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
99 Fighting Voter Suppression Cases
Iowa
Mar 2026
Fighting Voter Suppression
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
Fighting Voter Suppression
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.
U.S. Supreme Court
Mar 2026
Fighting Voter Suppression
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
Fighting Voter Suppression
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.
Kentucky
Mar 2026
Fighting Voter Suppression
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
Fighting Voter Suppression
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
Fighting Voter Suppression
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
Fighting Voter Suppression
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.
Georgia
Mar 2026
Fighting Voter Suppression
United States v. Raffensperger
The Department of Justice sued Georgia, demanding the state produce its full, unredacted voter file, which contains highly sensitive and personal data on every voter in the state. This suit appears to be part of the DOJ's efforts to build a national voter database without congressional authorization, improperly question the validity of state voter rolls, and intimidate eligible voters in Georgia and across the country.
Explore case
Georgia
Mar 2026
Fighting Voter Suppression
United States v. Raffensperger
The Department of Justice sued Georgia, demanding the state produce its full, unredacted voter file, which contains highly sensitive and personal data on every voter in the state. This suit appears to be part of the DOJ's efforts to build a national voter database without congressional authorization, improperly question the validity of state voter rolls, and intimidate eligible voters in Georgia and across the country.