ACLU of Nevada Statement on Election Results

BIRMINGHAM, AL – A federal court has ruled after a full trial that Alabama’s 2023 congressional map not only violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act but was enacted by the Alabama Legislature with racially discriminatory intent. This ruling establishes that the Alabama congressional map must include two districts where Black voters have the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice (like the map ordered by the court in October 2023) for the remainder of the decade. The court-ordered map used in the 2024 elections resulted in Alabama electing two Black representatives to Congress for the first time in history. The court’s decision follows a series of legal challenges where a group of voters argued that Alabama’s congressional districts violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting Black voting power. The Supreme Court agreed in a 2023 ruling that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on that claim, and in its decision in Allen v. Milligan, mandated the creation of a second opportunity district that resulted in the current map. Despite these previous decisions, Alabama insisted on a full trial of the case, and once again the Court ruled against its congressional map as unfairly harming Black voters. This time, however, also ruled that Alabama had intentionally discriminated against its Black citizens in enacting the map. The case was originally brought in November 2021 on behalf of Evan Milligan, Khadidah Stone, Letetia Jackson, Shalela Dowdy, Greater Birmingham Ministries, and the Alabama State Conference of the NAACP who are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Alabama, Legal Defense Fund, Hogan Lovells LLP, and Wiggins, Childs, Pantazis, Fisher & Goldfarb. “This win is a testament to the dedication and persistence of many generations of Black Alabamians who pursued political equality at great cost. We stand on the shoulders of our predecessors. We know that all Alabamians will benefit from today’s victory just as we have benefited from the work of others. We hope our win will benefit Black voters in the rest of the country as well. This is a triumph for voting rights, an independent judiciary, and offers us hope for the future of our democracy,” a joint comment from plaintiffs of the case. “The court has once again recognized that in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act,” said Davin Rosborough, deputy director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, "it is essential that Alabama’s congressional map have two opportunity districts for Black voters.” “Today’s decision is a testament to the persistence and resilience of Black voters in Alabama, including our clients,” said Deuel Ross, deputy director of litigation at the Legal Defense Fund. “Alabama’s unprecedented defiance of the Supreme Court and the lower court orders harkens back to the darkest days of American history. The court’s ruling reaffirms the rule of law and the importance of protecting the fundamental right to vote of Black Alabamians in the Black belt and all Americans.” "This ruling is not just a legal win — it’s an overdue acknowledgment of Alabama lawmakers' persistent attempts to shut out Black voters from the electoral process,” said Laurel Hattix, senior attorney at the ACLU of Alabama. “For decades, Black Alabamians have organized and fought for not just their voting rights, but the voting rights of all Americans. Today, the courts have affirmed what Black voters have long known: fair representation is not optional — it’s a right.” Read the court's ruling here: https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2025/05/490-FOF-COL-Injunction.pdf

