Court Cases - Democracy Docket https://www.democracydocket.com/cases/ Mon, 01 Jun 2026 18:43:30 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4 https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/cropped-Favicon@2x-32x32.png Court Cases - Democracy Docket https://www.democracydocket.com/cases/ 32 32 Georgia Public Service Commission Elections Challenge https://www.democracydocket.com/cases/georgia-public-service-commission-elections-challenge/ Fri, 19 Aug 2022 19:16:04 +0000 https://www.democracydocket.com/?post_type=cases&p=17018 Lawsuit filed by Black voters registered in Fulton County, Georgia challenging the at-large method used to elect members of the Public Service Commission, which is responsible for regulating public utilities in Georgia.

The post Georgia Public Service Commission Elections Challenge appeared first on Democracy Docket.

]]> Lawsuit filed by Black voters registered in Fulton County, Georgia challenging the at-large method used to elect members of the Public Service Commission, which is responsible for regulating public utilities in Georgia. The plaintiffs allege the at-large elections used to select commissioners violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) by diluting Black voting power. In support of this argument, the plaintiffs note that “Commissioners have been chosen by statewide election since 1906. Yet no African American has ever been elected to the Public Service Commission without having first been appointed by the governor. And even then, only one African American has ever served on the Commission.” On Aug. 5, a federal judge determined that the commission’s statewide elections dilute Black voting power in violation of the VRA and that “while delaying elections…until a later date will regrettably cause disruption to the candidates currently running for those offices, the court does not find that such disruption outweighs the important VRA interests that are implicated.” 

This case was then appealed to the 11th Circuit, which stayed (meaning paused) the district court’s order. On Aug. 19, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the 11th Circuit’s stay, holding that 11th Circuit’s misapplied the Purcell principle but “the Eleventh Circuit may reconsider whether a stay pending appeal is appropriate subject to sound equitable discretion.” On Aug. 19, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) withdrew his motion to stay the injunction pending appeal, meaning that elections for the Public Service Commission will not be held this November.

On Nov. 24, the 11th Circuit reversed the district court’s decision, thereby allowing the at-large method to elect members to the Georgia Public Service Commission to stand.

On March 25, 2024, the plaintiffs appealed the 11th Circuit’s decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. On April 16, 2024, the 11th Circuit issued a ruling to allow elections for the Georgia Public Service Commission for the first time in four years.

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to hear this case. The current process for electing members of the Georgia Public Service Commission remains in effect.

RESULT: On June 1, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court decline to hear a second attempt from Black voters seeking to revive their case.

Courtroom Updates

On Thursday, Dec. 15 the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument in this case. The attorney representing the DOJ will be referred to as the DOJ’s attorney. The attorney representing the appellant (Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R)) will be referred to as the appellant’s attorney. The attorney representing the appellees (the plaintiffs in the case) will be referred to as the appellees’ attorney. 

First, the judges heard from the appellant’s attorney who argued that Raffensperger’s position is that the lower court erred and the at-large election method does not violate Section 2 of the VRA. The appellant’s attorney began by arguing that the “courts, history and precedent made clear that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act protects against invidious discrimination, not a guarantee that minorities will always elect their preferred candidates.” He argued that the plaintiffs’ view is that “the only thing that matters is whether the majority and the minority vote differently in every single election, where a minority preferred candidate loses is racially polarized.” He continued on to say that if the plaintiffs’ argument is accepted, “that will lead to Section 2 not being so much a guarantee of a level playing field, but really a partisan and racial preference.” He stated that the Georgia Public Service Commission election results are driven by partisanship, not race. The appellant’s attorney argued that Raffensperger’s position is that “Section 2 does not try to be some sort of anti-partisanship device” and the district court erred in its understanding of partisanship and race. A judge asked what the attorney makes of “the evidence that Black voter cohesion has increased since 2016, but Black partisan affiliation with the Democratic Party has not?” When talking about the change since 2016 in cohesion between party and race, the appellant’s attorney argued that “the key point, and I think the district court missed this a number of times…is that what matters for the injury is whether the majority[‘s cohesion is changing] And this is where it’s very important to note that this [this] did not happen among the majority.” He argued that despite the minority population “voting in some way along racial baseline[s],” there is “not a change in majority behavior…But again, the most important point is that the white voters showed no difference or, if a difference, they kind of came down a little bit” in their support of Republican candidates. A judge then asked: “Do you think that the Merrill decision from the Supreme Court will have any impact on this case?” The appellant’s attorney responded that “I don’t necessarily see how it would impact the two errors that were pointed out. I think the Merrill decision, the argument seems to be mostly about the question, it seems to be mostly about what is the compact districts and and so on and so forth…I think that nothing in the briefing there or the decision there that I’ve seen, is really tracking what the error of the district courts here was, which was essentially when staking began to use Justice White turns ordinary interest group politics for racial, race-based voting.” 

