Election Law Update

September 29, 2024 - Updated weekly until the election

State Litigation Highlights

ARIZONA

Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes, No. 2:21-cv-01423-DWL (D. Ariz.) (“MFV I”). Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in August 2021 challenging SB 1485, which authorizes the removal of voters from the permanent early voting list if they do not vote an early ballot in two consecutive election cycles and fail to confirm that they want to continue receiving early ballots. The RNC and NRSC are intervenor-defendants. The court dismissed plaintiffs’ challenge to SB 1003, which requires voters who submit an early ballot without a signature to cure the deficiency by 7:00 pm on Election Day. The case is currently in discovery.

Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes, No. 2:22-cv-00509-SRB (D. Ariz.) (“MFV II”). These consolidated lawsuits challenge HB 2492, which requires individuals who register to vote using the National Voter Registration Form to provide proof of citizenship in order to vote in presidential elections or vote early by mail, and HB 2243, which requires county recorders to investigate and remove non-citizens from voter rolls. The RNC is an intervenor-defendant. On September 14, 2023, the court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs on several claims, including their claim that the NVRA preempts the proof-of-citizenship requirement. Trial on the remaining claims finished on November 6, 2023. On February 29, the judge issued a decision invalidating several provisions of the law, including the requirement that voters provide their birthplace on voter registration forms, the requirement to provide documentary proof of residence, and the requirement to conduct certain investigations of voters who officials have “reason to believe” are non-citizens. At the same time, the court upheld provisions requiring investigation of voters who do not provide documentary proof-of-citizenship and authorizing cancellation of confirmed non-citizens’ voter registrations.

On May 2, the court entered a final, appealable judgment and the Republican Party of Arizona filed a motion to intervene. On May 8, the RNC and Arizona Legislature filed a notice of appeal. On May 17, the RNC and Arizona Legislature filed a motion to stay the district court’s order pending appeal with respect to the documentary proof of citizenship requirements. The Secretary of State, Attorney General, US Department of Justice, and the Democratic Party filed responses opposing the motion to stay. On June 27, after waiting more than a month for the district court to decide the stay motion, the RNC and Arizona Legislature filed an emergency motion for partial stay pending appeal in the Ninth Circuit. Secretary of State Fontes opposes the stay. (On June 28, the district court finally denied the motion to stay.) On July 4, AZ GOP filed a motion to intervene. On July 18, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion for partial stay of the judgment. The court held election officials may reject state-form applications that lack documentary proof of citizenship. The court granted expedited merits briefing. Oral argument is scheduled for September 10. On July 29, the RNC and Arizona Republican Legislators filed their opening brief in the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider the partial stay. On August 1, the merits panel decided 2-1 to vacate the partial stay. On August 8, the RNC and Arizona Legislature filed an emergency application for a stay in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Republican Party of Arizona, Republican election groups, and 24 Republican state AGs filed briefs in support of an emergency application for stay pending appeal. On August 16, the US DOJ, Arizona AG, Arizona Secretary of State, and the Democratic Party filed responses in opposition to our stay request.

On August 19, the RNC and Arizona Legislature filed a reply in support of their emergency application for a stay in the U.S. Supreme Court. On August 22, the U.S. Supreme Court granted in part and denied in part the emergency stay application. The Supreme Court held that Arizona may reject state-form voter registration applications that lack documentary proof of citizenship rather than registering applicants as federal-only voters. The Court denied the stay request with respect to proof of citizenship requests for voting by mail or in presidential elections, but those claims remain pending in the Ninth Circuit. On August 26, the RNC and Arizona Legislature filed their third brief in the Ninth Circuit. Oral argument occurred on September 10.

RNC v. Fontes , No. CV2024-050553 (Maricopa Cnty. Superior Ct.). On February 9, 2024, the RNC, Arizona GOP, and Yavapai County GOP filed a lawsuit challenging the lawfulness of the 2023 Election Procedures Manual (“EPM”). Plaintiffs maintain that Secretary Fontes failed to follow required notice-and-comment procedures when promulgating the EPM, including by imposing an unlawfully short 15-day period for public input. Plaintiffs also challenge numerous provisions of the EPM as inconsistent with state law, including EPM provisions that weaken safeguards against non-citizen voting and that restrict the ability to challenge early ballots. On February 14, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. On March 18, Secretary Fontes and intervenor-defendants filed motions to dismiss the case and oppositions to our motion for a preliminary injunction. On April 8, Plaintiffs filed a consolidated reply in support of their motion for preliminary injunction and a response in opposition to defendants’ motions to dismiss. Oral argument on the motions took place on May 3. On May 14, the judge granted the motion to dismiss. On June 11, Plaintiffs moved for entry of final judgment. On July 3, Plaintiffs appealed the trial court’s dismissal. On August 21, Plaintiffs filed their opening brief on appeal.

Petersen v. Fontes, No. CV2024-001942 (Maricopa Cnty. Superior Ct.). On January 31, Senate President Warren Petersen and Speaker of the House Ben Toma filed suit challenging provisions of the EPM, including provisions that weaken protections against non-citizen voting and delay the start of reforms to the state’s active early voter list. The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction the same day. A hearing occurred on May 23.

Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Fontes, No. S-1300-CV-2023-00202 (Yavapai Cnty. Superior Ct.) (“AFEC I”). The Arizona Free Enterprise Club, Restoring Trust and Integrity in Elections (RITE), and Arizona GOP filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of State for authorizing the use of signatures that do not appear in a voter’s registration record to conduct signature-matching. On September 1, 2023, the court denied the Secretary’s motion to dismiss. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment. Oral argument occurred on January 18, 2024. On April 25, the court granted summary judgment for the Secretary. On June 5, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. Update: On September 23, Plaintiffs filed their opening brief.

Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Fontes, No. S-1300-CV-2023-00872 (Yavapai Cnty. Superior Ct.) (“AFEC II”). Plaintiffs challenge the lawfulness of using ballot drop boxes under Arizona state law. The parties filed motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. On April 25, the court granted summary judgment for the Secretary. On June 14, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Fontes, No. CV2024-002760 (Maricopa Cnty. Superior Ct.) (“AFEC III”). On February 9, Plaintiffs, supported by America First Policy Institute, filed a challenge to provisions of the EPM, including provisions restricting the right to observe activities at drop boxes and polling places, for violation of freedom of speech, freedom of association, and due process. On April 16, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On May 28, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. On May 31, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On June 17, Defendants filed a response to plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. On July 29, the Court held oral argument. On August 6, the court partially granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. On August 13, Defendants filed a notice of appeal and a motion for stay pending appeal which was denied on August 28. On September 11, Defendants filed a motion for stay pending appeal or, alternatively, to expedite the briefing schedule.

