The right to vote is the foundation of our democracy. And when it comes to protecting it, we can’t afford to let down our guard for a moment. Democrats believe our democracy works better when more people can participate, not fewer. As Republicans try to trample on our most sacred freedoms, Democrats will keep doing everything we can to end discrimination and protect the one right that preserves all others — the right to vote.

Tom Perez, DNC Chair

Arizona Signature Mismatch 

Arizona Democratic Party v. Hobbs

On behalf of the DNC, DSCC, and Arizona Democratic Party, we challenged Arizona’s failure to provide an opportunity to cure an otherwise valid mail ballot that doesn’t have a signature. The current version of Arizona’s Elections Procedures Manual treats mail in ballots differently: if a signature does not match, the voter has a cure period extending five days after the election, but if there is no signature the ballot will not be counted. We asked the state to give all vote by mail voters the same opportunity to cure a missing or mismatched signature.

Learn more about the case here.

Arizona Ballot Order

Mecinas v. Hobbs

Constitutional challenge to Arizona’s ballot order statute, which requires that candidates affiliated with the same political party as the gubernatorial candidate who won the most votes in a particular county are listed first on that county’s ballots. In practice, the statute has consistently favored Republicans, and in 2020 a full 82% of Arizonans will vote on ballots that list Republican candidates first for every partisan race. Expert analysis shows that first-listed candidates in Arizona received, on average, between a 2.2 and 4.4 percentage point average gain 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.

Learn more about the case here.

Florida Ballot Order

Jacobson v. Lee

Constitutional challenge to Florida’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 position, and in Florida, Republican Party candidates receive a 5.35 percentage point average advantage in elections in the State. 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.

Learn more about the case here.

Georgia Ballot Order

S.P.S. ex rel Short v. Raffensperger

Constitutional challenge to Georgia’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.

Learn more about the case here.

Kansas Election Reform Bill

Kansas Democratic Party v. Schwab

In 2019, Kansas passed an election reform bill that, among other things, permits out of precinct voting and creates a cure process for signature mismatch. However, this good law for voting rights was stalled when the Republican Secretary of State announced that the law will not be implemented in time for 2020.

Learn more about the case here.

Nevada Vote by Mail Federal Intervention

Paher v. Cegavske

We intervened as defendants on behalf of the Nevada State Democratic Party, DNC, DCCC, Priorities and an individual voter. Plaintiffs in this federal case are attempting to shut down the Nevada Secretary’s move to an all-mail election due to the unprecedented public health crisis caused by COVID-19. We intervened to support the Secretary’s decision to designate this an all-mail election, while still noting that the Secretary’s policy does not go far enough to protect all Nevada voters by referencing our Nevada four pillars case.

Learn more about the case here.

Nevada Four Pillars

Corona v. Cegavske

In response to the coronavirus pandemic, 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 argue that while vote by mail is necessary during this time, it must be paired with meaningful opportunities to vote safely in person and include safeguards to prevent disenfranchisement of voters like what we saw in Wisconsin’s primary election in April.

Learn more about the case here.

South Carolina Four Pillars (Federal)

Middleton v. Andino

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.

Learn more about the case here.

Texas Ballot Order

Miller. v. Hughs

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.

Learn more about the case here.