ACLU Comment on House Vote of the Electoral Count Act

ANNAPOLIS, Md. — A federal court today rejected the U.S. Department of Justice’s attempt to force Maryland election officials to turn over the state’s unredacted voter registration file, protecting the sensitive personal information of millions of Maryland voters. The ruling is the ninth rejection by courts of the DOJ’s nationwide campaign to obtain states’ voter registration databases, including voters’ dates of birth, residential addresses, driver’s license numbers, and partial Social Security numbers. The court found that federal law does not authorize the government’s sweeping demand for Maryland’s confidential voter data. The case, United States v. DeMarinis, arose after the DOJ sued Maryland in December 2025 seeking access to the state’s complete voter file. The lawsuit was part of a broader effort by the DOJ to obtain similar records from states across the country despite significant privacy concerns and the absence of clear congressional authorization for such a database. Maryland voters, Common Cause, and Out for Justice, Inc, intervened in the case, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of Maryland, to defend voters’ privacy rights and challenge the federal government’s unprecedented request. “Martin Luther King Jr. once said the greatest march an American can take in a democracy is a march to the ballot box. Today’s decision reaffirms that this march is essential, and that no administration can place obstacles in the path of those who choose to take it,” said Carl Snowden, a voter intervenor and convener of the Caucus of African American Leaders. “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 Marylanders where they belong,” said Joanne Antoine, Common Cause’s Maryland Executive Director. The remaining counsel and plaintiff organizations released the following joint statement: “This is a victory for every Marylander who wants to participate in democracy without fear. The DOJ sought access to some of the most sensitive information Maryland voters possess while refusing to explain why it needed that data or what it planned to do with it, in an effort to intimidate eligible voters and build an unprecedented and unlawful national voter database. We will continue fighting efforts by the federal government to weaponize voter data that threatens voter privacy, chills participation, and undermines trust in our democracy.” Read the court’s order dismissing the DOJ’s lawsuit here: https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2026/06/91-DeMarinis-Dismissal-Order.pdf

BOSTON – A federal court today ruled that nonpartisan voting rights groups could continue with their legal challenge to President Trump’s executive order restricting mail-in voting ahead of the upcoming 2026 primaries and November midterm elections. In the ruling, the court recognized that the Trump administration and U.S. Postal Service (USPS) are actively working to implement the executive order, which attempts to override state election laws, including by directing the Postal Service not to deliver certain mail ballots. In addition, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is moving to compile and distribute “citizenship lists” even though the Department of Justice’s own lawyers acknowledged in court that the lists will be underinclusive and incomplete. The executive order and current actions by DHS and USPS to implement it are confusing voters and harming voting rights groups just as they and state and local officials are preparing for the 2026 elections. Today’s ruling dealt only with a part of the federal government’s motion to dismiss the legal challenge to the executive order. The court has not yet ruled on other pending motions, including voting rights groups’ request for a preliminary injunction to block the U.S. Postal Service from carrying out the executive order. The plaintiffs and their counsel issued the following joint statement: “We are grateful the court recognized the urgency and stakes of this case and allowed our lawsuit to proceed with respect to this year’s elections. “This executive order is plainly unconstitutional, yet the U.S. Postal Service and the Department of Homeland Security are actively working to implement it. Their actions are causing chaos and interfering with the vital work that nonpartisan voting rights groups are doing to prepare for the coming elections. As we made clear in court, implementation of this order also threatens to disenfranchise untold numbers of American citizens, including elderly, disabled and student voters and voters of color who rely on mail-in balloting. “The court will now move to consider our preliminary injunction and other pending motions. And we will continue to fight to protect the millions of people who rely on mail-in voting and to ensure that every eligible voter is able to fairly cast their ballot.” The suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts by 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. These plaintiffs 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-AAJC (Advancing Justice-AAJC), and LatinoJustice PRLDEF.

One voter with cerebral palsy shares how Trump’s executive order against mail-in ballots limits voting accessibility and keeps voters with disabilities out of the election process.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Alabama a stay in the ongoing voting rights case, Milligan v. Allen, allowing Alabama to use its 2023 racially discriminatory congressional map. Last month, a three-judge district court found that the Alabama Legislature intentionally discriminated against Black voters when it enacted the 2023 map with only one district where Black voters had any opportunity to elect the candidates of their choice. The district court ordered Alabama to instead use a race-neutral map drawn by an independent special master. Alabama previously used this court-ordered map with two opportunity districts in the 2024 congressional elections. But today’s order makes it easier for Alabama to reinstate the discriminatory 2023 map for this year’s elections. “The Court’s decision allowing Alabama to use a racially discriminatory map in its congressional elections this year cannot be squared with the Constitution or Voting Rights Act,” said Davin Rosborough, deputy director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project. “Today’s ruling delays relief for voters who have already spent years fighting for an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice and to have their voices heard. We remain committed to pursuing equal opportunities in Congress for our clients and Black Alabamians. We will fight for those rights even in the face of those who continue to move the goalposts and undo our nation’s progress in realizing its promise as a multi-racial democracy.” The district court had already found, after a full trial in 2025, that Alabama’s 2023 map violated both Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution. But, in early May, the Supreme Court sent this case back to the district court to review again in light of the Supreme Court’s April decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which changed the standard under Section 2. Alabama then attempted to return to its discriminatory 2023 map, but the district court ruled that Alabama’s 2023 map still violates the Constitution, even after Callais. The stay granted today pauses that ruling for now. “The Supreme Court’s decision gives cover to Alabama and others to deliberately and openly discriminate against Black voters without fear of any consequence,” said Deuel Ross, Director of Litigation at the Legal Defense Fund. “The Court’s shameless decision to reinstate a racially discriminatory map defies any thoughtful or consistent application of the law. We will continue to throw all of our resources into the fight to ensure that Alabama voters have the fair representation that they deserve in Congress.” “Alabama's political leadership has made it absolutely clear that without protections for Black voters in place, they will not stop pursuing a congressional map that results in a delegation without Black representation-even after votes to the contrary are cast and counted,” said JaTaune Bosby Gilchrist, the executive director of ACLU of Alabama. “The Supreme Court may have granted Alabama's request, but it has not changed the facts and what we know to be true. The fight for equity and justice continues, and we will continue to show up wherever the work demands.” “When politicians are worried about staying in power, they come for Black voters first,” said the Milligan plaintiffs in a joint statement. “This effort to silence our communities through an intentionally discriminatory map cannot be permitted to stand. We deserve a fair shot at electing officials, regardless of party, who understand our lives and our goals, and are responsive to our concerns. Our fight for that opportunity is not over and we will continue to pursue all pathways to a fair map so that every Alabama voter has an equal opportunity to ensure they have a real voice in their government.” 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. The district court has set this case to be ready for re-trial no later than January 2027.