Mussi v. Fontes , No. 2:24-cv-01310-DWL (D. Ariz.). On June 3, Plaintiffs Scott Mussi and AZ GOP Chairwoman Gina Swoboda filed a NVRA lawsuit challenging the adequacy of the state’s voter list maintenance practices. On June 12, Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans and Voto Latino filed a motion to intervene. On June 25, Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans and Voto Latino’s motion to intervene. The Proposed Intervenors also filed a proposed motion to dismiss. On July 12, the court denied the motions to intervene filed by Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans and Voto Latino. On July 25, Defendants filed a response to Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss. On July 30, the DNC and Arizona Democratic Party filed a proposed amicus brief in support of dismissal.

Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans v. Fontes, No. 2:22-cv-01374-GMS (D. Ariz.). Plaintiffs challenge provisions of SB 1260, which modifies the criteria for voter registration cancellations and removals of voters from the active early voting list and imposes penalties for aiding illegal voting. The Yuma County Republican Party is an intervenor-defendant. The court preliminarily enjoined two provisions of the law in September 2022. That decision was appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The appeal is fully briefed and argued. On September 20, the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction.

CALIFORNIA

California Alliance for Retired Americans v. Weber, No. 24STCP02062 (Super. Ct. Los Angeles Cnty.). Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the state’s signature verification law. The RNC, NRCC, and California GOP filed a motion to intervene. A hearing was held on August 22. On August 22, the court denied the GOP’s motion to intervene. A hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction occurred on September 5. The Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction was denied.

FLORIDA

League of Women Voters v. Byrd, No. 4:21-cv-00186-MW (N.D. Fla.). Plaintiffs filed numerous lawsuits challenging SB 90, a Florida election integrity law. The lawsuits were consolidated with the above-captioned case. The RNC and NRSC are intervenor-defendants. In March 2022, the district court enjoined several provisions of the law, including restrictions on the use of absentee ballot drop boxes, regulations on the activities of third-party voter registration organizations, and prohibition on soliciting voters in polling places or near drop boxes. The court also imposed preclearance requirements on Florida under Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act.

The Eleventh Circuit mostly reversed the district court. See League of Women Voters v. Fla. Sec’y of State, No. 22-11143 (11th Cir. Apr. 27, 2023). The court held that the challenged provisions were not racially discriminatory in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments or the Voting Rights Act and reversed the district court’s preclearance decision. The Eleventh Circuit partially affirmed the district court’s holding that the solicitation ban is unconstitutionally vague. The court remanded the issue of whether any of the challenged provisions violate the constitutional right to vote for decision by the district court in the first instance. On September 21, 2023, the Eleventh Circuit denied plaintiffs’ petition for rehearing en banc.

On February 8, 2024, the district court dismissed the remaining claims and ordered the case closed.

Vote.org v. Byrd, No. 4:23-cv-00111-AW (N.D. Fla.). Plaintiffs challenge Florida’s law requiring wet signatures on voter registration applications under the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The RNC and Republican Party of Pasco County are intervenor-defendants. The United States has filed a statement of interest in the case. On October 30, the court granted Florida’s and the Republican Intervenors’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On November 9, the plaintiffs appealed to the Eleventh Circuit. Appellants filed their opening brief on January 25, 2024. The US Department of Justice submitted an amicus brief in support of appellants. On May 15, the RNC and the Republican Party of Pasco County filed their response brief. State Defendants also filed their response brief. On June 5, Plaintiffs-Appellants’ filed their reply brief.

GEORGIA

Abhiraman v. State Election Board, No. 24CV010786 (Fulton Cnty. Sup. Ct.). The Democratic National Committee, Democratic Party of Georgia, and local election officials from several different counties filed this lawsuit challenging new regulations that clarify that county election board members may conduct a reasonable inquiry into the truth and accuracy of election results before certifying the results. On September 3, the RNC and Georgia GOP filed a motion to intervene. On September 11, the court granted Republicans’ motion to intervene. Update: On September 25, Republican Intervenors and Defendants filed their trial briefs. A trial is scheduled for next week.

Eternal Vigilance Action v. Georgia, No. 24CV01158 (Fulton Cnty. Sup. Ct.). Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit challenging SEB regulations regarding certification of election results and drop box security. On September 27, the RNC and Georgia GOP filed a motion to intervene to defend these regulations.

Henderson v. Abhiraman, No. 24CV8564 (DeKalb Cnty. Sup. Ct.) On September 17, a DeKalb County voter and the DeKalb County Republican Party filed this lawsuit against members of the DeKalb Board of Voter Registration and Elections office after they passed a resolution to illegally refuse to hear voter challenges allowed by law. The RNC is providing financial and strategic support for the lawsuit.

In re Georgia Senate Bill 202, No. 1:21-MI-55555-JPB (N.D. Ga.). This consolidated case consists of six lawsuits challenging SB 202, a Georgia election integrity law. The RNC, NRSC, NRCC, and Georgia GOP are intervenor-defendants. In August 2023, the district court preliminarily enjoined the law’s requirement that absentee voters include their birthdate on ballot envelopes and some of the prohibitions on providing food, drink, and gifts to voters in line at a polling place. The Intervenors and State of Georgia appealed those rulings on September 18, 2023, and that appeal remains pending. On July 1, Republican Intervenors and State of Georgia filed their opening briefs in the Eleventh Circuit.  

The court denied a motion to preliminarily enjoin the law’s ballot harvesting and drop box restrictions. On October 11, 2023, the district court denied the DOJ’s motion for a preliminary injunction, holding that DOJ was not likely to succeed on its claim that the legislature enacted SB 202 for racially discriminatory reasons. On January 12, 2024, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction claiming that SB 202’s runoff provisions are racially discriminatory.

On October 30, 2023, the Republican Intervenors and State of Georgia filed motions for summary judgment, which are pending. On May 14, 2024, the parties and Republican Intervenors filed replies in support of their motions for summary judgment. On August 1, the Republican Intervenors filed a motion for expedited summary judgment on the birthdate requirement, asking the court to reinstate the requirement before the 2024 general election. On August 23, the district court denied the motion for expedited summary judgment, holding the court lacked jurisdiction over the issue while an appeal is pending.

VoteAmerica v. Raffensperger, No. 1:21-CV-1390-JPB (N.D. Ga.). Plaintiffs in this unconsolidated case challenge certain provisions of SB 202, including its prohibitions on pre-filled absentee ballot applications sending applications to voters who already applied for an absentee ballot and its requirement that absentee ballot applications provided by third parties include disclaimers. The RNC, NRSC, NRCC, and Georgia GOP are intervenor-defendants. On September 27, 2023, the court granted summary judgment for the state on several claims and allowed one claim to proceed to trial. On April 3, intervenor-defendants and defendants filed pre-trial briefs. A bench trial was held from April 15-18. On May 31, intervenor-defendants and defendants filed post-trial briefs. On July 19, the court ordered additional briefing from the parties on the issue of standing.