Next, the appellees’ attorney argued that the 11th Circuit should affirm the lower court’s decision and find that the district court did not err when it found racial vote dilution. The appellees’ attorney argued that “Secretary [Raffensperger] obviously disagrees with settled law and he invites this court to rewrite it. That’s something of course this panel is without the power to do, but even if this court were inclined to rewrite the law as the secretary requests, this case would be a bad vehicle for doing that.” The appellees’ attorney continued his argument by stating that the evidence presented in this case “is so strong, stronger, in fact than the evidence in Gingles and stronger than the evidence in this Court’s Sumter County case from two years ago. The secretary’s case, by contrast, is both light on facts and undercut by adverse credibility determination.” A judge then asked about a remedy: “So here we had a statewide election and your remedy would push this election into various districts…How is this not impermissibly forcing a new form of government on the state of Georgia, which has decided — whether it’s through statute or [the state] constitution — that it wants to hold statewide elections for the Public Service Commission?” To this, the appellees’ attorney responded that “nobody here argues that there would need to be a Public Service Commission if commissioners were elected by district rather than statewide. The commission is a body that is charged with certain public functions. That’s all it is and that’s what it would remain if it were elected by the district rather than at large.” A judge then asked about intent, to which the appellees’ attorney responded that, although they did not bring intent claims, it was noteworthy that “the at-large nature was adopted in 1906, at the time when Black voters were being disenfranchised in Georgia, is suggestive of intent.” 

Next, the judges heard from the DOJ’s attorney, who argued that “Section 2 of the VRA prohibits electoral devices that have the effect of diluting minority voters power in jurisdictions where race plays an outsized role in the political process.” The DOJ’s attorney also suggested that Raffensperger “impermissibly urges this court to adopt an entirely different framework that would allow the credit to escape section to liability nearly by asserting that racially polarized voting patterns correspond with partisan voting preferences.” A judge asked about Georgia’s electoral history: “But there can be an argument, of course, that Georgia is a majority Republican state. How do we look to the more recent successes?” To this, the DOJ’s attorney responded that “the fact is that this is the clearest evidence of racially polarized voting that [an expert in the case] has ever seen in analyzing hundreds of cases like this. And then also that over the 143 year history of this body, only one Black candidate has ever been elected to the office [and] that was 20 years ago. And that person was an incumbent because he had been appointed to the office before he ran for re-election.”  

During his time for rebuttal, the appellant’s attorney argued “ Black, Asian, Hispanic and white Democrats are all losing for the same reason. They’re all voting for Democrats and Democrats are all losing. Everyone has the same political opportunity.” He stated that “the reason the district court thought that [racial vote dilution] was going on here [was] because it did not understand racially polarized voting.” He continued that the lower court’s ruling “doesn’t make any sense because just saying that one side votes for Republicans and one side votes for Democrats doesn’t indicate in a particularly strong way. He concluded that “Georgia Public Service Commission elections follow the pattern generally in Georgia: Republicans tend to win,” and this “is not evidence of invidious racial discrimination.” 

