Supreme Court of Ohio (2022-0298); Case consolidated with League of Women Voters of Ohio v. LaRose (2020-0303); Going forward, new filings will only be added to that case.
Issue(s):
Whether Ohio's Congressional Districting Plan adopted March 2, 2022 violates Article XIX of the Ohio Constitution
Supreme Court of Ohio (2022-0303); Case consolidated with Neiman v. LaRose (2022-0298); New filings for each case will be reflected on this case page (2022-0303).
Issue(s):
Relators challenge the second congressional reapportionment plan passed by the Ohio Redistricting Commission as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander under Article XIX of the Ohio Constitution.
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (2:22-cv-00509)
Issue(s):
Arizona House Bill 2492 requires new voters who use federal forms under the National Voter Registration Act to register to vote to provide proof of citizenship to vote in presidential elections or to vote by mail in any election. The bill also requires voters who registered when there was not a proof of citizenship requirement to provide citizenship documentation to vote in presidential elections. The bill allows the Arizona Attorney General to investigate voters with missing citizenship statuses. Mi Familia Vota challenges the law arguing it violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments by severely burdening the right to vote and disenfranchising Arizona voters.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (4:22-cv-00612)
Issue(s):
Whether the defendants violated the 15th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act in drawing Congressional districts that allegedly deprive Black voters of an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of choice
Hillsborough Superior Court, Southern District (226-2022-CV-00233)
Issue(s):
This lawsuit challenges SB 418, which requires voters who register to vote on the day of the election, but who do not provide a valid photo ID, to mail in documentation verifying their identity within seven days or have their vote discarded. The lawsuit argues that the law violated the New Hampshire Constitution.
Complaint filed with the Kentucky Boards of Elections asking for relief regarding two practices that may cause voter confusion. First, the complaint that the ballots presented on electronic voting systems look so different from printed sample ballots that voters are likely to be confused. Additionally, voter instruction cards that County Clerks and County Attorneys General are required to prepare often fail to meet the legal standard of providing voters with “instructions as to the proper method of voting by the use of the voting equipment, and instructions as to the proper method of casting a write-in vote.”
The lawsuit challenges the WEC's new guideline that voters must their own absentee ballots without any assistance, which includes place the ballot in the mail. Plaintiffs allege violations of section 105 of the VRA, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and title 2 of the ADA.
Under Wisconsin law a voter's absentee ballot must accompanied by a witness certificate containing the witness' address, the ballot may not be counted if the address is missing. The plaintiffs ask for clarification on what constitutes "missing" and contend that partial witness addresses are not "missing".
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona 2:22-cv-01374-GMS
Issue(s):
Whether Arizona Senate Bill 1260, which requires county recorders to cancel a voter’s registration if they receive confirmation that the voter is registered to vote in another Arizona county, creates a process to remove voters from the state’s permanent vote-by-mail list if the voter is registered in another county and makes it a felony to forward a mail-in ballot to a voter who may be registered in another state, is constitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona 2:22-cv-01374-GMS; For new filings, see Mi Familia Vota v. Hobbs (2:22-cv-00509)
Issue(s):
Arizona House Bill 2492 requires Arizonans using federal registration forms to provide documents proving their citizenship and requires election officials to provide the Arizona attorney general with a list of voters who do not provide satisfactory proof of citizenship for investigation. The Plaintiff argues House Bill violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments by placing and undue burden on the right to vote, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because voters will be denied an equal opportunity as other eligible voters to participate in Arizona's elections, the NVRA's requirement that states only request the minimum information necessary to register a voter, Section 8 of the NVRA by removing voter from the rolls shortly before an election and the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act because birthplace is not material to whether the applicant meets Arizona's voter qualification requirements.
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
