Voting Rights
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Hunt
The ACLU and ACLU of Minnesota intervened as defendants to block an attempt by Minnesota Voters Alliance -- a private plaintiff group -- to challenge a law that restored voting rights to individuals convicted of a felony while they are "not incarcerated for the offense" and "including any period when they are on work release."
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View Case
Learn About Voting Rights
Featured
U.S. Supreme Court
Jul 2024
![Louisiana](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/03/Depositphotos_466919260_S-600x400.jpg)
Callais v. Landry
Whether the congressional map Louisiana adopted to cure a Voting Rights Act violation in Robinson v. Ardoin is itself unlawful as a gerrymander.
Status: Ongoing
View case
Nebraska Supreme Court
Jul 2024
![Nebraska vote](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/07/Vote-Nebraska-600x400.jpg)
Spung v. Evnen
Less than four months before the November 2024 presidential election, the Nebraska Secretary of State issued a directive embracing a non-binding opinion issued by the state Attorney General that would essentially reinstate permanent felony disenfranchisement and re-disenfranchise tens of thousands of Nebraska citizens. This directive is violative of both the Nebraska Constitution and several state statutes, and urgent relief is needed to avoid mass disenfranchisement of an entire class of Nebraska citizens.
Status: Ongoing
View case
South Carolina Supreme Court
Jul 2024
![South CArolina Supreme](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/07/GQStblrWIAAVtQW-600x315.jpg)
League of Women Voters of South Carolina v. Alexander
This case involves a state constitutional challenge to South Carolina’s 2022 congressional redistricting plan, which legislators admit was drawn to entrench a 6-1 Republican majority in the state’s federal delegation. Plaintiff the League of Women Voters of South Carolina has asked the state’s Supreme Court to conclude that the congressional map is an unlawful partisan gerrymander that violates the state constitution.
Status: Ongoing
View case
Ohio
Jul 2024
![dis](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/03/disability-600x400.jpg)
League of Women Voters of Ohio v. LaRose
In Ohio, HB 458 makes it a felony for any person who is not an election official or mail carrier to return an absentee voter's ballot—including voters with disabilities—unless the person assisting falls within an unduly narrow list of relatives. We are challenging the law because it violates Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) by making it exceedingly difficult for voters with disabilities to cast their ballots.
Status: Ongoing
View case
Mississippi
Jul 2024
![Mississippi](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/02/MS-Redistricting-Maps-Header-600x400.jpg)
Mississippi State Conference of the NAACP v. State Board of Election Commissioners
Mississippi has a growing Black population, which is already the largest Black population percentage of any state in the country. Yet. Black Mississippians continue to be significantly under-represented in the state legislature, as Mississippi’s latest districting maps fail to reflect the reality of the state’s changing demographics. During the 2022 redistricting process, the Mississippi legislature refused to create any new districts where Black voters have a chance to elect their preferred representative. The current district lines therefore dilute the voting power of Black Mississippians and continue to deprive them of political representation that is responsive to their needs and concerns, including severe disparities in education and healthcare.
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
Texas
Apr 2024
![Crystal Mason](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/03/Crystal_Mason_1160x650-600x336.png)
Crystal Mason v. State of Texas
Crystal Mason thought she was performing her civic duty by filling out a provisional ballot in the 2016 election. She didn't know it would land her a five-year prison sentence, upending her family and the life she had built. At the time, Ms. Mason was on federal supervised release, a preliminary period of freedom for individuals who have served their full time of incarceration in federal prison. Ms. Mason didn’t know, and nobody told her, that the state considered her ineligible to vote while on supervised release. Because her name didn’t appear on voter rolls, she filed a provisional ballot, consistent with federal law. The state never counted her ballot but has still sought to send her to prison for an innocent mistake.
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
Stay informed about our latest work in the courts.
By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU's privacy statement.
All Cases
125 Voting Rights Cases
Dec 2016
![League of Women Voters v. Brian D. Newby and the United States Election Assistance Commission](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
League of Women Voters v. Brian D. Newby and the United States Election Assistance Commission
U.S. Election Assistance Commission Executive Director Brian D. Newby’s action to allow three states to require documentary proof of citizenship on the federal voter registration form is illegal, argued the League of Women Voters of the United States, along with its Alabama, Georgia, and Kansas state Leagues, and others in a suit filed today in federal court.