Case Documents (2026 SCOTUS Cert Petition)

Petition for writ of certiorari (April 24, 2026) (opens in new window)

Case Documents (u.s. supreme court)

Order denying rehearing (Aug. 19, 2024) (opens in new window)
Rose's petition for rehearing (July 25, 2024) (opens in new window)
Order denying petition for certiorari (June 24, 2024) (opens in new window)

Case Documents (11th Circuit)

Order denying rehearing en banc (July 10, 2024) (opens in new window)
Order (April 16, 2024) (opens in new window)
Order to withhold mandate (Dec. 18, 2023) (opens in new window)

Case Documents (district court)

Plaintiffs' motion to begin remedial proceedings (Nov. 13, 2023) (opens in new window)
Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion for conference (April 21, 2023) (opens in new window)
Defendants' reply to motion for conference regarding remedial proceedings (April 18, 2023) (opens in new window)

Last updated:

The post Georgia Public Service Commission Elections Challenge appeared first on Democracy Docket.

]]> New Hampshire Citizenship Requirement Challenge https://www.democracydocket.com/cases/new-hampshire-citizenship-requirement-challenge/ Tue, 17 Sep 2024 17:38:15 +0000 https://www.democracydocket.com/?post_type=cases&p=42318 Lawsuit filed by New Hampshire Youth Movement (NHYM) against New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan (R) challenging the state’s new law requiring proof of citizenship for voting.

The post New Hampshire Citizenship Requirement Challenge appeared first on Democracy Docket.

]]> Lawsuit filed by New Hampshire Youth Movement (NHYM) against New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan (R) challenging the state’s new law requiring proof of citizenship for voting. House Bill 1569, which will take effect after the 2024 general election, requires voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship — e.g. a birth certificate, passport or naturalization papers — in order to register to vote or cast a ballot. NHYM alleges that this requirement would replace the existing sworn statement New Hampshire voters must sign as proof of citizenship with a more demanding requirement that could leave many voters unable to vote, particularly if they plan to participate in the state’s same-day voter registration and arrive at the polls on Election Day without documentary proof of citizenship. NHYM argues that the requirement unfairly burdens the right to vote in violation of the First and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. NHYM asks the court to strike down the requirement as unconstitutional and block the secretary of state and other election officials from enforcing it.

The case was consolidated with another case challenging the state’s documentary proof of citizenship requirement, with this case being designated as the lead.

On Aug. 13, 2025, the court denied the NH Secretary of State’s motion to dismiss. On Nov. 7, 2025, the NH Secretary of State filed a motion for summary judgment. Trial is scheduled to begin Feb. 9, 2026.

RESULT : On May 28, 2026, the court blocked the state from enforcing its citizenship requirments.

Case Documents

Order (May 28, 2026) (opens in new window)
Open Democracy's post-trial brief (March 5, 2026) (opens in new window)
NHYM's post-trial brief (March 5, 2026) (opens in new window)

Last updated:

The post New Hampshire Citizenship Requirement Challenge appeared first on Democracy Docket.

]]> Missouri Congressional Redistricting Special Session Challenge https://www.democracydocket.com/cases/missouri-congressional-redistricting-special-session-challenge/ Thu, 04 Sep 2025 21:51:49 +0000 https://www.democracydocket.com/?post_type=cases&p=52934 A pro-voting rights lawsuit challenging the Missouri governor’s call for a special legislative session to redraw the state’s congressional map.

The post Missouri Congressional Redistricting Special Session Challenge appeared first on Democracy Docket.

]]> A pro-voting rights lawsuit challenging the Missouri governor’s call for a special legislative session to redraw the state’s congressional map.

Background

The NAACP filed a lawsuit challenging Missouri Republican Governor Mike Kehoe’s call for a special legislative session to redraw the state’s congressional map and rewrite the ballot initiative process to make these measures harder for voters to pass. Plaintiffs assert that the governor has failed to cite an “extraordinary occasion,” as required by the state’s constitution, for calling the special session and lacks authority to create new maps without a new census or apportionment bill from the U.S. Congress. Plaintiffs seek to block the governor from calling the special legislative session.