Vote.org v. Georgia State Election Board, No. 1:22-CV-01734-JPB (N.D. Ga.). Plaintiffs challenge Georgia’s law requiring a wet signature on absentee ballot applications. The RNC and Georgia GOP are intervenor-defendants. The state’s motion to dismiss was denied in March 2023. Summary judgment motions are pending. On April 11, the RNC and Georgia GOP filed a response in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. On April 18, the United States Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in the case.

Coalition for Good Governance v. Raffensperger, No. 1:21-CV-02070-JPB (N.D. Ga.). Plaintiffs in this unconsolidated case challenge certain provisions of SB 202, including the provision authorizing the State Election Board to temporarily suspend election superintendents who commit multiple violations of election law over multiple cycles. The RNC, NRSC, NRCC, and Georgia GOP are intervenor-defendants. The state’s motion for summary judgment is pending. Oral argument on the motion for summary judgment occurred on July 2.

IATSE Local 927 v. Mashburn, No. 1:23-cv-04929-LMM (N.D. Ga.). Plaintiff challenges Georgia’s requirement that absentee ballot applications be received 11 days before the election, arguing that federal law requires a 7-day deadline for presidential elections. On January 12, the RNC and Georgia GOP filed a motion to intervene and a proposed motion to dismiss. On January 29, the plaintiff amended its complaint in response to the RNC’s proposed motion to dismiss, which highlighted the complaint’s legal deficiencies. On February 9, the RNC and Georgia GOP filed a reply in support of their motion to intervene and a proposed motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On April 30, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction. On May 4, the RNC and Georgia GOP were granted intervention. On May 31, the RNC and Georgia GOP filed a reply in support of the motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On June 7, the RNC and Georgia GOP filed a response in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. On June 13, the court granted the state defendants’ motion to dismiss. On July 8, the United States filed a notice of intervention in the case. On July 31, the court denied Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The 11-day ballot application deadline will therefore be in effect for the 2024 general election. On August 5, the RNC and Georgia GOP filed a response to the brief of the United States. On August 9, Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration on the order for preliminary injunction. On August 23, the RNC and Georgia GOP filed a motion in opposition to reconsideration. On August 26, the RNC and Georgia GOP filed a response in opposition to the United States’s statement.

New Georgia Project v. Raffensperger, No. 1:24-cv-03412 (N.D. Ga.). Plaintiffs challenge SB 189, which expands the rights of citizens to challenge the eligibility of voters and requires registered voters with no fixed address to received election mail at local clerks’ offices. On August 16, the RNC and Georgia GOP filed a motion to intervene as defendants.

RNC v. DeKalb County Voter Registration and Elections Office, No. 24CV5079 (DeKalb Cnty. Sup. Ct.). The RNC filed a lawsuit seeking to compel DeKalb County to produce documents in response to a records request seeking information regarding a significant grant for election-related activities received through the U.S. Alliance for Election Excellence. The county provided deficient responses to our public records requests. Private funding of election activities—i.e., “Zuckbucks”—is illegal in Georgia. On June 28, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On August 26, Defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss.
  
IOWA

League of United Latin American Citizens of Iowa v. Pate, No. 05771 CVCV061476 (Polk Cnty. Dist. Ct.). Plaintiffs challenge provisions of SF 413 and SF 568, including provisions banning absentee ballot harvesting and drop boxes. The RNC, NRSC, NRCC, and Iowa GOP are intervenor-defendants. The trial date has been postponed while the Iowa Supreme Court resolved a dispute concerning discovery sought from non-party Iowa legislators. On February 23, 2024, the Iowa Supreme Court upheld the legislators’ claims of legislative privilege with respect to the discovery sought. The RNC filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court. The case returned to the trial court.
        
MICHIGAN

RNC v. Benson, No. 24-000148 (Mich. Ct. Cl.). On September 18, the RNC, Michigan GOP, and municipal clerk filed this lawsuit against Secretary Benson for disregarding state law requiring serial numbers on absentee ballots to match the serial numbers on ballot envelopes and in poll books. This requirement ensures that the person returning the ballot was the person who was issued the ballot. State law requires ballots with mismatching numbers to be rejected, and the voter given the opportunity to cure the issue, while Benson’s guidance directs clerks to count such ballots. Update: On September 24, Defendants filed a motion for summary disposition. On September 25, Plaintiffs filed their response to Defendants’ motion for summary disposition. A hearing was held on September 26.

Michigan Republican Party v. Benson, No. 24-000143-MZ (Mich. Ct. Cl.). On September 10, the RNC and Michigan GOP filed a lawsuit against Secretary Benson challenging her guidance’s omission of the statutory requirement that clerks must mark ballot envelopes that signatures have been verified before the ballots can be tabulated. Update: In response to the lawsuit, Secretary Benson agreed to amend her guidance to require clerks to mark ballot envelopes after signatures are verified as approved for tabulation. The parties agreed to a stipulated order of dismissal, which the court entered on September 27.

RNC v. Election Commission of the City of Detroit, No. 24-012212-AW (Wayne Cnty. Cir. Ct.). On August 22, the RNC, Michigan GOP, and chairs of Wayne County Republican Party committees filed a lawsuit against Detroit officials for failure to hire a sufficient number of Republican poll workers in the August primary election. Michigan law requires officials to hire an “equal number, as nearly as possible,” of election inspectors from both major parties. The Republican Party nominated 675 election inspectors, but Detroit appointed only 52 of these individuals and hired an additional 258 Republicans who had not been nominated by the party. In contrast, the city hired more than 2,300 Democratic election inspectors. A ratio of 7.5 Democratic election inspectors for every one Republican election inspector is not an “equal number, as nearly as possible.” The RNC seeks a court order compelling Detroit to comply with partisan parity requirements for this November’s election. Update: A hearing is scheduled for September 30.

RNC v. Whitmer, No. 1:24-cv-00720 (W.D. Mich.). On July 15, the RNC, Trump Campaign, and a Republican voter filed a lawsuit against the Biden Administration, Governor Whitmer, and Secretary of State Benson for the unlawful designation of two federal agencies—the Small Business Administration and Department of Veterans Affairs—to conduct voter registration activities. This is a challenge to implementation of Biden’s executive order weaponizing the federal government to engage in voter registration and get-out-the-vote activities. On July 24, Vet Voice Foundation filed a motion to intervene. On August 7, the Defendant Agencies filed a response in opposition to Vet Voice’s motion to intervene. On August 19, the RNC filed a response opposing Vet Voice’s motion to intervene. On August 21, the court denied Vet Voice’s motion to intervene but will permit them to file briefs amicus curiae. On August 23, the RNC filed a motion for summary judgment asking the court to enjoin use of the federal agencies to conduct voter registration. State Defendants also filed a motion to dismiss.

