explore Case.
Colorado Voting
Colorado
Mar 2025

Fighting Voter Suppression

Citizens Project v. City of Colorado Springs

Colorado Springs’s unusually-timed elections suppress voter turnout—disproportionately, among the City’s Black and Hispanic population. This federal court lawsuit challenges the City’s election timing for violating our clients’ right to vote free from denial of abridgment on account of race under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Explore case
Citizens Project V. City Of Colorado Springs. Explore Case.
Colorado
Mar 2025
Colorado Voting

Fighting Voter Suppression

Citizens Project v. City of Colorado Springs

Colorado Springs’s unusually-timed elections suppress voter turnout—disproportionately, among the City’s Black and Hispanic population. This federal court lawsuit challenges the City’s election timing for violating our clients’ right to vote free from denial of abridgment on account of race under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Citizens Project V. City Of Colorado Springs. Explore Case.
PA
U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2025

Fighting Voter Suppression

Pennsylvania State Conference of the NAACP v. Schmidt

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. The Civil Rights Act prohibits states from disenfranchising voters based on immaterial paperwork error, and we're fighting to make sure that every vote counts
Explore case
Pennsylvania State Conference Of The Naacp V. Schmidt. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2025
PA

Fighting Voter Suppression

Pennsylvania State Conference of the NAACP v. Schmidt

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. The Civil Rights Act prohibits states from disenfranchising voters based on immaterial paperwork error, and we're fighting to make sure that every vote counts
Pennsylvania State Conference Of The Naacp V. Schmidt. Explore Case.
67
8
910...