Fighting Voter Suppression

All Cases

94 Fighting Voter Suppression Cases

Ohio Dropbox
Ohio
Feb 2026

Fighting Voter Suppression

League of Women Voters of Ohio v. LaRose

Voting-rights and civil-rights organizations filed a federal lawsuit challenging a new Ohio law that threatens to wrongly strip eligible citizens—particularly naturalized citizens—of their right to vote.   The case arises from Ohio Senate Bill 293 (SB 293), a law that mandates aggressive, automated purges of Ohio’s voter rolls based on flawed citizenship data. Under SB 293, state officials are required to conduct frequent database checks and cancel voter registrations for people flagged as “noncitizens”—often without advance notice or a meaningful opportunity to correct mistakes.   Plaintiffs brought this case to stop a system that places thousands of eligible voters at risk of disenfranchisement and undermines fundamental protections guaranteed by federal law and the U.S. Constitution.
Explore case
League Of Women Voters Of Ohio V. Larose. Explore Case.
Ohio
Feb 2026
Ohio Dropbox

Fighting Voter Suppression

League of Women Voters of Ohio v. LaRose

Voting-rights and civil-rights organizations filed a federal lawsuit challenging a new Ohio law that threatens to wrongly strip eligible citizens—particularly naturalized citizens—of their right to vote.   The case arises from Ohio Senate Bill 293 (SB 293), a law that mandates aggressive, automated purges of Ohio’s voter rolls based on flawed citizenship data. Under SB 293, state officials are required to conduct frequent database checks and cancel voter registrations for people flagged as “noncitizens”—often without advance notice or a meaningful opportunity to correct mistakes.   Plaintiffs brought this case to stop a system that places thousands of eligible voters at risk of disenfranchisement and undermines fundamental protections guaranteed by federal law and the U.S. Constitution.
League Of Women Voters Of Ohio V. Larose. Explore Case.
hand count
Georgia
Feb 2026

Fighting Voter Suppression

Pitts v. United States (Amicus)

The FBI raided Fulton County, Georgia, seizing ballots and other records from the 2020 election. This unprecedented seizure is a continuation of yearslong efforts to challenge Georgia's 2020 election results, now aided by federal law enforcement. Fulton County is fighting back, suing for the return of the records.
Explore case
Pitts V. United States (amicus). Explore Case.
Georgia
Feb 2026
hand count

Fighting Voter Suppression

Pitts v. United States (Amicus)

The FBI raided Fulton County, Georgia, seizing ballots and other records from the 2020 election. This unprecedented seizure is a continuation of yearslong efforts to challenge Georgia's 2020 election results, now aided by federal law enforcement. Fulton County is fighting back, suing for the return of the records.
Pitts V. United States (amicus). Explore Case.
NH
New Hampshire
Feb 2026

Fighting Voter Suppression

Coalition for Open Democracy v. Scanlan

This lawsuit challenges HB 1569, a new law that will make New Hampshire the only state to require every person to produce documentary proof of citizenship when they register to vote for both state and federal elections. It also challenges HB 1569’s elimination a preexisting protection for voters—namely, an affidavit option that allowed voters who faced surprise challenges to their eligibility at the polls to swear to their qualifications and cast a ballot. Accordingly, HB 1569 violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution by placing substantial burdens on New Hampshirites at all stages of the voting process, and will arbitrarily disenfranchise hundreds, if not thousands of qualified voters.
Explore case
Coalition For Open Democracy V. Scanlan. Explore Case.
New Hampshire
Feb 2026
NH

Fighting Voter Suppression

Coalition for Open Democracy v. Scanlan

This lawsuit challenges HB 1569, a new law that will make New Hampshire the only state to require every person to produce documentary proof of citizenship when they register to vote for both state and federal elections. It also challenges HB 1569’s elimination a preexisting protection for voters—namely, an affidavit option that allowed voters who faced surprise challenges to their eligibility at the polls to swear to their qualifications and cast a ballot. Accordingly, HB 1569 violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution by placing substantial burdens on New Hampshirites at all stages of the voting process, and will arbitrarily disenfranchise hundreds, if not thousands of qualified voters.
Coalition For Open Democracy V. Scanlan. Explore Case.
VT
Florida
Feb 2026

Fighting Voter Suppression

Hispanic Federation v. Byrd

Of all 50 states, Florida ranks 47th in percentage of its eligible citizens who are registered to vote. Yet, in May 2023, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed SB 7050, which bars any noncitizen — regardless of lawful residence status — from working or volunteering for third-party voter registration organizations (3PVROs) who register eligible Floridians to vote. In practice, the law imposes a $50,000 fine on a 3PVRO for each noncitizen who engages in voter-registration work on a 3PVRO’s behalf. This law would silence and put out of business countless community-based groups that rely on both citizens and noncitizens to help eligible voters in their communities participate in their democracy.
Explore case
Hispanic Federation V. Byrd. Explore Case.
Florida
Feb 2026
VT

Fighting Voter Suppression

Hispanic Federation v. Byrd

Of all 50 states, Florida ranks 47th in percentage of its eligible citizens who are registered to vote. Yet, in May 2023, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed SB 7050, which bars any noncitizen — regardless of lawful residence status — from working or volunteering for third-party voter registration organizations (3PVROs) who register eligible Floridians to vote. In practice, the law imposes a $50,000 fine on a 3PVRO for each noncitizen who engages in voter-registration work on a 3PVRO’s behalf. This law would silence and put out of business countless community-based groups that rely on both citizens and noncitizens to help eligible voters in their communities participate in their democracy.
Hispanic Federation V. Byrd. Explore Case.
South Carolina voting
South Carolina
Feb 2026

Fighting Voter Suppression

NAACP South Carolina State Conference v. Wilson

All voters with disabilities have the right to receive assistance voting from a person of their choice. South Carolina prohibits some voters with disabilities from receiving assistance and limits who voters can rely on for assistance. Voters with disabilities and the NAACP South Carolina State Conference sued to challenge those laws under Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act and protect disabled voters’ right to assistance.
Explore case
Naacp South Carolina State Conference V. Wilson. Explore Case.
South Carolina
Feb 2026
South Carolina voting

Fighting Voter Suppression

NAACP South Carolina State Conference v. Wilson

All voters with disabilities have the right to receive assistance voting from a person of their choice. South Carolina prohibits some voters with disabilities from receiving assistance and limits who voters can rely on for assistance. Voters with disabilities and the NAACP South Carolina State Conference sued to challenge those laws under Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act and protect disabled voters’ right to assistance.
Naacp South Carolina State Conference V. Wilson. Explore Case.
1
23...