Sponsors & Partners

Challenging four Wisconsin laws which, in light of the unprecedented crisis caused by the coronavirus, severely burden Wisconsin voters’ right to vote. Wisconsin’s current electronic and by-mail registration deadline requires that copies of proof of residence and voter ID accompany electronic and by-mail voter registration and absentee applications and require that absentee ballots be received by 8:00 p.m. on Election Day to be counted.

Republicans and the Trump campaign challenged Nevada’s election bill enacted in response to our Four Pillars litigation. The bill legalized ballot collection, adopted a new standard and more generous cure options for signature match, required polling locations on Nevada’s reservations, and many other voting rights expansions necessary for the 2020 general election. On behalf of the DNC, DCCC and Nevada State Democratic Party, we intervened on the side of the defendants.

On behalf of individual voters, the South Carolina Democratic Party, the DNC and the DCCC, we challenged South Carolina’s vote by mail restrictions. The state requires a witness signature on absentee ballots, does not provide pre-paid postage, and has an Election Day cut-off of not counting ballots received after 7:00 PM on Election Day. South Carolina also makes it a felony for a candidate or paid campaign staff to assist voters with returning their voted absentee ballots to elections officials. These voting hurdles, especially during the unprecedented public health crisis caused by COVID-19, disenfranchises voters in South Carolina and particularly burdens African American voters. As part of the lawsuit, South Carolina agreed to provide prepaid postage to all absentee voters in November 2020, likely saving voters over $1 million on postage in November.

Constitutional challenge to Texas’s ballot order statute, which requires that candidates of the political party of the Governor be listed first on the ballot in all elections. Expert analysis shows that the first listed candidate on the ballot receives a certain percentage of additional votes solely due to their ballot position. We contend that the statute unduly burdens the right to vote in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and treats similarly situated candidates differently without sufficient justification, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

We sued on behalf of individual plaintiffs, the Nevada State Democratic Party, the DNC, the DCCC and Priorities USA ahead of the June 2020 Nevada Primary Election. The Nevada Secretary of State announced this primary would be all-mail, closing every polling location except for one in each county. This plan will leave too many Nevadans without a meaningful ability to vote, as it excludes qualified voters with “inactive” status and exacerbates existing problems with Nevada’s election laws such as a ballot collection ban and signature matching rules. We voluntarily dismissed the case after the legislature responded to our litigation with a bill that addressed 100% of our case claims.

Republicans and the Trump campaign challenged Nevada’s election bill enacted in response to our Four Pillars litigation. The bill legalized ballot collection, adopted a new standard and more generous cure options for signature match, required polling locations on Nevada’s reservations, and many other voting rights expansions necessary for the 2020 general election. On behalf of the DNC, DCCC and Nevada State Democratic Party, we intervened on the side of the defendants.

We sued Georgia’s Secretary of State, members of the Georgia State Election Board and all the County Board of Registration and Elections members over their persistent closure and consolidation of polling locations leading to long lines. On behalf of the DSCC and the Democratic Party of Georgia ,we asked the court to require that Georgia provide a sufficient number and equitable distribution of polling places and other election resources to prevent long lines on Election Day.

Challenging South Carolina over its requirement that individuals seeking to register to vote disclose their full nine digit Social Security Number on their voter registration applications. As a result of our lawsuit, the State has changed its position less than two months after our lawsuit was filed. The State agreed to interpret the law as only requiring the last four digits of a registrant’s social security number.

Intervening in the district court case started by the Texas Civil Rights Project to pursue Equal Protection claims against the state. The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) requires that a state allow for simultaneous application for voter registration along with motor vehicle transactions, including license renewals and change of address. For online transactions, Texas currently has a box people check that states “yes, I would like to register to vote,” but that does not actually register you. The district court found that the state has provided no interest at all to justify this law and struck it down as unconstitutional, but the victory was reversed after the plaintiffs updated their registration. Our intervention will use the entire evidentiary record already before the district court to reinstate this victory.

Constitutional challenge to a recent change in Texas law that limits the discretion of county election administrators in providing temporary early voting locations. These locations, which opened for limited hours and days during the two-week early voting period, were used to provide early voting opportunities for groups with limited access to transportation, including students. We contend that this law imposes an unconstitutional burden on the voting rights of students in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and also violates the Equal Protection Clause and Twenty-Sixth Amendment.

The Trump campaign filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of State and all county boards of elections in Pennsylvania. The lawsuit seeks to stop counties from allowing voters to submit ballots in drop boxes and counting absentee ballots that are not in a secrecy envelope or that have markings revealing the voter’s identity, political affiliation or candidate preference. Their lawsuit also seeks to permit poll watchers in all polling locations regardless of their county of residence. On behalf of Priorities USA and the Pennsylvania Alliance for Retired Americans, we intervened and filed a motion to dismiss the case.

We sued Pennsylvania on behalf of individual voters and the Pennsylvania Alliance for Retired Americans to ensure free and fair elections during the unprecedented public health crisis caused by COVID-19. While Pennsylvania recently allowed no-excuse absentee voting, voters will still encounter numerous obstacles when requesting a mail ballot. We challenged Pennsylvania on all four of our vote by mail pillars: prepaid postage, postmark date, community ballot collection and signature matching training and voter notification.

We sued on behalf of individual plaintiffs, the Nevada State Democratic Party, the DNC, the DCCC and Priorities USA ahead of the June 2020 Nevada Primary Election. The Nevada Secretary of State announced this primary would be all-mail, closing every polling location except for one in each county. This plan will leave too many Nevadans without a meaningful ability to vote, as it excludes qualified voters with “inactive” status and exacerbates existing problems with Nevada’s election laws such as a ballot collection ban and signature matching rules. We voluntarily dismissed the case after the legislature responded to our litigation with a bill that addressed 100% of our case claims.

State constitutional challenge to New Hampshire’s proof of domicile requirements that required all prospective registrants to submit proof of a verifiable act of domicile in order to register to vote, eliminated the option to submit an affidavit to establish domicile, and subjected those who register within 30 days of an election or on Election Day without proof of domicile to criminal penalties if those individuals fail to present appropriate documentation shortly after the election. We won in the NH Superior Court, and are currently opposing the appeal.

Constitutional challenge to Michigan’s signature match laws, which require election officials to reject absentee applications and ballots if they determine that the signature provided with the applications or ballot does not match the voter’s signature on file with election authorities. We contend that the signature matching process is unconstitutional because the State has not developed any uniform standards or procedures for reviewing signatures, thereby allowing elections officials throughout the state to use arbitrary and diverging criteria; election officials lack sufficient training and skill to accurately compare signatures; and the law does not require election officials to notify voters that their absentee applications or ballots have been rejected, nor does it provide voters with an opportunity to contest a wrongful rejection or cure an alleged mismatch.