RNC v. Benson, No. 24-000041 (Mich. Ct. Cl.). On March 28, the RNC, NRCC, Michigan GOP, and individual plaintiffs filed a lawsuit challenging Secretary Jocelyn Benson’s secret instructions to local clerks to presume the validity of an absentee voter’s signature. Three years ago, a court struck down this unlawful policy, yet Secretary Benson has nevertheless tried to re-impose it outside the public eye. The instructions violate the Michigan Constitution, which requires clerks to verify the identity of absentee voters by comparing the signature on the ballot envelope with the signature on file. Presuming the validity of a signature is inconsistent with this command. On April 5, the Michigan Alliance for Retired Americans and the A. Philip Randolph Institute filed a motion to intervene. On April 22, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary disposition and defendants filed a cross-motion. On May 6, Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to Defendants’ cross-motion for summary disposition and Defendants filed a brief in response to Plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary disposition. Oral argument was held on May 13. On June 12, the court granted partial summary disposition in favor of Plaintiffs, holding that the presumption of validity is inconsistent with the Michigan Constitution and signature verification must be conducted without presuming signatures’ validity. On July 30, the court entered final judgment, declaring the “presumption of validity” invalid and requiring the Secretary to revise her guidance accordingly.

RNC v. Benson, No. 1:24-cv-00262 (W.D. Mich.). On March 13, the RNC and two Republican voters filed a lawsuit challenging Secretary Benson's inadequate voter roll maintenance procedures under Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act. The RNC initiated this action after discovering that 53 of the state’s 83 counties have more active registered voters than adult citizens and that 23 additional counties have unusually high registration rates exceeding 90%. On March 22, Detroit Disability Power and Michigan Alliance for Retired Americans filed a motion to intervene. On April 4, the League of Women Voters of Michigan filed a motion to intervene. On April 5, Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to DDP’s and MARA’s motion to intervene. On April 15, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On April 19, Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the League of Women Voters of Michigan’s motion to intervene. On May 20, Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the motion to dismiss. On June 17, Defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss.

DeVisser v. Benson, No. 22-000164 (Mich. Ct. Cl.). Plaintiffs, which include the RNC and Michigan GOP, challenge Secretary of State directives restricting the rights of poll watchers. The court of claims struck down many of the directives before the 2022 election, but the Michigan Supreme Court stayed that decision pending appeal, so the directives remained in effect during the 2022 election. On October 19, 2023, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the court of claims, holding that the directives are unlawful. On November 30, 2023, the State filed a motion for leave to appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court. On January 25, 2024, the RNC and Michigan GOP filed a response in opposition to the motion for leave to appeal On June 10, the RNC and Michigan GOP filed a supplemental brief in opposition to Defendants-Appellants' application for leave to appeal. The Michigan Supreme Court held oral argument on the application on June 18. On August 28, the Michigan Supreme Court upheld Secretary Benson’s directives.

Michigan Republican Party v. Donahue, No. 22-118123-AW (Genesee Cnty. Cir. Ct.). The RNC and Michigan GOP filed suit after the City of Flint failed to hire an equal number of Republican and Democrat poll workers for the November 2022 election. The court dismissed the lawsuit for lack of standing, and Plaintiffs appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals. On March 7, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. On April 18, Plaintiffs filed an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court. On June 6, Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their application for leave to appeal.

MINNESOTA

Minnesota Alliance for Retired Americans v. Simon, No. 62-cv-24-854 (Ramsey Cnty. Dist. Ct.). Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit challenging the state’s absentee ballot witness requirement under the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act. On March 15, the RNC and Minnesota GOP filed a notice of intervention to defend the law. On April 12, Plaintiffs filed a motion opposing the RNC and Minnesota GOP’s intervention. On April 25, the RNC filed a memorandum in support of its motion to intervene and a proposed motion to dismiss. A hearing is scheduled for May 23. On May 2, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and a motion for a temporary injunction. On May 9, the RNC and Minnesota GOP filed a proposed response in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for temporary injunction. On May 16, Defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss. Republican Intervenors filed a reply in support of their motion to intervene as defendants. A hearing on the motions was held on May 23. On June 14, the court issued an order denying plaintiff’s motion for a temporary injunction, denying defendant’s motion to dismiss, and denying the Republican intervenors’ motion to intervene. On July 15, the Secretary of State filed a petition for discretionary and expedited appeal of the court’s June 14 decision denying his motion to dismiss in the Minnesota Court of Appeals. On July 22, Republican Intervenors filed a notice of appeal of their denial to intervene and Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the petition. On July 29, Defendant filed a reply supporting discretionary review and withdrew his request for expedited review. On August 13, the Minnesota Court of Appeals granted Defendants’ petition for discretionary review. On August 22, the RNC and Minnesota GOP filed their opening brief appealing their denial to intervene. On September 19, the RNC and Minnesota GOP filed as amici in support of Defendant-Appellant. Update: On September 23, Respondents MN Alliance and Secretary Simon filed their response briefs.

MISSISSIPPI   

RNC v. Wetzel, No. 1:24-cv-25 (S.D. Miss.). The RNC, Mississippi Republican Party, and two individual plaintiffs filed a lawsuit on January 26, 2024, which asserts that Mississippi’s post-Election Day absentee ballot receipt deadline violates federal law. The federal Election Day statute requires federal elections to occur on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. This lawsuit will implicate the laws of seventeen states that count ballots that are received after Election Day. On March 5, the court entered a briefing schedule for cross-motions for summary judgment, which will conclude briefing by April 16. On March 26, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. You can view the RNC’s motion here. On April 9, Defendant Secretary of State filed a response in opposition to the RNC’s motion for summary judgment. The RNC also filed a response opposing defendants’ cross-motions for summary judgment. On April 11, the United States Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in the case. On April 16, Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their cross motion for summary judgment. A hearing on the motions occurred on July 9. On July 28, the court granted summary judgment for defendants. The court held that plaintiffs had standing to bring the claim but rejected the claim that the federal Election Day statute precludes counting ballots received after Election Day. On August 2, the RNC and other plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. On August 6, the RNC filed a motion to expedite, which the Fifth Circuit granted on August 9. On August 16, the RNC filed its opening brief in the Fifth Circuit. On September 16, the RNC filed its reply brief. Update: Oral argument occurred on September 24.

MONTANA

Montana Public Interest Research Group v. Jacobsen, No. 6:23-cv-00070-BMM (D. Mont.). Plaintiffs challenge Montana’s law prohibiting voters from being purposefully registered to vote in more than one jurisdiction. On October 24, 2023, the RNC and Montana Republican Party filed a motion to intervene in the case. On November 6, 2023, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction. On November 20, 2023, RITE filed an amicus brief opposing the Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. On December 1, the RNC and the Montana Republican Party filed a proposed brief in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. On January 18, 2024, the court granted the RNC and Montana GOP’s motion to intervene. A hearing on the preliminary injunction motion occurred on March 20. On April 24, the court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. On May 1, Defendants and Intervenors filed an appeal of the preliminary injunction order and filed a joint motion to stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal. On May 16, the trial court denied the motion to stay. Defendants and Intervenors filed a motion in the Ninth Circuit for a stay pending appeal. On May 30, the Ninth Circuit denied the stay motion. Defendants and Intervenors filed their joint opening brief. On July 18, Defendants and Intervenors filed a joint reply brief. Oral argument occurred on August 14. On September 3, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision and upheld the preliminary injunction.

