Voting Rights Act Still Crucial in Post-Obama America

South Dakota enacted a law in March 2026 that requires new voters to provide unnecessary documentation of their U.S. citizenship when registering to vote. The state has rushed implementation of the law, and in doing so, trampled over voters’ rights: South Dakota officials have imposed burdens above and beyond what the statute requires and have failed to give voters accurate information about their registration status or opportunities to fix any issues. The League of Women Voters of South Dakota and Jaysen Hill, an individual voter, have challenged the state’s administration of its new requirement, seeking to ensure the state complies with federal law.

BOSTON — This evening, a federal court granted voting rights organizations’ emergency request to block the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) from implementing the newly-finalized mail ballot rule for the November midterm elections. That rule would assign USPS an unprecedented and illegal gatekeeping role in the administration of mail voting, and jeopardize the delivery of mail-in ballots to many voters. The plaintiffs in this case, League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump, are the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, League of Women Voters, Association of Americans Resident Overseas, U.S. Vote Foundation, OCA – Asian Pacific American Advocates, and Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. They are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Massachusetts, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, Legal Defense Fund, Asian Americans Advancing Justice – AAJC, and LatinoJustice PRLDEF. In response to the Court’s order, counsel and plaintiffs released the following statement: “The Administration previously dismissed plaintiffs’ ongoing harms from the executive order as speculative, but the newly finalized rule confirmed what plaintiffs have been saying all along. The Rule implements the Executive Order’s unprecedented attempt to usurp electoral authority from the states and Congress at the expense of voters. We welcome the court’s order, which recognized the immediate need to protect the entire electorate from the damaging impacts of this unlawful final rule in the lead up to November’s general elections. This is an important step towards affirming the public’s confidence in the system of mail ballots, which thousands of eligible voters nationwide rely on as a core method of democratic participation.” On Aug. 11, 2026, the court issued an order in League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump, blocking USPS from implementing Section 3 of the executive order, regulating mail voting, for the upcoming Nov. 3 midterm elections. On Aug. 24, 2026, the Supreme Court stayed a different court order issued in the separate Trump v. California case blocking the implementation of the executive order, reasoning that it was premature for the California plaintiffs to bring that case before USPS issued a final rule implementing the order. On Aug. 26, 2026, the district court vacated the injunction in League of Women Voters of Massachusetts based on the Supreme Court’s stay decision, but allowed plaintiff organizations to amend their complaint to reflect the fact that USPS has now issued the final mail ballot rule. Plaintiff organizations then supplemented their original complaint to do exactly that, adding challenges to the newly finalized mail ballot rule and seeking immediate emergency relief on those claims. In their papers, the plaintiff organizations argued that USPS’ newly-finalized mail ballot rule violates the Constitution’s separation of powers, which put the states and Congress in charge of election rules, not USPS or the president. The final rule also violates a number of the laws that govern how USPS operates. The plaintiffs sought emergency relief because these violations are causing irreparable harm to plaintiff organizations, their members, and the voters they serve each day that USPS is allowed to proceed with the new mail ballot rule, which is all the more severe as there are now fewer than 70 days before the November midterm elections. Today, the court agreed that plaintiff organizations were likely to succeed in their claims that USPS lacked the authority to issue the final rule and that the final rule unconstitutionally imposed election requirements on the states. Noting that the “record continues to lack any evidence regarding fraudulent absentee or mail-in voting,” the Court emphasized, “USPS’s interest in correcting an unsubstantiated problem through likely unconstitutional means is dwarfed by the overwhelming risk of pervasive disenfranchisement of citizens who need access to mail ballots in order to vote.” In light of this immediate and irreparable harm, the Court granted emergency relief, ordering defendants to take no steps to prepare, implement, or enforce several sections of the final rule for 14 days. In the interim, the parties will fully brief the plaintiff organizations’ request for a preliminary injunction. A hearing on that motion has been set for Sept 3, 2026. The order is available here: https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2026/08/TRO.pdf

