In a new federal lawsuit, Michigan Republican legislators are attempting to resurrect fringe right-wing legal theory that was rejected by the Supreme Court just three months ago. The lawsuit specifically seeks to undermine direct democracy.
These are our takeaways from oral argument in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, a congressional redistricting case before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear case that will decide fate of South Carolina’s congressional district.
The RNC and the same Republicans who promote Bank Your Vote have, and continue to, litigate and legislate against early and mail-in voting.
The fight for a second majority-Black Congressional District in Louisiana weaves its way through the courts.
We analyze amicus briefs submitted in the upcoming racial gerrymandering case out of South Carolina, Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, which will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 11.
Last month, New York Democrats put their trifecta to work when Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) signed a slate of 10 voting laws aimed at improving the state’s outdated election rules, but the much-needed improvements didn’t go unnoticed, especially by the GOP.
How do redistricting and election-related lawsuits end up before the nation’s highest court? We describe the processes through which the Court either accepts or declines to hear these cases.
There is ongoing litigation concerning the improvement of rights restoration and dismantling of felony disenfranchisement in five states. Currently, there are an estimated 4.6 million people prevented from participating in the electoral process.
A case from 2016, Pico Neighborhood Association v. Santa Monica, is putting the California Voting Rights Act to work.