Why It Matters

The Governor’s call for a special legislative session is in coordination with President Trump’s broader mid-decade redistricting plan to secure additional Republican congressional seats ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Kehoe’s proposed map would give the GOP an extra seat at the expense of Black voters in Kansas City. Meanwhile, Missourians have used the ballot initiative process to pass popular measures opposed by the GOP-controlled legislature, including a law protecting abortion rights.

Latest Updates
  • May 27, 2026: The Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the governor did not violate the state’s constitution by calling a special session to conduct mid-decade redistricting.
  • Apr. 10, 2026: Plaintiffs filed their brief with the Missouri Supreme Court.
  • May 27, 2026: The Missouri Supreme Court will hear arguments on plaintiffs’ appeal of the trial court’s Feb. 17 ruling that the governor did not violate the constitution by a calling a special session for mid-decade redistricting.
  • Mar. 30, 2026: The Missouri Supreme Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to expedite the briefing schedule.
  • Mar. 28, 2026: Defendants filed their opposition to plaintiffs’ motion to expedite the briefing schedule.
  • Mar. 27, 2026: Plaintiffs filed a motion to expedite the briefing schedule with the Missouri Supreme Court.
  • Mar. 2, 2026: Plaintiffs appealed the court’s Feb. 17 ruling to the Missouri Supreme Court.
  • Feb. 17, 2026: The court rule that the governor did not violate the constitution by calling a special session for mid-decade redistricting. The state’s new gerrymander remains in place.
  • Feb. 3, 2026: The court held a status conference hearing.
  • Dec. 15, 2025: The district court held a trial on plaintiffs’ first amended complaint, challenging state officials’ compliance with state law when opening the special session to begin mid-decade redistricting.
  • Dec. 14, 2025: Defendants submitted their pretrial brief.
  • Dec. 12, 2025: Petitioners submitted their pretrial brief.
  • Nov. 10, 2025: Defendants filed their answer.
  • Oct. 31, 2025: Plaintiffs’ motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction was denied. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is still under consideration.
  • Oct. 17, 2025: Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and opposition to a TRO and PI.
  • Oct. 1, 2025: Plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited ruling merits of their state constitutional claims.
  • Sept. 15, 2025: The district court will hear arguments on plaintiffs’ motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
  • Sept. 14, 2025: Defendants filed their objections to plaintiffs’ motion for TRO and PI, and filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint.
  • Sept. 5, 2025: Plaintiffs replied to defendants opposition to the TRO.
  • Sept. 4, 2025: Plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction (PI) to stop the special session. Defendants replied.
  • Sept. 3, 2025: Plaintiffs filed their petition.

Case Documents

Opinion (Feb. 17, 2026) (opens in new window)
Defendants' pretrial brief and opposition to plaintiffs' motion to strike (Dec. 14, 2025) (opens in new window)
Petitioners' pretrial brief (Dec. 12, 2025) (opens in new window)

Case Documents (missouri supreme court)

Opinion (May 27. 2026) (opens in new window)
Appellant’s brief (Apr. 10, 2026) (opens in new window)
Order (Mar. 30, 2026) (opens in new window)

The post Missouri Congressional Redistricting Special Session Challenge appeared first on Democracy Docket.

]]> Alabama Public Service Commission Overhaul Challenge https://www.democracydocket.com/cases/alabama-public-service-commission-overhaul-challenge/ Fri, 29 May 2026 19:21:22 +0000 https://www.democracydocket.com/?post_type=cases&p=69935 A pro-voting lawsuit challenging GOP state officials’ attempt to overhaul the state’s Public Service Commission before the midterms.

The post Alabama Public Service Commission Overhaul Challenge appeared first on Democracy Docket.