Montana Democratic Party v. Jacobsen, No. DV 21-0451 (13^th Jud. Dist. Ct.). Plaintiffs in this consolidated case challenge several provisions of Montana law, including the ban on same-day voter registration, voter ID requirements, and ban on paid ballot collection. The district court held that these laws violate the Montana Constitution. The state appealed to the Montana Supreme Court, where RITE and Lawyers Democracy Fund filed amicus briefs in support of the state. On March 27, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court. On June 12, the Montana Secretary of State filed an application for the extension of time to file a writ of cert to the U.S. Supreme Court. On August 26, the Montana Secretary of State filed a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.

NEVADA

Dagusen v. Aguilar, No. ___ (Nev. Dist. Ct. Carson City). On September 11, the RNC, Trump Campaign, and the Nevada Republican Party filed a lawsuit against Nevada Secretary of State Aguilar for failure to verify citizenship of registered voters. The RNC brought this lawsuit after discovering evidence of thousands of non-citizens on Nevada’s voter rolls who are at risk of casting ballots this November, which would result in unconstitutional dilution of citizens’ voting power. The complaint asks the court to compel the Secretary to conduct citizenship verification before the presidential election.

Nevada Republican Party v. Second Judicial District Court of Nevada ex rel. County of Washoe, No. ____ (Nev. Dist. Ct. Washoe Cnty.). On September 6, the RNC and Nevada GOP filed a lawsuit against the Second Judicial District (Washoe County) seeking juror questionnaire responses in which the respondent indicated they are not a citizen.

RNC v. Aguilar, No. 2:24-cv-00518 (D. Nev.). On March 18, the RNC and Nevada Republican Party filed a lawsuit challenging Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar’s inadequate voter list maintenance practices under Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act. Three counties in Nevada have more active registered voters than voting-eligible adults, and two counties have implausibly high registration rates exceeding 90%. On March 20, several groups represented by Marc Elias filed a motion to intervene as defendants. On April 4, plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the groups’ motion to intervene. On April 11, proposed intervenor-defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to intervene. On April 15, the Secretary of State filed a motion to dismiss. On April 29, the RNC and Nevada Republican Party filed a response to the Secretary’s motion to dismiss. On June 18, the court granted the state’s motion to dismiss on redressability grounds but granted plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. On July 2, Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint. On July 12, the court granted the motion to intervene. On July 16, the Nevada Secretary of State filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 30, Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the Secretary’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On August 6, the Secretary filed a reply in support of his motion to dismiss the amended complaint and Intervenors filed a reply in support of their motion as well.

RNC v. Burgess, No. 3:24-cv-00198 (D. Nev.). On May 3, the RNC, Trump Campaign, and the Nevada Republican Party filed a lawsuit challenging Nevada’s post-Election Day ballot receipt deadline. Nevada counts mail ballots received up to four days after Election Day. This is inconsistent with the federal Election Day statute, because it unlawfully extends the day of the election past the date that Congress prescribed. The DNC, Vet Voice Foundation, and Nevada Alliance for Retired Americans filed motions to intervene as Defendants, which were granted by the court. On May 24, Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to Vet Voice’s and NARA’s motion to intervene. On May 30, the DNC and Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On June 7, Intervenor-Defendants Nevada Alliance for Retired Americans and Vet Voice Foundation filed a motion to dismiss. On June 13, Plaintiffs filed responses to the Secretary’s motion to dismiss and the DNC ’s motion to dismiss. On June 20, Intervenor-Defendant DNC filed a reply in support of the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint. On June 21, Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to Vet Voice Foundation’s Motion to Dismiss. On July 17, the court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of standing. On August 16, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

RNC v. Aguilar II, No. 24 OC 00101 B (Nev. Dist. Ct. Carson City). The RNC, Trump Campaign, and Nevada GOP filed a lawsuit challenging Nevada’s counting of non-postmarked mail ballots received after Election Day. Nevada law requires such ballots to have a postmark in order to be counted. On June 10, Vet Voice and the Nevada Alliance for Retired Americans filed a motion to intervene, which was granted on June 14. On July 2, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and motion for a preliminary injunction. On July 16, Vet Voice and Nevada Alliance for Retired Americans filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and opposition to the RNC’s motion for a preliminary injunction. On July 31, Plaintiffs filed a reply to County Defendants in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction. On August 2, the court held a hearing on the motion and denied the preliminary injunction. On August 6, the court entered the order denying the motion. On August 8, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court. On August 23, Plaintiffs filed their opening brief. On September 13, Defendants filed their brief. Update: On September 20, Plaintiffs filed their reply brief. Oral argument in the Nevada Supreme Court is scheduled for October 8.

NEW HAMPSHIRE

603 Forward v. Scanlan, No. 226-2022-CV-00233 (Hillsborough Superior Ct.). Plaintiffs challenge SB 418, which requires voters registering on Election Day who do not provide acceptable ID to vote by provisional ballot and submit proof of their identity within seven days. The NH Republican State Committee, supported by the RNC and RITE PAC, is an intervenor-defendant. On November 3, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the lawsuit for lack of standing. On December 4, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. On December 19, the New Hampshire Supreme Court accepted the case. On April 16, the NH Republican State Committee filed its response brief in the state Supreme Court.

DNC v. Scanlan, No. 226-2023-CV-00613 (Hillsborough Superior Ct.). After the court dismissed the complaint in 603 Forward on standing grounds, the DNC and New Hampshire Democratic Party brought another suit challenging SB 418. Plaintiffs claim that SB 418 violates a state constitutional provision requiring election results to be sent to the secretary of state within five days of the election (Count I) and violates procedural due process (Count II). The RNC and NH Republican State Committee, supported by RITE, intervened. On April 17, the court issued a decision granting RNC’s motion to dismiss with respect to Count I and denying the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Count II and on April 30 filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal of Count I. Plaintiffs sought an expedited appeal. On May 9, the New Hampshire Supreme Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for an expedited appeal. On July 26, the RNC and NH GOP filed their appellate brief. Oral argument in the New Hampshire Supreme Court is scheduled for October 10.

