ACLU Comment on Federal Appeals Court Ruling on Wisconsin Voter ID

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  

BOSTON — Plaintiffs in League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump today filed a motion to enforce a federal court order in response to the U.S. Postal Service’s (USPS) issuance of a final rule to implement Section 3 of the President’s March 2026 executive order on mail voting. The rule was effective on August 21, 2026, and makes clear that it will be implemented “immediately” for the November elections if injunctive orders against Section 3 are lifted. As Plaintiffs explain in their legal papers, this USPS rule defies a federal court order blocking the agency from “implementing” that section of the executive order and “completing rulemaking” for the November 3, 2026, election or earlier elections. The final rule is the latest development in President Trump’s broader campaign to seize sensitive voter data and exert federal control over how states administer elections. Through the Department of Justice, the administration has attacked mail voting and sought access to states’ voter files, including sensitive personal information. Through this executive order, the president is attempting to weaponize USPS to force states to violate voters’ privacy and interfere with how states administer mail voting. These actions risk the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible voters the Plaintiff organizations serve, including their members. On August 11, a federal judge in Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction blocking USPS from implementing Section 3 of the executive order for the November 2026 elections, finding that provision was likely unconstitutional. The court’s order remains in effect, and no party has sought to stay it. USPS acknowledged that injunction in its newly finalized rule, stating that unless that injunction is lifted, “it will not take actions to implement the rule specifically for the 2026 elections.” But the rule also explained that it was effective immediately precisely to ensure that it could be implemented in time for the 2026 general elections. This threat of last-minute changes to mail voting before the November elections risks widespread confusion and chaos. The lawsuit was brought by several nonpartisan voting rights groups: the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, the League of Women Voters, Association of Americans Resident Overseas (AARO), U.S. Vote Foundation, OCA - Asian Pacific American Advocates (OCA), and Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. They are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU of Massachusetts, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, Legal Defense Fund (LDF), Asian Americans Advancing Justice (Advancing Justice-AAJC), and LatinoJustice PRLDEF. Plaintiffs and counsel released the following statement: “A federal district court issued a preliminary injunction less than two weeks ago to stem the chaos caused by this executive order. By issuing this final rule, the Trump administration has flouted the court’s injunction. The final rule threatens further chaos for voters, civic organizations, and election officials by seeking to impose last-minute changes to mail voting rules. Enforcement of the court’s preliminary injunction is necessary to hold this administration accountable for its unlawful action and make clear that voters can confidently cast their mail ballot free from federal interference this November.” Read the motion filed today here: https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2026/08/190-Mem.-ISO-Pls.-Emergency-Mot.-to-Enforce-PI-Expedited-Briefing-Aug.-22-2026.pdf  

JACKSON, Miss. – A federal court denied an effort to block DeSoto County’s majority-Black judicial subdistrict from being used in the November election, preserving the only judicial district in the county that gives Black voters a meaningful opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. Following a four-day preliminary injunction hearing last week, U.S. District Judge Sharion Aycock of the Northern District of Mississippi ruled that the plaintiffs “wholly failed to carry their burden” to obtain preliminary relief and could not overcome the Supreme Court’s Purcell v. Gonzalez decision, which cautions courts against making disruptive changes to election rules close to an election. The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Mississippi, Legal Defense Fund (LDF), and NAACP represented the DeSoto County NAACP and Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. to intervene in the case last month to defend the majority-Black judicial subdistrict. The groups intervened to stop the plaintiffs who sought to eliminate the district. “The court’s decision protects DeSoto County voters from this unfounded, last-minute attempt to take away their only meaningful opportunity to participate in judicial elections,” said Ming Cheung, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project. “Callais is not a license for politicians to disempower Black voters.” “Today's ruling protected DeSoto county voters' constitutional right to fair judicial representation for this year's elections,” said Brenda Wright, Special Counsel at the Legal Defense Fund. “Those voters deserve nothing less than free and fair elections, and it was unfortunate that the opponents of these districts would try to change the rules so late in the process.” “In one of the fastest growing counties in Mississippi, where black residents make up over 30% of the county and have largely driven the population increase, black DeSoto Countians deserve like all voters a chance to elect candidates of their choice including to the Circuit and Chancery Courts,” said Joshua Tom, legal director at ACLU of Mississippi. The ruling comes as DeSoto County prepares for the November midterm elections. Black residents make up approximately 36% of the county’s population, and the county has a longstanding pattern of racially polarized voting. Most judgeships in DeSoto County are elected countywide, meaning that without the majority-Black judicial subdistrict, Black voters would lack a meaningful opportunity to elect their preferred candidates to the circuit and chancery courts. While the court’s ruling addresses the request for preliminary relief, the underlying litigation remains ongoing. The civil rights groups will continue defending the judicial district and the voting rights of DeSoto County residents.