]]> A pro-voting lawsuit challenging GOP state officials’ attempt to overhaul the state’s Public Service Commission before the midterms.

Background

Sheila McNeil, a Democratic candidate for the Alabama Public Service Commission (APSC), filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging a new GOP-backed law expanding the Commission from three at-large commissioners to seven, with the governor now appointing four interim  members as of June 2026. In future elections, members will be elected from each congressional district. The Commission is responsible for regulating the state’s utilities. McNeil argues the law dilutes the voting strength of at-large elected commissioners and violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The lawsuit seeks to block the law’s implementation for the 2026 midterm elections.

Why It Matters

Alabamians pay some of the highest utility bills in the country. After seeking to eliminate APSC elections entirely, Alabama enacted a new law that will drastically change the commission in the middle of an election. The lawsuit reflects a troubling trend of GOP efforts to usurp the will of the voters. Here, Republicans seek to dilute the voting strength of democratically-selected candidates by allowing the governor to appoint four interim commissioners while voters are only able to elect three this cycle.

Latest Updates

  • May 25, 2026: Plaintiff filed her complaint.

Case Documents

Complaint (May 25, 2026) (opens in new window)

The post Alabama Public Service Commission Overhaul Challenge appeared first on Democracy Docket.

]]> South Carolina DOJ Voter Data Request Challenge https://www.democracydocket.com/cases/south-carolina-doj-voter-data-request-challenge/ Wed, 03 Sep 2025 20:23:20 +0000 https://www.democracydocket.com/?post_type=cases&p=52851 A pro-voting lawsuit seeking to prevent the South Carolina Election Commission from sharing statewide voter registration information with the DOJ.

The post South Carolina DOJ Voter Data Request Challenge appeared first on Democracy Docket.

]]> A pro-voting lawsuit seeking to prevent the South Carolina Election Commission from sharing statewide voter registration information with the DOJ.

Background

A South Carolina voter filed a lawsuit in state court against the South Carolina Election Commission (SCEC) to block the release of voter data requested by the U.S. Department of Justice. On Aug. 6 the DOJ sent a letter to the SCEC’s executive director demanding the statewide voter registration list and information, including each voter’s full name, date of birth, residential address, and either a driver’s license number or the last four digits of a social security number. The voter argues that releasing this information would violate state privacy laws and the state constitution, and is asking the court to bar the SCEC from turning over the data.

Why It Matters

In recent months, the DOJ has been demanding that states hand over sensitive election and voter data — part of a broader anti-voting shift at the DOJ, aimed at pressuring states to clean up voter rolls and bolstering the Trump administration’s baseless hunt for illegal voting.

Latest Updates

  • May 21, 2026: Parties settled the case after South Carolina agreed to share data with the DOJ.
  • Oct. 31, 2025: Governor McMaster filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint.
  • Oct. 24, 2025: Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
  • Oct. 1, 2025: The court denied the voter’s motion for a temporary injunction.
  • Sept. 26, 2025: Governor McMaster filed a motion to dismiss the case.
  • Sept. 22, 2025: Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary injunction barring the SCEC from turning over the requested voter data to the DOJ.
  • Sept. 17, 2025: Venue was transferred to Richland County.
  • Sept. 11, 2025: The South Carolina Supreme Court granted the Governor’s motion to intervene and reversed the lower court’s order granting the temporary restraining order.
  • Sept. 9, 2025: The parties agreed to pause proceedings for 60 days to attempt to resolve the dispute.
  • Sept. 4, 2025: The SCEC appealed to the South Carolina Supreme Court.
  • Sept. 3, 2025: Governor McMaster filed a motion to intervene as a defendant.
  • Sept. 2, 2025: The court granted a temporary restraining order barring the SCEC from turning over the requested voter data to the DOJ.
  • Aug. 28, 2025: Plaintiff filed complaint.

