Voting Rights
League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump
On March 31, 2026, President Trump issued a sweeping Executive Order titled "Ensuring Citizen Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections," seeking once again to seize control of election administration from Congress and the states. The Order directs federal agencies to compile lists of U.S. citizens and transmit them to states before every election, directs the U.S. Postal Service -- an independent agency established by Congress -- to create a list of "approved" mail voters, and instructs USPS to refuse to deliver ballots from voters not on that federally created list. If implemented, the Order would threaten the ability of millions of eligible citizens to cast their ballots, particularly military members, overseas citizens, the elderly, recently naturalized citizens, and voters with disabilities who rely on mail voting.
Status: Ongoing
View Case
Learn About Voting Rights
Featured
Missouri
Feb 2026
Voting Rights
Wise v. Missouri
In unprecedented fashion, the State of Missouri has redrawn the district lines used for electing members of Congress for a second time this decade. These new district lines are gerrymandered and will harm political representation for all Missourians, particularly Black residents in Kansas City, who have been divided along racial lines.
Mississippi
Dec 2025
Voting Rights
White v. Mississippi State Board of Elections
District lines used to elect Mississippi’s Supreme Court have gone unchanged for more than 35 years. We’re suing because the current lines crack the Mississippi Delta and dilute the voting strength of Black Mississippians in state Supreme Court elections, in violation of the Voting Rights Act.
U.S. Supreme Court
Nov 2025
Voting Rights
Racial Justice
Allen v. Milligan
Whether Alabama’s congressional districts violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because they discriminate against Black voters. We succeeded in winning a new map for 2024 elections which, for the first time, has two congressional district that provide Black voters a fair opportunity to elect candidates of their choosing despite multiple attempts by Alabama to stop us at the Supreme Court. Despite this win, Alabama is still defending its discriminatory map, and a trial was held in February 2025 to determine the map for the rest of the decade.
In May 2025, a federal court ruled that Alabama's 2023 congressional map both violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and was enacted by the Alabama Legislature with racially discriminatory intent.
Washington, D.C.
Oct 2025
Voting Rights
League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump
On March 25, 2025, in a sweeping and unprecedented Executive Order, President Trump attempted to usurp the power to regulate federal elections from Congress and the States. Among other things, the Executive Order directs the Election Assistance Commission—an agency that Congress specifically established to be bipartisan and independent—to require voters to show a passport or other citizenship documentation in order to register to vote in federal elections. If implemented, the Executive Order would threaten the ability of millions of eligible Americans to register and vote and upend the administration of federal elections.
On behalf of leading voter registration organizations and advocacy organizations, the ACLU and co-counsel filed a lawsuit to block the Executive Order as an unconstitutional power grab.
U.S. Supreme Court
Oct 2025
Voting Rights
State Board of Election Commissioners v. Mississippi State Conference of the NAACP
Mississippi has a growing Black population, which is already the largest Black population percentage of any state in the country. Yet. Black Mississippians continue to be significantly under-represented in the state legislature, as Mississippi’s latest districting maps fail to reflect the reality of the state’s changing demographics. During the 2022 redistricting process, the Mississippi legislature refused to create any new districts where Black voters have a chance to elect their preferred representative. The current district lines therefore dilute the voting power of Black Mississippians and continue to deprive them of political representation that is responsive to their needs and concerns, including severe disparities in education and healthcare.
U.S. Supreme Court
Oct 2025
Voting Rights
Louisiana v. Callais (Callais v. Landry)
Whether the congressional map Louisiana adopted to cure a Voting Rights Act violation in Robinson v. Ardoin is itself unlawful as a gerrymander.
All Cases
198 Voting Rights Cases
New Hampshire
Mar 2026
Voting Rights
United States v. Scanlan (Amicus)
Representing the ACLU of New Hampshire and League of Women Voters of New Hampshire, the ACLU Voting Rights Project, ACLU of New Hampshire, Campaign Legal Center, and Brennan Center filed an amicus brief in a federal lawsuit over the federal government’s demand that Oregon turn over its entire voter registration rolls, including with voters’ sensitive personal data such as drivers’ license numbers and partial social security numbers.
Explore case
New Hampshire
Mar 2026
Voting Rights
United States v. Scanlan (Amicus)
Representing the ACLU of New Hampshire and League of Women Voters of New Hampshire, the ACLU Voting Rights Project, ACLU of New Hampshire, Campaign Legal Center, and Brennan Center filed an amicus brief in a federal lawsuit over the federal government’s demand that Oregon turn over its entire voter registration rolls, including with voters’ sensitive personal data such as drivers’ license numbers and partial social security numbers.
U.S. Supreme Court
Mar 2026
Voting Rights
OCA-Greater Houston v. Paxton
Texas has growing Hispanic and Black populations that helped propel record voter turnout in the November 2020 election. The Texas Legislature responded to this increased civic participation with an omnibus election bill titled Senate Bill 1—SB 1 for short—that targeted election practices that made voting more accessible to traditionally marginalized voters like voters of color, voters with disabilities, and voters with limited English proficiency. Since 2021, SB 1 has resulted in tens of thousands of lawful votes being rejected, and it remains a threat to democracy in Texas.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Mar 2026
Voting Rights
OCA-Greater Houston v. Paxton
Texas has growing Hispanic and Black populations that helped propel record voter turnout in the November 2020 election. The Texas Legislature responded to this increased civic participation with an omnibus election bill titled Senate Bill 1—SB 1 for short—that targeted election practices that made voting more accessible to traditionally marginalized voters like voters of color, voters with disabilities, and voters with limited English proficiency. Since 2021, SB 1 has resulted in tens of thousands of lawful votes being rejected, and it remains a threat to democracy in Texas.
Iowa
Mar 2026
Voting Rights
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
Iowa
Mar 2026
Voting Rights
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.
Kentucky
Mar 2026
Voting Rights
United States v. Adams
The Trump administration's Department of Justice has taken Kentucky to court in an attempt to obtain sensitive, non-public information from the state's voter registration database — including Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, dates of birth, and home addresses. This lawsuit is one of nearly three dozen similar actions filed against states across the country, and reporting suggests the underlying goal is to construct an unauthorized federal voter database and use error-prone data-matching tools to target registered voters — including naturalized citizens — for potential removal from the rolls.
Explore case
Kentucky
Mar 2026
Voting Rights
United States v. Adams
The Trump administration's Department of Justice has taken Kentucky to court in an attempt to obtain sensitive, non-public information from the state's voter registration database — including Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, dates of birth, and home addresses. This lawsuit is one of nearly three dozen similar actions filed against states across the country, and reporting suggests the underlying goal is to construct an unauthorized federal voter database and use error-prone data-matching tools to target registered voters — including naturalized citizens — for potential removal from the rolls.
New Jersey
Mar 2026
Voting Rights
United States v. Caldwell
The Department of Justice (DOJ) sued the State of New Jersey, seeking private, confidential voter data. 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
New Jersey
Mar 2026
Voting Rights
United States v. Caldwell
The Department of Justice (DOJ) sued the State of New Jersey, seeking private, confidential voter data. 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.