Major Pending Election Cases

One Person One Vote v. LaRose

Filing Date:

May 12, 2023

Status:

resolved

State:

Ohio

Topic:

Ballot Language

Most Recent Court:

Supreme Court of Ohio (No. 2023-0630)

Issue(s):

Relators ask the Ohio Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing Ohio Secretary of State LaRose to remove a constitutional amendment proposal, S.J.2, from the August 8, 2023 special election ballot. S.J.2 would increase the threshold to pass constitutional amendments from 50% to 60% of the vote for future elections. Relators argue that Ohio law does not allow for statewide special elections in August.

League of Women Voters of Florida v. Byrd

Filing Date:

April 26, 2023

Status:

resolved

State:

Florida

Topic:

National Voter Registration Act

Most Recent Court:

United Stated District Court for the Northern District of Florida (No. 4:23-cv-00165-AW-MAF)

Issue(s):

This lawsuit challenges Florida's statewide voter registration application. The plaintiffs argue that it violates the NVRA's minimum requirements for specifying voter eligibility requirements, as Florida's application does not inform voters that eligibility requirements differ based on "a returning citizen's conviction, the state of conviction, and the sentence received,” and does not explain when an individual’s right to vote has been restored. Plaintiffs also point out that while Florida's eligibility requirements have changed in the past five years, the application was approved in 2013 and has not been changed since, making it severely out of date. Plaintiffs ask the court to declare the applications to be in violation of the NVRA, prevent Byrd from using the applications, and order Byrd to adopt an application that complies with the NVRA.

Vote.org v. Byrd

Filing Date:

March 16, 2023

Status:

pending

State:

Florida

Topic:

Civil Rights Act

Most Recent Court:

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (No. 23-13727)

Issue(s):

The lawsuit challenges Florida's wet signature requirement. Florida statutes require individuals registering to vote to submit a voter application with an original signature. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants have interpreted this to require a signature on paper, and that applications have been rejected if they have been submitted via email or fax or have been submitted with an electronic signature. The plaintiffs contend that this interpretation violates the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act and ask the court to enjoin the defendants from requiring a wet signature for voter registration applications. Case name has been changed to "Disability Rights Florida, et al v. Secretary, State of Florida" on appeal.

Arizona v. Cochise County

Filing Date:

March 7, 2023

Status:

resolved

State:

Arizona

Most Recent Court:

Superior Court of Arizona in Cochise County

Issue(s):

Lawsuit brought by the Arizona Attorney General against three Cochise County Supervisors and the Cochise County Recorder. The agreement gives the Recorder many of the election powers and duties conferred by statute upon the Cochise County Board of Supervisors. The Attorney General alleges that this transferal of power is in violation of the Arizona Constitution and law.

Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Fontes

Filing Date:

March 6, 2023

Status:

resolved

State:

Arizona

Topic:

Mail-In Voting

Most Recent Court:

Superior Court of Arizona in Yavapai County

Issue(s):

Lawsuit brought against the Arizona Secretary of State's interpretation of Arizona's 2019 Election Procedures Manual. The Secretary of State's interpretation allows signatures for mail-in ballots to be compared to prior signatures in a voter's record to confirm their identity. Conversely, the plaintiffs contend that the signatures for mail-in ballots must be compared to a voter's signature on their registration record.

Mazurek v. Berden

Filing Date:

January 11, 2023

Status:

resolved

State:

Michigan

Most Recent Court:

Circuit Court for Kent County (No.: 00306)

Issue(s):

Three Democratic presidential electors have filed a lawsuit against sixteen individual who attempted to submit alternative election results claiming that Donald Trump won Michigan's sixteen electoral votes in the 2020 election. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants conspired and agreed to submit fraudulent results. Additionally, the complaint alleges that the defendants violated multiple State and Federal laws.

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.

Brown v. Wisconsin Elections Commission

Filing Date:

December 1, 2022

Status:

resolved

State:

Wisconsin

Topic:

Absentee Ballots

Most Recent Court:

Racine County Circuit Court

Issue(s):

A lawsuit challenging Wisconsin's use of alternate absentee voting sites and mobile voting facilities. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that under Wisconsin law alternate absentee ballot sites "shall be located as near as practicable to the office of the municipal clerk or board of election commissioners,” but that sites used during the August 2022 primary and the November 2022 General Election failed to meet this requirement. They also allege that the use of certain voting cites advantaged one of more political parties. Next they allege that the use of city hall as an in-person absentee voting site violated Wisconsin law. Additionally, the complaint claims that the use of mobile voting sites violated State law. Finally, the complaint contends that Wisconsin law requires polling places to be in buildings and "not in a transitory vehicle such as a van or bus.”

Democratic Party of Georgia v. Georgia

Filing Date:

November 14, 2022

Status:

resolved

State:

Georgia

Topic:

Early Voting

Most Recent Court:

Superior Court of Fulton County (No. 2022CV372734)

Issue(s):

The plaintiffs challenge guidance published by the Georgia Secretary of State's office that stated that counties could not hold early voting on Saturday November 26th for the December 6th runoff election. The plaintiffs contend that Georgia law allows counties to hold early voting on the 26th and seek an order making from the court making this clear. They also seek an order preventing that Georgia and the Georgia Secretary of State from interfering with early voting taking place on the 26th.

Eakin v. Adams County Board of Elections

Filing Date:

November 7, 2022

Status:

pending

State:

Pennsylvania

Topic:

Mail-In Voting

Most Recent Court:

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (No. 25-1644)

Issue(s):

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Fetterman for USA filed suit against Pennsylvania's 67 county boards of elections. They challenge the "Date Instruction" which prevents counties from counting undated or wrongly dated mail-in ballots. They argue that not counting these ballots violates the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act. They claim that whether a mail-in ballot is undated or wrongly dated has no materiality as to whether the individual is eligible to vote, because Pennsylvania law determines eligibility based on the date of the election, not the date marking the ballot. The plaintiffs also claim that the Date Instruction violates the First and Fourteenth Amendment by placing an undue burden on the right to vote. The plaintiffs ask that the county boards of elections be prohibited from rejecting undated or wrongly dated mail-in ballots based on the Date Instruction.

CASE TRACKER