Case Documents

Consent Order (May 21, 2026) (opens in new window)
Governor McMaster's motion to dismiss amended complaint (Oct. 31, 2025) (opens in new window)
Plaintiff's amended complaint (Oct. 24, 2025) (opens in new window)

Case Documents (State supreme court)

Opinion (Sept. 11, 2025) (opens in new window)

The post South Carolina DOJ Voter Data Request Challenge appeared first on Democracy Docket.

]]> Wisconsin DOJ Voter Data Access Challenge https://www.democracydocket.com/cases/wisconsin-doj-voter-data-access-challenge/ Thu, 18 Dec 2025 21:21:59 +0000 https://www.democracydocket.com/?post_type=cases&p=59803 An anti-voting lawsuit seeking to compel Wisconsin to provide the DOJ with access to its complete statewide voter registration database.

The post Wisconsin DOJ Voter Data Access Challenge appeared first on Democracy Docket.

]]> An anti-voting lawsuit seeking to compel Wisconsin to provide the DOJ with access to its complete statewide voter registration database.

Background

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against the Wisconsin Elections Commission for refusing to turn over Wisconsin’s complete, unredacted statewide voter registration list. In June, the DOJ demanded the complete voter file — including voters’ full names, dates of birth, residential addresses, and either driver’s license numbers or the last four digits of Social Security numbers — as part of a nationwide investigation into alleged non-compliance with federal voter list-maintenance requirements under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and Help America Vote Act (HAVA). According to the lawsuit, the Commission refused to fully provide the requested data, citing state privacy law. The DOJ argues this refusal violates Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 (52 U.S.C. § 20703) and is asking the court to order production of the complete voter records.

Why It Matters

This marks the latest escalation in the DOJ’s efforts to obtain sensitive voter registration data from states across the country. In recent months, the DOJ has intensified its demands for voter information as part of a broader, politically charged push aimed at pressuring states to remove voters from the rolls and advancing the Trump administration’s unfounded claims of widespread illegal voting. The DOJ has now sued 30 states, plus Washington, D.C. — California, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Massachusetts, Georgia, Illinois, Wisconsin, Utah, Oklahoma, Kentucky, West Virginia, New Jersey, Connecticut, Arizona, Virginia, Idaho and Washington — all of which have refused to hand over unredacted voter files containing highly sensitive personal information.

Latest Updates
  • May 21, 2026: The court dismissed the lawsuit.
  • Feb. 2, 2026: The Wisconsin Elections Commission filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
  • Jan. 22, 2026: The court granted the Wisconsin Alliance for Retired Americans and Forward Latino’s motion to intervene as defendants. The court also granted Common Cause’s motion to intervene.
  • Dec. 20, 2025: The Wisconsin Alliance for Retired Americans and Forward Latino filed a motion to intervene as defendants.
  • Dec. 18, 2025: DOJ filed its complaint and a motion to compel production of records.

Case Documents

Opinion and order (May 21, 2026) (opens in new window)
DOJ's response to notice of supplemental authority (April 22, 2026) (opens in new window)
DOJ's response to notice of supplemental authority (April 13, 2026) (opens in new window)

The post Wisconsin DOJ Voter Data Access Challenge appeared first on Democracy Docket.

]]> Maine DOJ Voter Data Access Challenge https://www.democracydocket.com/cases/maine-doj-voter-data-access-challenge/ Wed, 17 Sep 2025 16:58:15 +0000 https://www.democracydocket.com/?post_type=cases&p=53555 An anti-voting lawsuit seeking to compel Maine to provide the DOJ with access to its statewide voter registration data.

The post Maine DOJ Voter Data Access Challenge appeared first on Democracy Docket.

]]> An anti-voting lawsuit seeking to compel Maine to provide the DOJ with access to its statewide voter registration data.

