Fighting Voter Suppression
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 Fighting Voter Suppression
Featured
Washington, D.C.
Oct 2025
Fighting Voter Suppression
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.
All Cases
100 Fighting Voter Suppression Cases
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2025
Fighting Voter Suppression
O'Bannon v. King
Virginia permanently disenfranchises all people with felony convictions unless the governor restores their rights. This lawsuit—brought by the ACLU of 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.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2025
Fighting Voter Suppression
O'Bannon v. King
Virginia permanently disenfranchises all people with felony convictions unless the governor restores their rights. This lawsuit—brought by the ACLU of 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.
Georgia Supreme Court
Jun 2025
Fighting Voter Suppression
Eternal Vigilance Action, Inc. v. Georgia
The ACLU and 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
Georgia Supreme Court
Jun 2025
Fighting Voter Suppression
Eternal Vigilance Action, Inc. v. Georgia
The ACLU and 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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.