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, a federal court judge issued a ruling in League of Women Voters et. al. v. Trump et. al., temporarily blocking the U.S. Election Assistance Commission from implementing a mandate in the president’s executive order to add a requirement to show a passport or similar document proving citizenship when registering to vote via the federal form. While the case proceeds, this injunction preserves the status quo wherein would-be-voters already affirm under penalty of perjury that they are U.S. citizens on the federal form. Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, released the following statement: “President Trump's attempt to impose a documentary proof of citizenship requirement on the federal voter registration form is an unconstitutional abuse of power. If implemented, it would place serious and unnecessary burdens on everyday Americans and strain already overburdened election officials. This executive order is part of a broader attack on our democratic elections by promoting baseless nativist conspiracy theories. Today, the court blocked a key strategy of this attack. And we will keep fighting to ensure every eligible voter can make their voice heard without interference or intimidation." The ACLU and co-counsel partners representing the League of Women Voters plaintiffs also made the following joint statement in reaction to the preliminary injunction: “The court’s decision today provides crucial protections for eligible voters, and the organizations that help them register to vote, while the fight continues against this illegal executive order. Millions of U.S. citizens lack easy access to a passport or other documents proving citizenship, and that shouldn’t interfere with their ability to register to vote. “The president’s attempted takeover of federal elections is a blatant overreach to seize power that doesn’t belong to him. Under the Constitution, that power belongs to the U.S. Congress and states. The president lacks authority to rewrite the country’s election rules on his own by weaponizing an independent, bipartisan commission to harm eligible voters. The order should ultimately be struck down. “Our clients are conducting voter registration using the federal form on an ongoing basis, including for elections scheduled for this summer and fall. Not only would our clients be harmed by the mandate to include this unnecessary and cumbersome requirement but the voters they serve would be too.” The plaintiffs in League of Women Voters et. al. v. Trump et. al. are Asian and Pacific Islander American Vote,  Hispanic Federation, National League of Women Voters, League of Women Voters of Arizona, League of Women Voters Education Fund, NAACP, and OCA – Asian Pacific American Advocates. They are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of D.C., Asian Americans Advancing Justice – AAJC (Advancing Justice – AAJC), Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, the Legal Defense Fund, and LatinoJustice PRLDEF. See a copy of the ruling here: https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2025/04/2025-04-24-Memorandum-Opinion-dckt-104_0-1.pdf

Congressman Darrell Issa sued to prevent California from counting mail ballots postmarked by election day and received within the following seven days, consistent with California law. If successful, literally hundreds of thousands of Californians will be disenfranchised at each election. The ACLU and its three California affiliates have sought to intervene in the case on behalf of the League of Women Voters of California to ensure that California voters are able to have their ballots counted consistent with state procedures.

JACKSON, Miss. — A federal court yesterday ruled that remedial state Senate maps passed by the Legislature earlier this year still do not remedy unlawful vote dilution in the DeSoto County area. New maps for the area will now be ordered into place by the court in advance of special elections set for November 2025. In March, the Mississippi Legislature proposed new legislative maps intended to comply with a 2024 federal court order to create additional legislative districts “in which Black voters have an opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.” The court order came after a group of plaintiffs, including the State Conference of the NAACP and individual Black voters from across the state, successfully proved at trial that the state House and Senate maps enacted after the 2020 Census diluted Black voting strength in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The court directed lawmakers to enact three remedial districts in the DeSoto County and Hattiesburg areas in the state Senate, and the Chickasaw and Monroe County area in the state House. Representing the plaintiffs, a coalition including the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, the ACLU of Mississippi, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Mississippi Center for Justice, and attorney Carroll Rhodes filed partial objections to the Legislature’s remedial plans as to the lines in the DeSoto County area and the Chickasaw/Monroe County area. The court’s decision accepted the Legislature’s remedial plans in the Hattiesburg area (which plaintiffs did not challenge) and in the Chickasaw/Monroe County area, but sustained plaintiffs’ objections in DeSoto County. Plaintiffs submitted alternative plans for the Senate districts in the DeSoto County area which the court will now consider as a potential remedy. The court also gave the state defendants seven days to propose their own alternative remedial map for the area. The following is reaction to the court ruling: “This is an important win for Black voters in the DeSoto County area, who deserve nothing less than a fully equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice,” said Ari Savitzky, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project. “The court’s decision makes that possible. We will keep fighting to enforce voters’ rights under the Voting Rights Act.” “The court rightly rejected the proposed DeSoto County senate districts. The Mississippi Legislature’s attempt to skirt the law would have actually diminished Black voting power in the northwest corner of the state.” Jarvis Dortch, executive director of the ACLU of Mississippi. “Our goal in this case is to achieve fair representation for Black people in Mississippi. This ruling striking down the state’s legislative map for DeSoto County takes an important step toward that goal. The court gave the state another chance to get its map right. We will carefully review the state’s new map to ensure that it enables Black voters to participate fully in the political process and to elect candidates of their choice,” said Jennifer Nwachukwu, senior counsel from the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. The ruling is here.