Four Bad Voter Suppression Measures We Have to Kill in Four Months

CONCORD, N.H. - Last night, the federal court in New Hampshire struck down the state’s anti-voter law enacted in 2024, declaring it unconstitutional. The law, known as HB 1569, created some of the strictest registration requirements in the nation and, among other things, required documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration. A broad coalition of voting rights groups and individual voters challenged HB 1569’s creation of needless barriers to voting, including its removal of the ability for eligible voters to register by attesting to their citizenship under penalty of perjury on a sworn affidavit. In addition to declaring the law unconstitutional, the Court blocked its use in all future elections, including the 2026 midterms and September primary. “Today’s ruling is a victory for all Granite State voters. New Hampshire’s elections have always been safe, secure, and accurate – and this law could have unconstitutionally and needlessly prevented thousands of eligible voters from casting a ballot,” said Henry Klementowicz, deputy legal director of the ACLU of New Hampshire. “Making it harder to vote is a clear attack on one of our most fundamental of rights, and this law is consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs.” The lawsuit was filed by the ACLU of New Hampshire, American Civil Liberties Union, and Ropes & Gray LLP, on behalf of plaintiffs the Coalition for Open Democracy, the League of Women Voters of New Hampshire, The Forward Foundation, and several individual voters. This case was consolidated with a separate lawsuit brought by New Hampshire Youth Movement. According to the Court’s decision, the law "constitutes an unjustifiable burden on the right to vote in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments,” “does little, if anything, to further the state’s interests,” and also “violates voters’ rights to procedural due process.” Despite the proven accuracy, reliability, and security of New Hampshire’s elections, HB 1569—which was signed into law by former Governor Chris Sununu in 2024— made fundamental changes to the state's election law that violate the First and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. “While we witness escalating attacks on voting rights nationwide, New Hampshire’s HB 1569 represented yet another substantial barrier to the ballot box,” Jacob van Leer, staff attorney with the national ACLU’s Voting Rights Project. “As federal and state leaders across the country seek to impose restrictive and unnecessary documentary proof requirements for voting, our win sends a clear message that such attempts to undermine our elections will not succeed.” HB 1569 required documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration — documents like a passport or birth certificate, which many people do not have or cannot easily access — making it materially harder, if not impossible, for thousands of New Hampshire citizens to exercise their right to vote. The Court’s decision is in line with other federal courts that have weighed in on this issue previously. For instance, federal courts struck down a similar Kansas law, which imposed a proof of citizenship requirement for state and federal elections, as violating both the U.S. Constitution and National Voter Registration Act of 1993. “This decision sends a clear message that constitutional rights do not end when voting begins,” said Marcia Johnson, chief of activation and justice for the League of Women Voters. “Eligible voters should not be denied access to voting because of burdensome and unnecessary requirements. At a time when new barriers to voter registration are being enacted across the country, this ruling affirms that protecting elections and protecting voters’ rights are not competing goals. The League of Women Voters is proud to stand with New Hampshire voters, and we will continue building a democracy where every eligible voter can participate freely, fairly, and with confidence. “This decision is a victory for New Hampshire voters and for the fundamental freedom to vote,” said Liz Tentarelli, president, League of Women Voters of New Hampshire. “Granite Staters deserve a system that makes it possible for eligible voters to participate without unnecessary hurdles or confusion. The League of Women Voters of New Hampshire will continue working to ensure our elections remain accessible, fair, and secure for everyone.” “This court decision is a victory for every Granite State voter and their ability to vote in this year’s primary and midterm elections,” said Olivia Zink, executive director of Open Democracy NH. “This is especially important for eligible soon-to-be voters who are graduating high school this year, registering to vote for the first time, and who may not have a copy of their birth certificate. This decision ensures they retain access to the ballot.” The court's decision can be read here: https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2026/05/NH-trial-order.pdf

