Voting Rights
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.
Status: Ongoing
View Case
Learn About Voting Rights
Featured
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.
Missouri
Sep 2025
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
Aug 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 this dilutes the voting strength of Black residents in state Supreme Court elections, in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution.
Louisiana
Aug 2025
Voting Rights
Nairne v. Landry
Nairne v. Landry poses a challenge under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to Louisiana’s House and Senate legislative maps on behalf of plaintiff Black voters and Black voters across the state.
All Cases
168 Voting Rights Cases
Texas
Nov 2025
Voting Rights
League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) v. Texas (Amicus)
In August 2025, during a special session called to further gerrymander Texas’s congressional map, the State’s legislature passed a districting plan that weakens electoral opportunities for Black and Hispanic voters. Along with other partner civil rights and racial justice organizations, the ACLU and ACLU of Texas have filed an amicus brief in federal court to support plaintiffs challenging Texas's new maps. Our brief argues that Texas’ justifications for mid-decade redistricting are baseless and emphasizes that lawmakers cannot augment their political power by intentionally harming Black and Hispanic voters.
Explore case
Texas
Nov 2025
Voting Rights
League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) v. Texas (Amicus)
In August 2025, during a special session called to further gerrymander Texas’s congressional map, the State’s legislature passed a districting plan that weakens electoral opportunities for Black and Hispanic voters. Along with other partner civil rights and racial justice organizations, the ACLU and ACLU of Texas have filed an amicus brief in federal court to support plaintiffs challenging Texas's new maps. Our brief argues that Texas’ justifications for mid-decade redistricting are baseless and emphasizes that lawmakers cannot augment their political power by intentionally harming Black and Hispanic voters.
North Carolina
Nov 2025
Voting Rights
North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. Berger
In 2023, North Carolina legislators enacted a congressional map that diluted the voice and voting power of Black North Carolinians. Plaintiffs sued to enjoin that map. After a trial on the merits, North Carolina engaged in unprecedented mid-decade redistricting to target Black voters in Congressional District 1.
Explore case
North Carolina
Nov 2025
Voting Rights
North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. Berger
In 2023, North Carolina legislators enacted a congressional map that diluted the voice and voting power of Black North Carolinians. Plaintiffs sued to enjoin that map. After a trial on the merits, North Carolina engaged in unprecedented mid-decade redistricting to target Black voters in Congressional District 1.
California
Nov 2025
Voting Rights
United States v. Page
Representing the League of Women Voters of California, the League of Women Voters of Orange Coast, and the League of Women Voters of North Orange County, the ACLU Voting Rights Project, ACLU of Northern California, and ACLU of Southern California have filed a motion to intervene in a federal lawsuit over the federal government’s demand that Orange County, California turn over unredacted voter information, including voters’ sensitive personal data such as drivers’ license numbers and partial social security numbers.
Explore case
California
Nov 2025
Voting Rights
United States v. Page
Representing the League of Women Voters of California, the League of Women Voters of Orange Coast, and the League of Women Voters of North Orange County, the ACLU Voting Rights Project, ACLU of Northern California, and ACLU of Southern California have filed a motion to intervene in a federal lawsuit over the federal government’s demand that Orange County, California turn over unredacted voter information, including voters’ sensitive personal data such as drivers’ license numbers and partial social security numbers.
New Hampshire
Nov 2025
Voting Rights
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
New Hampshire
Nov 2025
Voting Rights
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.
Florida
Oct 2025
Voting Rights
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
Florida
Oct 2025
Voting Rights
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.