Background

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against Maine and Secretary of State Shenna Bellows (D) for refusing to provide data on the removal of ineligible individuals and an unredacted copy of its statewide voter registration list. On July 24, the DOJ sent a letter to Bellows requesting, among other things, a current copy of the statewide voter registration list and information on the state’s compliance with voter list maintenance procedures. Bellows declined to provide a copy of the state’s voter list, citing privacy concerns and state law, which restricts the disclosure of confidential data except as authorized by statute. The DOJ argues that this refusal to provide sufficient information violates the National Voter Registration Act, the Help America Vote Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1960, and is asking the court to compel Maine to produce the requested records concerning voter registration and list maintenance procedures. 

Why It Matters

This marks the latest escalation in the DOJ’s efforts to obtain sensitive voter registration data from states across the country. In recent months, the DOJ has intensified its demands for voter information as part of a broader, politically charged push aimed at pressuring states to remove voters from the rolls and advancing the Trump administration’s unfounded claims of widespread illegal voting. The DOJ has now sued 30 states, plus Washington, D.C. — California, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Massachusetts, Georgia, Illinois, Wisconsin, Utah, Oklahoma, Kentucky, West Virginia, New Jersey, Connecticut, Arizona, Virginia, Idaho and Washington — all of which have refused to hand over unredacted voter files containing highly sensitive personal information.

Latest Updates
  • May 21, 2026: The court dismissed the lawsuit.
  • March 26: Hearing was held.
  • Dec. 12, 2025: The court granted two Maine voters’ motion to intervene as defendants. The two Maine voters also filed a motion to dismiss. Maine and the League of Women Voters of Maine also filed motions to dismiss.
  • Sept. 23, 2025: Two Maine voters filed a motion to intervene as defendants.
  • Sept. 18, 2025: The DOJ filed a motion to show cause why Maine should not be compelled to produce the requested records.
  • Sept. 16, 2025: The DOJ filed its complaint.

Case Documents

Order (May 21, 2026) (opens in new window)
ME's response to DOJ's response to notice of supplemental authority (April 14, 2026) (opens in new window)
DOJ's response to notice of supplemental authority (April 14, 2026) (opens in new window)

The post Maine DOJ Voter Data Access Challenge appeared first on Democracy Docket.

]]> Georgia Meriwether County Board of Commissioners Redistricting Challenge https://www.democracydocket.com/cases/georgia-meriwether-county-board-of-commissioners-redistricting-challenge/ Fri, 10 Oct 2025 21:19:25 +0000 https://www.democracydocket.com/?post_type=cases&p=55053 A pro-voting lawsuit challenging a redistricting map that dilutes the voting power of Black voters in Meriwether County, Georgia.

The post Georgia Meriwether County Board of Commissioners Redistricting Challenge appeared first on Democracy Docket.

]]> A pro-voting lawsuit challenging a redistricting map that dilutes the voting power of Black voters in Meriwether County, Georgia.

Background

The Georgia NAACP and two Black voters filed a lawsuit against the Meriwether County Board of Elections challenging the 2022 redistricting map for electing county commissioners. The plaintiffs allege that the map violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting the voting strength of Black voters, drastically reducing the Black voting-age population in the only district that had a Black commissioner at the time. They ask the court to block future use of the map and adopt a new map that complies with Section 2. 

Why It Matters

Meriwether County’s 2022 redistricting plan stripped Black voters of fair representation by dismantling the only district that had a Black commissioner, leaving the Board entirely without Black representation even though the county previously had two Black commissioners. The County adopted the map without holding any public hearings—despite a request from the only Black commissioner at the time. 

Latest Updates
  • May 20, 2026: Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their case.
  • Nov. 20, 2025: The Board filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ first amended complaint.
  • Oct. 20, 2025: Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint.
  • Oct. 9, 2025: Plaintiffs filed their complaint.

Case Documents

Board's brief in support of motion to dismiss plaintiffs' first amended complaint (Nov. 20, 2025) (opens in new window)
Board's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' first amended complaint (Nov. 20, 2025) (opens in new window)
First amended complaint (Oct. 20, 2025) (opens in new window)

The post Georgia Meriwether County Board of Commissioners Redistricting Challenge appeared first on Democracy Docket.

