ACLU In Court To Block South Carolina’s Discriminatory Voter ID Law

BOSTON – A federal District Court heard arguments today in a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s March 31 executive order concerning mail-in voting. Plaintiffs argue that the order violates the U.S. Constitution and federal law and risks mass disenfranchisement of eligible voters. The Constitution makes clear that only the states and Congress can set the rules for elections. Nevertheless, the executive order attempts to override states’ mail-in voting laws by transforming the U.S. Postal Service from a neutral mail carrier into an arbiter of who may cast a ballot by mail. The order also requires the Department of Homeland Security to build and give to each state a purported list of U.S. citizens over the age of 18. Plaintiffs asked the court today for a preliminary injunction to block implementation of Section 3 of the order, which directs the Postal Service to create unlawful new rules for the transmission of mail-in ballots. 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. They are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Massachusetts, Brennan Center for Justice, Legal Defense Fund, Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC, and LatinoJustice PRLDEF. The following are statements from the plaintiffs and their legal counsel: Attorneys representing the plaintiffs: “The Constitution is clear: the states and Congress — not the p resident — set the rules for our elections. The Trump administration is attempting to seize that power for itself with an unlawful and dangerous executive order. The order is already interfering with plaintiffs' essential work helping American citizens vote. Together with our courageous clients, we’re seeking a preliminary injunction to stop further chaos in our elections, uphold the rule of law, and protect the millions of citizens who rely on mail-in voting, including people with disabilities, students, rural voters, and the elderly. We won't let the Trump administration continue to trample on the fundamental right to vote.” Marcia Johnson, chief of activation and justice, League of Women Voters: Mail voting helps millions of Americans participate in our democracy, including seniors, voters with disabilities, military families, students, caregivers, and working people. No president has the authority to unilaterally rewrite election rules or dictate how states administer their elections. The League will continue to fight for and defend every voter's freedom to make their voice heard." Celia Canavan, executive director, League of Women Voters of Massachusetts: “Massachusetts voters fought hard to secure accessible vote-by-mail options, and we are not going to stand by while those freedoms are threatened. Today's hearing made clear what is at stake. This executive order has caused significant confusion and interfered with LWVMA's critical work, and it threatens to create new obstacles to eligible voters. The League of Women Voters of Massachusetts is proud to stand alongside our partners to defend the constitutional rights and voter protections that make our democracy great.” The Association of Americans Resident Overseas: “For many Americans living abroad, voting by mail isn’t a preference, it’s the only option. President Trump’s unlawful executive order creates unnecessary complications and threatens to shut many overseas voters out of our democracy altogether. These voters are Americans and deserve to have a say. Their votes must not be thrown into doubt by reckless new rules.” U.S. Vote Foundation: “Overseas citizens, including service members and their families, are some of the most civically committed Americans. They serve our country, build networks of U.S. citizens abroad, and stay connected to their families and communities back home. The president's mail-in ballot executive order puts their fundamental right to vote at risk. Overseas and military voters add informed and relevant perspectives to our country. Their votes deserve to be protected!" OCA – Asian Pacific American Advocates: “The Asian American community is made up overwhelmingly of multilingual immigrants and New Americans. Many of us have navigated the immigration and naturalization process and know that there are a variety of situations that make our community prone to being misidentified as noncitizens. With 3 in 4 Asian Americans speaking a language other than English at home, and when a third of us have limited English proficiency, voting by mail increases access to trusted translators and is a crucial part of being able to fully participate in our democracy. We must push back against efforts that create barriers to voting, and we stand in solidarity with all the other communities represented here today.” Cheryl W. Turner, international president of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc.: “Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. has always understood voting rights as fundamental to democracy and to the full citizenship of the communities we serve and represent. This order threatens to create confusion, delay, and unlawful barriers for eligible voters who rely on mail-in voting, including seniors, voters with disabilities, students, service members, and communities that have too often had their political power challenged or denied. Delta is proud to stand with our co-plaintiffs and legal partners to defend the Constitution, protect voters, and ensure that every eligible ballot can be cast, counted and certified.”

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