NEW YORK
 
Stefanik v. Hochul , No. 908840-23 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Albany Cnty.). The RNC, and a host of lawmakers, party committees, county election administrators and voters supported by RITE, filed suit in New York state court challenging the recently enacted law authorizing no-excuse absentee voting as a violation of the New York state constitution, which permits absentee voting in only certain circumstances. New York voters overwhelmingly rejected a proposed constitutional amendment in 2021 that would have permitted no-excuse absentee voting. The DCCC, Senator Gillibrand, and several state representatives and voters intervened as defendants. The court held a hearing on plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction on October 13, 2023. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. On November 13, the plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss and cross-motion for summary judgment.

On December 4, Plaintiffs submitted a letter to the court requesting the preliminary injunction be entered promptly in light of the upcoming special election in the NY-03 congressional district. On December 26, the trial court issued an order denying the motion. Plaintiffs immediately appealed to the Appellate Division and filed a motion for preliminary injunction there. On January 16, the Appellate Division denied the motion.

On February 5, the trial court issued a decision holding that the no-excuse absentee voting law is constitutional. Plaintiffs immediately appealed to the Appellate Division. On February 15, Plaintiffs-Appellants filed their opening brief on appeal. On February 29, the court granted Plaintiffs-Appellants’ motion for expedited briefing. On March 18, the defendants filed their response briefs. On March 25, Plaintiffs-Appellants filed their reply brief. Oral argument was held on April 29. On May 9, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s decision. On May 13, Plaintiffs-Appellants filed a notice of appeal. On May 23, the New York Court of Appeals granted the appeal on an expedited briefing schedule. Oral argument is scheduled to occur July 30. On June 6, Plaintiffs filed their opening brief in the New York Court of Appeals. On July 1, the State filed their response brief, and Democrat Intervenors filed theirs as well. Oral argument occurred on July 30. On August 20, the New York Court of Appeals upheld the law.

Fossella v. Adams, No. 85007/2002 (Richmond Cnty. Sup. Ct.). The RNC, New York GOP, and a bipartisan coalition of officeholders and concerned citizens, challenged a New York City law allowing non-citizens to vote in city elections. The trial court granted summary judgment to Plaintiffs, holding that the city’s law violates state law. On February 21, 2024, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court, holding that the city’s law violates the New York state constitution. On March 23, Intervenor-Defendants filed a notice of appeal to the New York Court of Appeals.

Amedure v. New York, No. 2023-2399 (Saratoga Cnty. Sup. Ct.). A group of plaintiffs, including the New York Republican Party, are challenging certain absentee ballot voting procedures found in A.B. 7931 as inconsistent with the New York Constitution. Plaintiffs have filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which remains pending. On February 16, 2024, Defendants filed a motion for change of venue. On March 14, the court denied this motion. On May 8, the court upheld all but one provision. The Defendants filed a notice of appeal. On June 4, the New York Senate also appealed. On July 30, Republican Plaintiff Legislators and the New York Republican Party filed their opening briefs in the Appellate Division. Oral argument occurred on August 15. On August 23, the Appellate Division upheld the law in its entirety. Plaintiffs appealed to the New York Court of Appeals. Oral argument in the New York Court of Appeals is scheduled for October 15.

NORTH CAROLINA

RNC v. N.C. State Board of Elections II, No. 24CV028888-910 (Wake Cnty.). The RNC and North Carolina GOP filed a lawsuit and motion for temporary restraining order on September 12 challenging NCSBE’s approval of digital college student identifications as an acceptable form of voter ID. On September 19, the court denied the Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order / preliminary injunction. On September 20, Plaintiffs appealed for emergency relief. Update: On September 23, Plaintiffs filed a motion to expedite briefing on their petition for writ of supersedeas and motions for temporary stay and temporary injunction.

Wasserberg v. N.C. State Board of Elections, No. 24CV027855-910 (Wake Cnty.). The RNC, North Carolina GOP, and a North Carolina voter filed this lawsuit challenging the NCSBE’s policy that disregards the statutory requirement that absentee ballots must be returned in a sealed security envelope in order to count. Update: On September 24, North Carolina Alliance for Retired Americans filed a motion to intervene.

North Carolina Republican Party v. N.C. State Board of Elections, No. 24CV026820-910 (Wake Cnty.). Last year, the North Carolina General Assembly passed a law requiring election officials to remove from the voter rolls individuals who claim they are not citizens on jury questionnaire responses. Despite this law going in to effect on July 1, the NCSBE has made no effort to enforce it before this November’s election. On August 22,  the RNC and NC GOP filed this lawsuit to compel the Board to enforce the law. On August 28, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction.
 
RNC v. N.C. State Board of Elections, No. 24CV026995-910 (Wake Cnty.). Last year, more than 225,000 individuals registered to vote in North Carolina without providing identification required by HAVA due to an error in the voter registration application’s instructions. Although the NCSBE fixed the form to comply with HAVA, it declined to make any efforts to remedy the error with respect to the 225,000 voters who registered without providing HAVA-required ID information. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit to compel the Board to attempt to collect this information from these registrants or else remove them from the voter rolls. On August 30, the DNC filed a motion to intervene. On September 4, the North Carolina NAACP filed a motion to intervene. On September 10, the court granted the DNC’s motion to intervene. Update: On September 23, the State Board filed a notice of removal to federal court.

Voto Latino v. Hirsch, No. 1:23-CV-861-TDS (M.D.N.C.); Democratic National Committee v. N.C. State Board of Elections , No. 1:23-CV-862-TDS (M.D.N.C.). On October 10, 2023, the North Carolina General Assembly overrode the Governor’s veto of SB 747, which contains numerous important election-integrity provisions, including regulations on same-day voter registration, a requirement to return absentee ballots by Election Day, and legal protections for poll watchers. Plaintiffs filed these lawsuits shortly after the veto override challenging provisions of SB 747. The RNC and North Carolina GOP were granted intervention. and filed responses in opposition to plaintiffs’ motions for a preliminary injunction. On January 21, 2024, the court issued a narrow preliminary injunction requiring election officials to provide notice to same-day registrant-voters whose address verification card is returned as undeliverable, but otherwise allowing the challenged provisions of SB 747 to remain in effect. On April 9, the parties filed a joint motion to stay the DNC case, which the court granted one day later. On April 29, the district court granted the joint motion to stay in the Voto Latino case. Thus, the provisions challenged in these lawsuits will be in effect for the 2024 election.

OHIO

Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless v. LaRose, No. 1:23-cv-00026-DCN (N.D. Ohio). Plaintiffs challenge provisions of HB 458, including in-person voter ID requirements, deadlines for ballot curing, and restrictions on absentee ballot drop boxes. The Ohio Republican Party and two citizen poll workers supported by RITE are intervenor-defendants. The defendant and intervenor-defendants have filed motions for summary judgment. On January 8, the court granted the defendant’s and intervenor-defendants’ motions for summary judgment, upholding all challenged provisions of HB 458.

