CASE TRACKER

The petitioners—Fulton County officials—file an emergency motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) seeking the return of approximately 656 boxes of original 2020 election records seized by federal authorities, arguing that the seizure was unlawful and violated multiple constitutional and structural principles. They contend the search warrant was based on repeatedly debunked claims of voter fraud and relied on statutes that either only authorize inspection of records or are time-barred, making the seizure unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The motion also argues that removing sealed election records from the county clerk intrudes on Georgia’s constitutional authority to administer elections, thereby violating principles of state sovereignty and federalism. Additionally, the petitioners claim the seizure threatens voters’ First Amendment rights by potentially exposing sensitive voter information and creating a chilling effect on participation. They further assert that the federal government improperly used a criminal warrant to bypass ongoing civil litigation over the same records and that Fulton County, as the lawful custodian of the materials, is suffering ongoing harm because it cannot perform its statutory duties while the records remain in federal custody; accordingly, they request the immediate return of the original materials and access to the affidavit supporting the warrant.

Plaintiffs Red Wine & Blue and the Ohio Alliance for Retired Americans filed suit against Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose and Registrar of Motor Vehicles Charles Norman in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, challenging a provision in the 2025 Transportation Appropriations Bill (HB 54) that requires individuals applying for or renewing a driver’s license at the Bureau of Motor Vehicles to present unspecified “proof of United States citizenship” before being offered the opportunity to register to vote. The complaint alleges that this proof-of-citizenship requirement violates Sections 5 and 8 of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), which allow only the “minimum information necessary” to assess voter eligibility and preempt state laws that impose additional documentation requirements beyond a sworn attestation of citizenship under penalty of perjury, as well as the First and Fourteenth Amendments because the statute is impermissibly vague and invites arbitrary enforcement. Plaintiffs contend that the law unlawfully restricts the right to vote, disproportionately burdens women, older voters, and students who may lack immediate access to documents like passports or birth certificates, and conflicts with longstanding federal and Ohio practices allowing voter registration based solely on attestation. The complaint further argues that Ohio’s legislature added the nine-line amendment to HB 54 without hearings or justification, despite no evidence of significant noncitizen voting in Ohio—citing the Secretary of State’s own investigations yielding only a handful of prosecutions out of millions of votes cast. Both organizations allege the law undermines their missions to promote civic participation and forces them to divert resources to help members overcome these new barriers. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief barring enforcement of HB 54’s proof-of-citizenship provision, as well as attorneys’ fees and any other appropriate remedies.

Whether the federal election-day statutes, 2 U.S.C. § 7, 2 U.S.C. § 1, and 3 U.S.C. § 1, preempt a state law that allows ballots that are cast by federal election day to be received by election officials after that day.

Plaintiff is suing Defendants for violations of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), alleging that Defendants failed to maintain an accurate statewide voter registration list and used a non-compliant voter registration form that did not require applicants to provide a driver's license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number. Further, Plaintiff claims Defendants admitted the violations but failed to take sufficient corrective actions, such as updating the voter registration list or contacting affected voters to obtain missing information. Lastly, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' actions resulted in significant non-compliance with HAVA's requirements for elections for federal office.

Plaintiffs League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the Secure Families Initiative (SFI), and the Arizona Students’ Association (ASA) filed a federal lawsuit in the District of Columbia against the Executive Office of the President, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and its commissioners, the Department of Justice, the Department of Defense, and the Federal Voting Assistance Program, challenging Executive Order 14248, issued by President Trump on March 25, 2025, titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections.” The complaint alleges that the order unconstitutionally usurps powers belonging to Congress and the states by directing federal agencies to impose new election rules, including requiring documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC) for voter registration using the National Mail Voter Registration Form and the Federal Post Card Application used by military and overseas voters. Plaintiffs claim the President lacks authority to direct the independent EAC or to condition federal election funds on compliance with these new requirements, arguing the order violates the Elections Clause, separation of powers, and the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). The order also directs the Attorney General to penalize states that count mail ballots received after Election Day, which plaintiffs argue unlawfully interferes with state-established election procedures and voter rights. The organizations assert the order would disenfranchise eligible voters—particularly Latino voters, military families, students, and overseas voters—who may lack or have difficulty submitting DPOC such as passports or “Real ID” licenses, and would harm their voter registration missions by forcing costly diversions of resources. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to block implementation of the Executive Order, arguing it exceeds presidential authority, violates federal statutes including the NVRA, HAVA, and UOCAVA, and threatens irreparable harm to voters’ constitutional rights and election integrity nationwide.

Three related series of cases:

(1) Case filed (now resolved) in Wake County Superior Court contesting Board of Elections alleged delay in reaching a decision on challenges to validity of certain ballots; Griffin asserted that the ballots should not be counted due to voters not providing required information when registering, overseas voters never residing in NC, and overseas voters not providing valid ID with their ballots.

(2) Case initially filed in the North Carolina Supreme Court seeking to prevent certification of the results of the election for a seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court sought by the petitioner; The petitioner sought to invalidate over 60,000 ballots due to the alleged illegalities mentioned above involving voter registration and overseas voters. The North Carolina Supreme Court has referred to this case as "Griffin I."

(3) Three separate cases filed in Wake County Superior Court arguing that the Board of Elections decision denying Griffin relief was legally incorrect, again asserting that over 60,000 ballots should not have been counted due to incomplete voter registration and problems with the ballots of overseas voters. The North Carolina Supreme Court has referred to this case as "Griffin II."