Fighting Voter ID Requirements

All Cases

4 Fighting Voter ID Requirements Cases

League of Women Voters v. Brian D. Newby and the United States Election Assistance Commission
Court Case
Dec 2016

Fighting Voter ID Requirements

League of Women Voters v. Brian D. Newby and the United States Election Assistance Commission

U.S. Election Assistance Commission Executive Director Brian D. Newby’s action to allow three states to require documentary proof of citizenship on the federal voter registration form is illegal, argued the League of Women Voters of the United States, along with its Alabama, Georgia, and Kansas state Leagues, and others in a suit filed today in federal court.
Explore case
League Of Women Voters V. Brian D. Newby And The United States Election Assistance Commission. Explore Case.
Court Case
Dec 2016
League of Women Voters v. Brian D. Newby and the United States Election Assistance Commission

Fighting Voter ID Requirements

League of Women Voters v. Brian D. Newby and the United States Election Assistance Commission

U.S. Election Assistance Commission Executive Director Brian D. Newby’s action to allow three states to require documentary proof of citizenship on the federal voter registration form is illegal, argued the League of Women Voters of the United States, along with its Alabama, Georgia, and Kansas state Leagues, and others in a suit filed today in federal court.
League Of Women Voters V. Brian D. Newby And The United States Election Assistance Commission. Explore Case.
Wisconsin
Dec 2016

Fighting Voter ID Requirements

Frank v. Walker: Fighting Voter Suppression in Wisconsin

Wisconsin’s voter ID law is one of the harshest in the country and requires voters to produce one of a few specified forms of photo identification in order to vote. This restriction imposes a substantial burden on the right to vote by requiring photo identification that many voters do not have, and that many voters cannot easily obtain, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. In addition, the Wisconsin voter ID law violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits the use of voting practices that have a negative impact on racial and language minorities. The law has a disproportionate impact on black and Latino voters, who are twice as likely to lack photo ID accepted for voting in Wisconsin compared to white voters.
Explore case
Frank V. Walker: Fighting Voter Suppression In Wisconsin. Explore Case.
Wisconsin
Dec 2016

Fighting Voter ID Requirements

Frank v. Walker: Fighting Voter Suppression in Wisconsin

Wisconsin’s voter ID law is one of the harshest in the country and requires voters to produce one of a few specified forms of photo identification in order to vote. This restriction imposes a substantial burden on the right to vote by requiring photo identification that many voters do not have, and that many voters cannot easily obtain, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. In addition, the Wisconsin voter ID law violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits the use of voting practices that have a negative impact on racial and language minorities. The law has a disproportionate impact on black and Latino voters, who are twice as likely to lack photo ID accepted for voting in Wisconsin compared to white voters.
Frank V. Walker: Fighting Voter Suppression In Wisconsin. Explore Case.
Veasey v. Abbott
Court Case
Jul 2016

Fighting Voter ID Requirements

Veasey v. Abbott

The ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµfiled an amicus brief in Veasey v. Abbott, a case that challenges Texas’s voter ID law. The district court struck down the law, finding that the law was passed with a discriminatory purpose, creates an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, and disproportionately burdens Latino and African-American voters.
Explore case
Veasey V. Abbott. Explore Case.
Court Case
Jul 2016
Veasey v. Abbott

Fighting Voter ID Requirements

Veasey v. Abbott

The ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµfiled an amicus brief in Veasey v. Abbott, a case that challenges Texas’s voter ID law. The district court struck down the law, finding that the law was passed with a discriminatory purpose, creates an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, and disproportionately burdens Latino and African-American voters.
Veasey V. Abbott. Explore Case.