League of Women Voters v. LaRose, No. 1:23-cv-02414-BMB (N.D. Ohio). Plaintiffs are challenging Ohio’s restrictions on ballot harvesting. On January 19, 2024, the RNC and Ohio Republican Party filed a motion to intervene. On February 6, the court granted the motion to intervene. On May 24, Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment. Defendants and Intervenor-Defendants filed motions for summary judgment. On June 14, Republican-Intervenors filed a brief in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. On June 20, the United States Department of Justice filed a statement of interest.  On June 21, Republican-Intervenors filed a reply in support of their motion for summary judgment. On July 22, the court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. 

PENNSYLVANIA

New PA Project Education Fund v. Schmidt, No. 112 MM 2024 (Pa. S.Ct.). On September 25, plaintiffs filed this latest challenge in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to the state law requiring absentee voters to date their signatures on absentee ballot envelopes. On September 26, the RNC and PA GOP filed an application for leave to intervene.

Baxter v. Philadelphia Board of Elections, No. 240902481 (Philadelphia Cnty. Ct. of Common Pleas). On September 23, plaintiffs filed this lawsuit seeking to require Philadelphia to count undated ballots received in a recent special election. On September 26, the RNC and PA GOP filed a petition for leave to intervene. On September 26, the court ordered the Board to count the undated ballots.

RNC v. Schmidt, No. ___ (Pa. S.Ct.). On September 18, the RNC and PA GOP filed a King’s Bench Petition in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The Petition challenges the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s unlawful policy and practice of instructing voters who fail to comply with requirements for casting a mail ballot that they may instead cast a provisional ballot on Election Day. The Petition also challenges the legality of inspecting mail ballots before the Election Day pre-canvass to permit voters who fail to comply with mail ballot requirements to attempt to cure their errors. Update: On September 20, the DNC and the plaintiffs from Genser and Center for Coalfield Justice filed motions to intervene.

RNC v. Montgomery County Board of Commissioners, No. 2024-22251 (Montgomery Cnty. Ct. of Common Pleas). On September 20, the RNC, Montgomery County GOP, the county party chair, and Senate candidate David McCormick brought a lawsuit against the Montgomery County Board of Commissioners for sending out ballots and allowing voting before the statutorily required logic & accuracy testing of voting equipment. Plaintiffs also filed a petition for preliminary injunction.

Black Political Empowerment Project v. Schmidt , No. 283 MD 2024 (Pa. Comm. Ct.). The ACLU filed this latest challenge to Pennsylvania’s dated ballot requirement, claiming that the requirement violates the Free and Fair Elections Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution. On June 7, the RNC and PA GOP filed an application to intervene and proposed preliminary objections. On June 10, the court granted the application to intervene. On June 24, the RNC and PA GOP filed an application for summary relief. Pennsylvania’s Secretary of State filed an application in support of plaintiffs’ motion for summary relief. On July 8, Republican intervenors filed a brief in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for summary relief. A hearing before an en banc panel of the court was held on August 1. On August 30, the Commonwealth Court ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs. On September 2, the Republican Intervenors filed an appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. On September 3, Republican Intervenors submitted their opening brief. On September 13, the Supreme Court vacated the Commonwealth Court decision for lack of jurisdiction. On September 17, the Commonwealth Court sua sponte allowed Plaintiffs’ leave to file an amended petition. On September 19, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted Republicans’ request to clarify its order and ordered the Commonwealth Court to fully dismiss the case.

Eakin v. Adams County Board of Elections, No. 1:22-cv-340-SPB (W.D. Pa.); Pennsylvania State Conference of the NAACP v. Schmidt, No. 1:22-cv-00339-SPB (W.D. Pa.). Plaintiffs in both cases challenge the Pennsylvania law requiring mail-in and absentee voters to date their signatures on their ballot envelopes as a violation of the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act. The RNC, NRCC, and Pennsylvania GOP are intervenor-defendants. This case follows the RNC’s win in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which held that dated signatures were required under state law in order for a ballot to be counted. On November 21, 2023, the court partially granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in the NAACP case, holding that rejection of mail ballots for lack of compliance with the dated ballot requirement violates the Materiality Provision. On December 6, the RNC, NRCC, and PA GOP appealed to the Third Circuit, which issued a stay pending appeal. Oral argument was held on February 20. On March 27, the Third Circuit issued a decision holding that the dated ballot requirement does not violate the Materiality Provision. The court agreed with the RNC’s arguments and held that the Materiality Provision applies only to the voter registration stage of the election process and does not apply to state laws governing how voters must cast their ballots. The Third Circuit is the first federal circuit court to address whether the Materiality Provision applies to ballot-casting rules, and its decision holding that it does not will be strong precedent in other cases across the country. On April 10, Plaintiffs, the Secretary of the Commonwealth, and several counties filed a petition for rehearing en banc. On April 30, the court denied the petition for rehearing.

On May 17, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the original complaint in NAACP. On May 24, Intervenor-Defendants filed a motion in opposition. On May 29, Intervenor-Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment. On June 14, the court granted the motion to amend the complaint.

On June 5, Intervenor-Defendants filed a supplemental motion for summary judgment in Eakin. On June 28, Intervenor-Defendants filed a reply brief in support of their supplemental motion in Eakin. On July 3, Intervenor-Defendants filed a supplemental motion for summary judgment in NAACP. On July 18, Intervenor-Defendants filed a brief in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. On September 3, the court ordered additional briefing from the parties in both cases addressing the impact of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court’s decision in Black Political Empowerment Project v. Schmidt on their summary judgment motions. On September 13, the RNC and PA GOP filed their brief in response to the court’s September 3 order.

Genser v. Butler County Board of Elections, No. 24-40116 (Butler Cnty. Ct. of Common Pleas ). On April 29, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking to compel the Butler County Board of Elections to allow voters who do not return their mail ballot inside the required secrecy envelope to cast a provisional ballot, which is contrary to the county’s policy. On May 6, the RNC and Pennsylvania GOP filed a petition to intervene and proposed motion to dismiss. State law requires all mail ballots to be returned inside secrecy envelopes, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that counties are not required to allow curing of mail ballot errors. On May 7, the court granted the petition to intervene, held a hearing, and set a briefing schedule.  On June 28, the RNC and Pennsylvania GOP filed a brief in opposition to petitioners’ request for relief. On August 16, the court dismissed the case, agreeing with the RNC and PA GOP that Butler County may enforce its policy. On August 20, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court. On August 23, the RNC and Pennsylvania GOP filed their brief on appeal. On September 5, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court reversed the trial court’s ruling. On September 8, the RNC and Pennsylvania GOP filed their petition for allowance of appeal in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. On September 20, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted the RNC and Pennsylvania GOP’s petition for allowance of appeal. Update: On September 24, Butler Counter and Republican Appellants filed their opening brief on appeal.

