With the month of October comes a spooky time in the courts. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case out of Alabama, attacks on mail-in voting are haunting courtrooms and redistricting litigation is still active.
There is a case before the U.S. Supreme Court that could change the future application of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act as we know it. How did we get to this point and what’s at stake?
They say everything’s bigger in Texas — and that includes courtroom dockets. Here, in the first entry in our new series, we round up all the voting-related cases we’re keeping an eye on in the Lone Star State.
Amicus curiae translates to “friend of the court.” After reviewing all 36 amicus briefs submitted in Merrill v. Milligan, we’re highlighting just a handful of the most insightful, provocative or compelling briefs.
On Oct. 4, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case that could fundamentally alter the landmark Voting Rights Act. In our third Voter Testimony piece, we review the post-trial briefs and transcripts from the seven-day hearing held in January in Milligan v. Merrill.
The dog days of summer are over, and now we’re turning to the fall and fast-approaching midterm elections. What does the next month look like in the voting rights world?
Racially discriminatory maps can be challenged multiple ways in court. In this Explainer, we break down the difference between racial gerrymandering and racial vote dilution claims and when you might see them in lawsuits.
The summer months may be slower, but the voting rights world is not taking a vacation this August. Democracy Docket is currently tracking 156 lawsuits across 39 states.
No redistricting process has been more fraught than Ohio. It finally has maps in place — but only for this year. In today’s piece we’re recapping what went wrong in Ohio — and what it means for the country as a whole.
In its upcoming term, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide two crucial voting rights cases that have the potential to upend our country’s current election landscape. What’s at stake as the Court places fundamental rights in limbo yet again?