Today, the three-judge district court in Milligan v. Allen again blocked Alabama from using a 2023 congressional map that the court found was “tainted by intentional race-based discrimination.” The order reinstates the court’s remedial map with two Black opportunity districts, which Alabama used in the 2024 elections and the May 2026 primary elections. Two weeks ago, Alabama attempted to return to its discriminatory 2023 map after the Supreme Court sent the case back to the district court to review again in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais. In its ruling, the district court again sided with the Milligan plaintiffs in finding that Alabama’s 2023 map violates the Constitution. The Milligan plaintiffs are the only group of plaintiffs who have succeeded on this claim. The plaintiffs in the Milligan case are Evan Milligan, Khadidah Stone, Letetia Jackson, Shalela Dowdy, Greater Birmingham Ministries, and the Alabama State Conference of the NAACP, who are represented by the Legal Defense Fund, American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Alabama, Hogan Lovells LLP, and Wiggins, Childs, Pantazis, Fisher & Goldfarb. In response, plaintiffs and counsel issued the following statement: “We are thankful that the district court has again vindicated the constitutional rights of voters in the Black Belt, and we look forward to voting under a fair map this fall. The court saw through Alabama’s blatant attempt to reinstate a race-based congressional map that the legislature deliberately enacted to deny Black voters a voice in Congress. As testimony at Friday’s hearing confirmed, state officials do not have enough time to switch maps before the August primary without spawning chaos and potentially serious errors. Rather than accept this reality, state officials have knowingly sown confusion and doubled-down on their attacks on Black voters. The court’s order today to reinstate the Milligan remedial map is a crucial victory for fair representation and brings necessary clarity to the state’s 2026 elections.” In 2021, the Milligan plaintiffs challenged a 2021 Alabama congressional map that unlawfully diluted Black political power. In 2023, the Supreme Court affirmed a lower court’s ruling striking down the 2021 map. That same year, the Alabama legislature drew another map. After weeks of trial, the district court ruled that Alabama’s 2023 map had a discriminatory result in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and that the legislature had intentionally discriminated against Black voters in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Among other evidence, the court found that the legislature intentionally set a racial target, drew districts that it knew violated the 2023 Supreme Court ruling, and explicitly sought to protect a white community based on its “French and Spanish colonial heritage” at the expense of the large Black community in Alabama’s Black Belt. In 2023 and again in 2025, the court struck down the 2023 map and ordered the use of Alabama’s current court-drawn map. This court-drawn map was used in the 2024 election, and voters have already cast ballots under it in the 2026 primary elections. This month, the Supreme Court vacated the injunction requiring the Secretary of State of Alabama to use the court-ordered map with two Black opportunity districts. Rather than rule on the case, the Supreme Court returned it to the district court to reexamine its prior decisions in light of the devastating and profoundly flawed ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, in which the court greatly weakened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In response to the Supreme Court’s actions, the Milligan plaintiffs immediately filed for a temporary restraining order and then a preliminary injunction to keep the current court-ordered map in place for 2026. The district court has set this case to be ready for re-trial no later than January 2027. Alabama state officials filed a notice to appeal to the Supreme Court.

PORTLAND, Maine – A U.S. district court today dismissed the federal government’s lawsuit demanding Maine’s unredacted voter file. The unredacted voter file includes many sensitive details about Maine voters, including birth dates, driver’s license numbers, and parts of social security numbers. The court ruled the demand for unredacted voter information – with no clear explanation for how it would be used or why it was requested – violated the language and purpose of federal voting law and state privacy law. The case, United States v. Bellows, originated in September 2025 when the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) sued the secretary of state for declining an initial request for the unredacted voter information. The ACLU of Maine filed a friend-of-the-court brief and participated in oral arguments before the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine in March 2026. The court wrote that allowing the federal government to construe the Civil Rights Act of 1960 – which was "enacted as strong medicine to address the stubborn ill of racial discrimination in voting booths across the Jim Crow South" – in this way "would take a sledgehammer to the balance Congress struck when it required states to create and maintain computerized lists of registered voters in the first place." The court also noted it could not "turn a blind eye to traditional principles of federalism and how those principles have found expression in American elections.” Federal voting rights laws, such as the National Voter Registration Act and Help America Vote Act, were designed to create free, fair, and secure elections. They expanded and continue to protect voting rights for all – including communities historically targeted by voter suppression efforts – and ensure public confidence in elections. Additionally, Maine state privacy law includes robust protections to keep sensitive personal information safe. “Maine voters have shared this sensitive information so they can exercise their right to vote, but they never agreed to let the federal government access that information and ignore the law,” said Zach Heiden, chief counsel