Major Pending Election Cases

New Georgia Project v. Raffensperger

Filing Date:

May 8, 2020

Status:

resolved

State:

Georgia

Topic:

Improper Election Administration

Most Recent Court:

Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (20-13360)

Issue(s):

Due to the issues presented by the coronavirus pandemic, the plaintiffs are challenging four election policies that they argue risk disenfranchising thousands of Georgia voters: (1) the lack of standards governing the process for notifying voters regarding incomplete absentee ballot applications; (2) the failure to provide prepaid postage on absentee ballots; (3) the rejection of absentee ballots received after 7:00 p.m. on Election Day; and (4) Georgia’s prohibition on third-party assistance for absentee ballots.

North Carolina Alliance for Retired Americans v. Hirsch

Filing Date:

October 2, 2023

Status:

resolved

State:

North Carolina

Most Recent Court:

Middle District of North Carolina (No. 1:23-cv-00837)

Issue(s):

Lawsuit challenging a North Carolina law that requires voter to reside in the state for at least 30 days before the election in which they seek to vote. Plaintiffs allege that 30 days is longer than the registration deadline and therefore voters who move to the state within 30 days of election day are prevented from voting in Presidential elections even though the state allows registrations 20 days before election day and through the Saturday before election day. Plaintiffs argue this violates Section 202 of the VRA, which prohibits states from preventing eligible voters from voting in Presidential election based on how long they have resided in the state before election day.

Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless v. LaRose

Filing Date:

January 6, 2023

Status:

resolved

State:

Ohio

Topics:

Mail-In Voting, Voter ID

Most Recent Court:

United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (No. 1:23-cv-26)

Issue(s):

Lawsuit challenging several provisions of Ohio Senate Bill 458. The bill creates a photo ID requirement and eliminates a list of previously acceptable IDs, moves up the deadline to cure provisional and rejected mail-in ballots from seven to four days after election day and moves up the date to return mail-in ballots from ten to four days after election day. The plaintiffs contend that the bill severely restricts access to the poll, particularly for young, elderly, Black and overseas voters. They argue that the law is thus in violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution.

O’Halloran v. Benson

Filing Date:

September 28, 2022

Status:

resolved

State:

Michigan

Topic:

Polling Place Challengers

Most Recent Court:

Michigan Supreme Court (22-000162-MZ)

Issue(s):

Lawsuit challenging several new rules, set by the Secretary of State, concerning partisan election challengers are in violation of state law. These new rules include a requirement that every polling place have a challenger liaison, a restriction that only permits election challengers to communicate with challenger liaison, a regulation authorizing election inspectors to not record impermissible challenges, and a rule allowing challengers to be ejected from failing to follow instructions.

O’Rourke v. Dominion Voting Systems, Inc.

Filing Date:

December 12, 2020

Status:

resolved

State:

Colorado

Most Recent Court:

Dist. Colorado (No. 1:20-cv-03747)

Issue(s):

Plaintiffs brought claims against Dominion Voting Systems, Facebook, the Center for Tech and Civic Life and several governors and secretaries of state alleging that they burdened the voting rights of 160 million people during the 2020 election. Specifically, they alleged the defendants changed voting laws without legislative approval, used unreliable voting machines, altered votes, provided illegal methods of voting, and counted illegal votes. The District Court granted the motions to dismiss filed by the defendants.

Ohio Democratic Party v. LaRose

Filing Date:

March 17, 2020

Status:

resolved

State:

Ohio

Topic:

Improper Election Administration

Most Recent Court:

Ohio Supreme Court (Case 2020-0388)

Issue(s):

Whether the Secretary of State has the legal authority to suspend, move, or set the date of Ohio's 2020 presidential primary election.

Ohio Democratic Party v. LaRose

Filing Date:

August 25, 2020

Status:

resolved

State:

Ohio

Topics:

Absentee Ballots, Improper Election Administration, Voter Suppression

Most Recent Court:

Tenth District Ohio Court of Appeals (20AP-439)

Issue(s):

Whether Ohio Secretary of State LaRose's directive limiting each Ohio county to a single secure drop box for absentee applications and ballots in the 2020 election is consistent with Ohio law.

Ohio Democratic Party v. LaRose (20-CV-4997)

Filing Date:

July 31, 2020

Status:

resolved

State:

Ohio

Topic:

Absentee Ballots

Most Recent Court:

Tenth District Ohio Court of Appeals (20AP-421)

Issue(s):

Whether under Ohio law voters can request absentee ballots by emailing or faxing an image of their signed absentee ballot application to their county Board of Elections.

Ohio Organizing Collaborative et al. v. Ohio Redistricting Commission et al.

Filing Date:

September 27, 2021

Status:

resolved

State:

Ohio

Topic:

Redistricting

Most Recent Court:

Supreme Court of Ohio (2021-1210); Case consolidated with 2021-1198 and 2021-1193; For new filings, see League of Women Voters v. Ohio Redistricting Commission (2021-1193)

Issue(s):

Relators argue that the Ohio Redistricting Commission drew district lines that disproportionately favor Republicans in violation of Article XI of the Ohio Constitution.

Ohioans for Reproductive Rights v. Ohio Ballot Board

Filing Date:

August 28, 2023

Status:

resolved

State:

Ohio

Topic:

Ballot Language

Most Recent Court:

Supreme Court of Ohio (No. 2023-1088)

Issue(s):

Lawsuit challenging the ballot language for The Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety amendment. Plaintiffs allege that the language drafted by the Ohio Ballot Board "aims improperly to mislead Ohioans" in violation of Ohio law and the Ohio Constitution. Plaintiffs allege the ballot language mischaracterizes the amendment and does not include all the protections that the amendment would grant Ohioans. Additionally, the plaintiffs claim that ballot language's word choice is meant to sway voters against the amendment by, for example, including the term "unborn child" despite the term appearing nowhere in the ballot measure. Plaintiffs ask the court to order the Ohio Ballot Board to reconvene and adopt the full text of the amendment as the ballot language. Alternatively, the plaintiffs ask the court to order the Ohio Ballot Board to adopt language that properly describes the amendment.

CASE TRACKER