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
![League of Women Voters v. Brian D. Newby and the United States Election Assistance Commission](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Voting Rights
League of Women Voters v. Brian D. Newby and the United States Election Assistance Commission
U.S. Election Assistance Commission Executive Director Brian D. Newby’s action to allow three states to require documentary proof of citizenship on the federal voter registration form is illegal, argued the League of Women Voters of the United States, along with its Alabama, Georgia, and Kansas state Leagues, and others in a suit filed today in federal court.
Dec 2016
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
Wisconsin
Dec 2016
![](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2019/09/blog_voterid_0.jpg)
Frank v. Walker: Fighting Voter Suppression in Wisconsin
Wisconsin’s voter ID law is one of the harshest in the country and requires voters to produce one of a few specified forms of photo identification in order to vote. This restriction imposes a substantial burden on the right to vote by requiring photo identification that many voters do not have, and that many voters cannot easily obtain, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. In addition, the Wisconsin voter ID law violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits the use of voting practices that have a negative impact on racial and language minorities. The law has a disproportionate impact on black and Latino voters, who are twice as likely to lack photo ID accepted for voting in Wisconsin compared to white voters.
View case
![](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2019/09/blog_voterid_0.jpg)
Wisconsin
Voting Rights
Frank v. Walker: Fighting Voter Suppression in Wisconsin
Wisconsin’s voter ID law is one of the harshest in the country and requires voters to produce one of a few specified forms of photo identification in order to vote. This restriction imposes a substantial burden on the right to vote by requiring photo identification that many voters do not have, and that many voters cannot easily obtain, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. In addition, the Wisconsin voter ID law violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits the use of voting practices that have a negative impact on racial and language minorities. The law has a disproportionate impact on black and Latino voters, who are twice as likely to lack photo ID accepted for voting in Wisconsin compared to white voters.
Dec 2016
View case
Kansas
Nov 2016
![Brown v. Kobach](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Brown v. Kobach
The ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging Kansas’ dual voter registration system, charging it violates the Kansas Constitution and state law.
The dual system prevents qualified Kansas voters from voting in state and local elections due solely to their method of registration. In mid-July, Secretary of State Kris Kobach received administrative approval of a temporary regulation aimed at formalizing this system, which a court has already declared violates state law.
Status: Ongoing
View case
![Brown v. Kobach](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Kansas
Voting Rights
Brown v. Kobach
The ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging Kansas’ dual voter registration system, charging it violates the Kansas Constitution and state law.
The dual system prevents qualified Kansas voters from voting in state and local elections due solely to their method of registration. In mid-July, Secretary of State Kris Kobach received administrative approval of a temporary regulation aimed at formalizing this system, which a court has already declared violates state law.
Nov 2016
Status: Ongoing
View case
Rhode Island
Sep 2016
![Davidson v. City of Cranston](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Davidson v. City of Cranston
Cranston, Rhode Island residents joined the ACLU of Rhode Island to sue the City of Cranston, charging that the 2012 redistricting plan for the City Council and School Committee violates the one person, one vote principle of the U.S. Constitution by counting incarcerated people in their prison location as if they were all residents of Cranston.
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
![Davidson v. City of Cranston](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Rhode Island
Voting Rights
Davidson v. City of Cranston
Cranston, Rhode Island residents joined the ACLU of Rhode Island to sue the City of Cranston, charging that the 2012 redistricting plan for the City Council and School Committee violates the one person, one vote principle of the U.S. Constitution by counting incarcerated people in their prison location as if they were all residents of Cranston.
Sep 2016
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
Jul 2016
![Veasey v. Abbott](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Veasey v. Abbott
The ACLU filed an amicus brief in Veasey v. Abbott, a case that challenges Texas’s voter ID law. The district court struck down the law, finding that the law was passed with a discriminatory purpose, creates an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, and disproportionately burdens Latino and African-American voters.
View case
![Veasey v. Abbott](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Voting Rights
Veasey v. Abbott
The ACLU filed an amicus brief in Veasey v. Abbott, a case that challenges Texas’s voter ID law. The district court struck down the law, finding that the law was passed with a discriminatory purpose, creates an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, and disproportionately burdens Latino and African-American voters.
Jul 2016
View case