at the ACLU of Maine. “The federal government’s attempted overreach can undermine voter trust and data privacy. Eroding trust in elections can depress voter turnout and serve as the basis for patently false and dangerous claims. Our federal laws were designed to expand and protect voting rights for all. We are pleased the court has upheld Maine people’s voting and privacy rights so voters can remain confident that their personal information is secure, and our elections are free and fair.” “This ruling is yet another rejection of the Trump administration’s attempts to abuse federal power to gain access to sensitive voter data without legal justification,” said Theresa J. Lee, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project. “The Department of Justice should spend its time protecting our democracy — not enabling federal overreach or undermining trust in our elections.” DOJ has made similar demands for unredacted voter files throughout the country, and the ACLU has engaged in over 20 related cases, including United States v. Bellows. The order is available here: https://www.aclumaine.org/cases/united-states-v-bellows-protecting-sensitive-voter-data/?document=US-District-Court-Order-to-Dismiss

MADISON, Wis. — In a major victory for voters, a federal court has dismissed the Trump administration’s lawsuit — an unprecedented overreach into state election administration — seeking to force Wisconsin to hand over the complete, unredacted electronic voter registration list of every voter in the state. The ruling in United States v. Wisconsin Elections Commission ends the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) unlawful attempt to invoke a 1960 civil rights law to compel Wisconsin to turn over sensitive personal voter data, including partial Social Security numbers and driver's license numbers. State and federal laws prohibit the release of this information. Attorneys from Law Forward, the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin, and the national ACLU, represented Common Cause and a group of individual Wisconsin voters in the case. “Today’s ruling is a massive victory for voter privacy and a rejection of federal overreach. The decision ensures voters are protected from an unauthorized national database that would have been a goldmine for hackers and a tool for intimidation. Our elections remain safe, secure, and in the hands of Wisconsinites where they belong,” said Bianca Shaw, Common Cause’s Wisconsin state director. “Requiring Wisconsin to disclose this sensitive personal information despite laws prohibiting just that would have threatened the privacy of Wisconsin voters and the removal of eligible voters from voter rolls for no reason," said Doug Poland, Law Forward's director of litigation. “Federal law leaves it to states to administer their own elections, and Wisconsin already has reliable processes for maintaining its voter rolls. Given the rarity of noncitizen voting, this lawsuit, and similar efforts in other states, are thinly-masked efforts to manipulate and subvert future elections. The court recognized this as an illegal attempt to gather and weaponize data on Americans, dressed up in the language of voting rights enforcement. We will continue to stand up to the Trump administration’s illegal schemes to interfere with elections administration and erode the rights of voters in Wisconsin.” “The court today affirmed what we already know to be true: confidential voter data is protected under the law, and the DOJ can’t just unlawfully order WEC to hand over that information for political purposes,” said Ryan Cox, legal director of the ACLU of Wisconsin. “This ruling protects against federal intrusions into Wisconsin’s election system, ensures private voter data is safe from abuse, and prevents the Trump administration from playing politics with our right to vote.” “This ruling is a victory for all Wisconsin voters,” said Jonathan Topaz, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project. “To date, eight courts have issued merits rulings in the Trump administration’s cookie-cutter lawsuits demanding sensitive personal data from millions of voters across the country, and the administration has lost all eight. The administration is seeking this data for pretextual purposes as it attempts to build an illegal voter database to try to intimidate eligible voters, including in Wisconsin, and remove them from the rolls. We won't let them." The groups argued that the administration's stated rationale — routine voter list maintenance — was a pretext, and that the DOJ had already shared state voter data with election-denier advocacy groups. In a Minnesota hearing earlier this year, DOJ admitted it did not know whether the administration could use voter files to build a comprehensive database of every American who has ever voted. The brief also argued that even a valid DOJ demand would not entitle the government to unredacted records, and that courts have consistently required redactions to protect voters' constitutional rights. The Trump administration has sued 30 states and Washington, D.C., for voter lists. According to the State Democracy Research Initiative, to date, eight federal district courts have dismissed the Justice Department's suits on the merits including courts in California, Oregon, Michigan, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Arizona, and Maine. The Wisconsin federal court's decision follows those rulings, which rejected materially identical DOJ demands. The ruling is here: https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2026/05/89-Dismissal-order.pdf