]]> North Carolina Noncitizen Voter Roll Maintenance Challenge https://www.democracydocket.com/cases/north-carolina-noncitizen-voter-roll-maintenance-challenge/ Fri, 23 Aug 2024 14:50:32 +0000 https://www.democracydocket.com/?post_type=cases&p=41504 Lawsuit filed by the Republican National Committee and the North Carolina Republican Party against the North Carolina State Board of Elections and all of its members challenging the state’s practices for removing noncitizens from its voter rolls.

The post North Carolina Noncitizen Voter Roll Maintenance Challenge appeared first on Democracy Docket.

]]> Lawsuit filed by the Republican National Committee and the North Carolina Republican Party against the North Carolina State Board of Elections and all of its members challenging the state’s practices for removing noncitizens from its voter rolls. In North Carolina, noncitizens are not allowed to vote in elections or serve on juries. In July 2024, the North Carolina Legislature enacted Section 44 of Session Law 2023-140, which requires county court clerks to record when a person summoned for jury duty requests an excusal because they are not a citizen and immediately forward this information to the state board of elections. This information would then be used by the board to remove that person from the state’s voter rolls if they were accidentally registered. The plaintiffs claim that the board has not taken steps to enforce Section 44 ahead of the November 2024 general election. They also allege the board has violated North Carolina’s Public Records Act by refusing to provide them with copies of the state’s voter rolls and other voter roll maintenance records. The plaintiffs ask the court to order the board to implement Section 44 to remove noncitizens from the state’s voter rolls. They also ask the court to order the board to provide the plaintiffs with copies of the state’s voter registration records and all other requested documents.

On April 7, 2026, the parties asked the court to enter a proposed consent judgment. If the court agrees, the case will be dismissed without prejudice.

RESULT: On May 20, 2026, there was a hearing on plaintiff’s motion for entry of the consent judgment, and the judge entered the consent judgment.

Case Documents

Motion for entry of consent judgment (April 7, 2026) (opens in new window)
Memorandum of law in support of motion for entry of consent judgment (April 7, 2026) (opens in new window)
North Carolina Asian Americans Together and El Pueblo's motion to dismiss and answer to complaint (Oct. 22, 2024) (opens in new window)

Last updated:

The post North Carolina Noncitizen Voter Roll Maintenance Challenge appeared first on Democracy Docket.

]]> California Voter Roll Maintenance Challenge (Judicial Watch) https://www.democracydocket.com/cases/california-voter-roll-maintenance-challenge-judicial-watch/ Wed, 20 May 2026 20:03:20 +0000 https://www.democracydocket.com/?post_type=cases&p=69477 An anti-voting lawsuit challenging California’s voter roll maintenance procedures.

The post California Voter Roll Maintenance Challenge (Judicial Watch) appeared first on Democracy Docket.

]]> An anti-voting lawsuit challenging California’s voter roll maintenance procedures. 

Background

A California secretary of state candidate and the American Independent Party of California filed a lawsuit against Secretary of State Shirley Weber (D), challenging the state’s voter roll maintenance practices under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). The plaintiffs argue that the state has failed to conduct a program that makes a reasonable effort to cancel the registrations of voters who have become ineligible because of a change of residence, in violation of Section 8 of the NVRA. They ask the court to find Weber in violation of the NVRA and require the state to implement a program to remove ineligible registrations. 

Why It Matters

The lawsuit is the latest in a nationwide campaign by Judicial Watch to pressure states into aggressively purging voters from registration rolls under the NVRA. Judicial Watch has reached settlements in similar lawsuits against Oregon, Colorado, Kentucky, and New York, resulting in the removal of hundreds of thousands of voter registrations the group claims are ineligible.

Latest Updates
  • May 20, 2026: Plaintiffs filed their complaint.

Case Documents

Complaint (May 20, 2026) (opens in new window)

The post California Voter Roll Maintenance Challenge (Judicial Watch) appeared first on Democracy Docket.

]]>