BOSTON — Voting rights organizations today supplemented the complaint in their lawsuit challenging President Trump’s executive order restricting mail voting to add claims against the U.S. Postal Service’s (USPS) newly-finalized mail ballot rule. The groups simultaneously asked a federal court to immediately block USPS from implementing that rule for the November midterm elections. The plaintiffs in this case, League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump, are the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, League of Women Voters, Association of Americans Resident Overseas, U.S. Vote Foundation, OCA – Asian Pacific American Advocates, and Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. They are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Massachusetts, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, Legal Defense Fund, Asian Americans Advancing Justice – AAJC, and LatinoJustice PRLDEF. “USPS’s decision to rush this blatantly unconstitutional rule into effect just weeks before an election is the latest step in a rollout that has sown confusion at every turn and now threatens to disenfranchise voters who did everything right. This is chaos by design, and voters are the ones who will pay for it,” said Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project. “No administration should be able to manufacture confusion around how we vote and undermine confidence in our elections in the process. Rather than serving voters, this rule threatens access to the ballot and treats voters as collateral damage. We will continue to use every legal tool available to block this illegal power grab and ensure voters can cast mail ballots with the confidence that their votes will be counted.” On Aug. 11, 2026, the court issued an order in League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump, blocking USPS from implementing Section 3 of the executive order for the upcoming Nov. 3 midterm elections. The Supreme Court later stayed a different court order issued in the separate Trump v. California case blocking implementation of the executive order. Of note, the Supreme Court did not decide whether President Trump has the legal authority to impose these restrictions or whether the USPS rule is lawful; it simply held that it was premature for the California plaintiffs to bring that case. Earlier this afternoon, the court vacated the Aug. 11 injunction issued in League of Women Voters Massachusetts on the same narrow basis. Acknowledging that “Plaintiff Organizations have substantial arguments that might persuade the Supreme Court to reach a different result if Plaintiff Organizations have an opportunity to present them,” the court found “that in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. California, Plaintiff Organizations are not likely to prevail as to ripeness without amending their complaint to reflect the fact that a Final Rule has now issued.” Plaintiffs have now supplemented their complaint to do exactly that, adding challenges to the newly finalized mail ballot rule and seeking emergency relief on those claims immediately. In their papers, the plaintiff organizations argue that USPS’s newly-finalized mail ballot rule violates the Constitution’s separation of powers, which put the states and Congress in charge of election administration rules, not USPS or the president, as well as a number of the laws that govern how USPS operates. All of these violations are causing irreparable harm to plaintiff organizations, their members, and the voters they serve. The harm is particularly acute as there are now less than 70 days before the November midterm elections, which is why the plaintiff organizations are asking for emergency relief. After filing, counsel and plaintiffs released the following statement: “The court has already found that the executive order unconstitutionally usurps the authority of the states and Congress to regulate elections, and the newly-finalized rule eliminates any doubt about the harms stemming from these unlawful acts. Implementing the newly-finalized rule less than 70 days before the general election would dramatically impair plaintiffs’ core voter engagement work and pose a grave risk of disenfranchisement. We are asking the court for emergency relief to prevent this harm and to affirm the public’s confidence in the systems voters rely on to conduct our elections.” The filings are here: https://www.aclu.org/cases/league-of-women-voters-of-massachusetts-v-trump?document=Supplemental-Complaint#legal-documents https://www.aclu.org/cases/league-of-women-voters-of-massachusetts-v-trump?document=Memorandum-in-Support-of-Plaintiffs-Emergency-Motion-for-Temporary-Restraining-Order-and-Preliminary-Injunction

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — Today, the League of Women Voters of South Dakota (LWVSD) and an individual plaintiff, represented by Campaign Legal Center (CLC), the American Civil Liberties Union Voting Rights Project (ACLU VRP), the American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota (ACLU SD) and Heidepriem Purtell Siegel Hinrichs, LLP, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota seeking to ensure South Dakota’s administration of a new voter registration requirement complies with federal law. “South Dakota has turned a basic step in the voting process into a massive headache,” said Jake Van Leer, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project. “Voters should not have to navigate confusing instructions, track down documents, and take time out of their busy schedules just to register to vote. The state is creating unnecessary obstacles instead of making voting easier for eligible folks, and federal law requires the state to do better.” Senate Bill 175, enacted in March 2026, requires new voters to provide unnecessary documentation of their U.S. citizenship when registering to vote or otherwise lose the opportunity to vote in state and local elections. For the most common and accessible forms of this documentation — driver’s licenses, Tribal IDs and non-driver state IDs — voters must provide original copies in person. And if there is an issue with the voter’s documentation, the state sends a notice letter containing inaccurate information about why their registration was denied. Notably, this law makes voting particularly difficult in a rural state like South Dakota, where thousands of voters register by mail or voter registration drives and round-trip distances to county election offices can exceed 100 miles. The implementation of this law has not only caused confusion and created unnecessary barriers to registering to vote for South Dakotans, but it also violates federal law. “Federal law is clear: South Dakota must inform voters about documentation requirements before taking away their right to cast a ballot in state and local elections,” said Mel Neal, legal counsel for voting rights at Campaign Legal Center. “Nor can South Dakota impose immaterial requirements that make it harder for Americans to register to vote. We are asking the court to ensure that South Dakota’s new registration law is implemented in a way that complies with crucial, pro-voter provisions of federal law, so all South Dakotans can make their voices heard in this upcoming election, and all elections in the future.” "The administration of SB175 has not only effectively shut down our League’s ability to register new voters, but it has pointlessly caused voter confusion and made voting harder,” said Kathryn Johnson, president of the League of Women Voters of South Dakota. “The League will fight to continue our work to ensure that all South Dakotans can make their voices heard." “Eligible voters should not be blocked from participating in state and local elections because of unnecessary barriers in the registration process,” said Marcia Johnson, chief of activation and justice for the League of Women Voters of the United States. “When voters face confusing requirements or receive inaccurate information about their registration, the result is fewer voices being heard in our democracy. This lawsuit seeks to ensure that South Dakotans can exercise the full voting rights afforded to them under federal law.” “There is no proof of widespread voter fraud or evidence of non-citizens voting that justifies a law that imposes burdensome show-your-papers requirements for eligible voters to cast their ballots and makes it impossible for organizations like the League of Women Voters to register people to vote,” said Andrew Malone, senior staff attorney with the ACLU of South Dakota. “A robust democracy relies on fair and equal ballot access for the entire electorate. Our lawsuit aims to guarantee that South Dakota enforces its new voter registration law in compliance with federal mandates so that no one is disenfranchised from participating in our elections.” Read a copy of the complaint here: https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2026/08/LWVSD-v.-Johnson-Complaint_8.24.26.pdf