Center for Coalfield Justice v. Washington County Board of Elections , No. 2024-3953 (Washington Cnty. Ct. of Common Pleas). Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit challenging Washington County’s policy prohibiting curing of mail ballot errors under the Pennsylvania Constitution. The RNC and PA GOP intervened. On July 26, Republican Intervenors filed a motion for summary judgment. On August 2, the RNC and PA GOP filed a response in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. On August 23, the court granted Plaintiffs’ request for an injunction and partially granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. On September 5, the Republican Intervenors filed a notice of appeal. On September 10, the RNC and Pennsylvania GOP filed their opening brief on appeal. On September 11, Plaintiff-Appellees filed their brief. The DNC and Pennsylvania Democrat Party filed a brief as amici in support of appellees. Update: On September 24, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling. On September 27, we filed a petition for leave to appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Agovino v. County of Delaware, No. CV-2023-005232 (Delaware Cnty. Ct. of Common Pleas). The Delaware County Republican Party is challenging a county ordinance that allows the county council to veto nominees for minority party member on the board of elections. The RNC and NRSC are supporting the county party in the litigation. On September 26, 2023, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction. On December 13, the court granted the motion, holding that the ordinance violates Pennsylvania election law and guaranteeing that the Delaware County Republican Party may select its preferred member of the county board of elections.

French v. County of Luzerne, No. 3:23-cv-538-MEM (M.D. Pa.). Plaintiffs supported by Lawyers Democracy Fund are suing Luzerne County for constitutional violations in connection with the county’s failure to supply enough ballot paper to polling places on Election Day in 2022. The case is currently in discovery. On December 4, the court denied the county’s motion to dismiss and allowed most of the claims to proceed. On April 15, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On May 20, the parties filed briefs in opposition to the cross-motions for summary judgment. A hearing on the motions for summary judgment occurred on July 30. Oral argument is scheduled for September 27.

DeMarco v. Innamorato , No. GD-24-003062 (Allegheny Cnty. Ct. of Common Pleas). On March 14, Allegheny County Councilman and Board of Elections Member Sam DeMarco filed a lawsuit, supported by RITE, against the Allegheny County Executive Sara Innamorato. The lawsuit alleges Innamorato did not obtain approval from the Board of Elections or receive public input as required by law before announcing a plan to utilize five ballot drop box locations for the April primary election. On March 18, the parties entered into a settlement agreement requiring the Board to vote on the adoption of ballot drop box locations at its next meeting, following which the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their lawsuit.

TEXAS

La Union del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott, No. 5:21-cv-00844-XR (W.D. Tex.). Plaintiffs in this consolidated lawsuit challenge SB 1, a Texas election integrity law. The district court denied the RNC, NRSC, NRCC, and Harris County and Dallas County Republican Parties’ initial motion to intervene. The party committees appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which reversed and held the committees were entitled to intervene as of right. The State Defendants filed motions to dismiss on immunity grounds. The court mostly denied the motions, allowing the cases to proceed. The State Defendants filed interlocutory appeals, which remain pending in the Fifth Circuit.

On November 29, the district court issued an order enjoining the requirement that voters put their ID number on mail ballot applications and envelopes, holding it violates the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act. The State and Republican Intervenors appealed and asked for a stay pending appeal. On December 15, the Fifth Circuit granted the motion for stay pending appeal, holding that the State and Republican Intervenors were likely to succeed on the merits. The ID requirement is therefore in effect while the appeal is pending. Trial on the remaining claims began on September 11 and finished on October 20. On June 12, Intervenor-Appellants’ filed their opening brief in the Fifth Circuit. On August 12, the private plaintiffs and the United States filed response briefs in the Fifth Circuit. On September 17, the Republican Intervenors filed a reply brief in the Fifth Circuit.

VERMONT

Morin v. City of Burlington, No. 24-CV-02403 (Chittenden Sup. Ct). Two Plaintiffs, backed by the RNC and Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections, filed a lawsuit challenging a city law allowing non-citizens to vote in certain local elections. On July 9, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

WASHINGTON
 
Vet Voice Foundation v. Hobbs, No. 22-2-19384-1 SEA (King Cnty. Superior Ct.). Plaintiffs challenge Washington’s signature-matching process under the Washington Constitution. The RNC and Washington GOP were denied intervention, and the Court of Appeals denied review of this decision. The RNC and Washington GOP submitted an amicus brief in support of the state’s motion for summary judgment, which remains pending. On October 12, 2023, the court denied the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment but certified two questions for discretionary review, which the Washington Supreme Court subsequently accepted. Oral argument is scheduled for October 31, 2024.

WISCONSIN   

Hendrickson v. City Clerk for the City of Racine, No. 2024-CV-001232 (Racine Cnty. Cir. Ct.). Plaintiffs sued the City of Racine after the city hired only 9 Republican poll workers to work the primary election when it had approved 56 Republican workers. The city hired more Democratic poll workers than Republicans despite there being fewer Democrats approved. The lawsuit asks the court to require the city to hire a sufficient number of Republican poll workers for the general election to satisfy the state’s partisan parity requirement. Update: The motion for temporary injunction was denied at the hearing on September 26.

Recker v. City Clerk for the City of Appleton, No. 2024-CV-000774 (Outagemie Cnty. Cir. Ct.). Plaintiffs, supported by the RNC, filed a lawsuit challenging the Appleton City Clerk’s decision not to hire any Republican-nominated special voting deputies (“SVDs”) because the Democratic Party did not submit any nominees. SVDs are responsible for administering in-person absentee voting at nursing homes and residential care facilities. State law requires prioritizing the nominees of the two major parties when appointing SVDs. Shortly after the complaint was filed, the City agreed to settle the case and hire Republican nominees as SVDs for the upcoming primary and general elections. On July 25, the court dismissed the case pursuant to the parties’ joint stipulation.

Priorities USA v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, No. 2023-CV-001900 (Dane Cnty. Cir. Ct.). Plaintiffs challenge three Wisconsin laws regulating absentee ballots: the requirement that absentee ballots be witnessed, the prohibition on ballot drop boxes, and the Election Day deadline for curing absentee ballot deficiencies. The RNC, Wisconsin GOP, and Rock County and Walworth County Republican Parties filed a motion to intervene in the case, which was opposed by the plaintiffs and the WEC. On October 27, 2023, the court denied the motion to intervene. The Wisconsin Legislature intervened in the case without opposition. The WEC and Legislature filed motions to dismiss. On January 24, 2024, the court granted the motion to dismiss with respect to the facial challenges to each of the three laws. Plaintiffs appealed and filed a petition to bypass the Court of Appeals in the Wisconsin Supreme Court. On March 12, the Supreme Court granted the petition to bypass the Court of Appeals and accepted the case for consideration. In its review, the Wisconsin Supreme Court will only consider whether it should overturn its 2022 decision in Teigen v. WEC which held that absentee ballot drop boxes are not permitted under Wisconsin law. On April 1, Priorities USA and Governor Evers filed opening briefs. On May 3, RNC, WI GOP, and RITE PAC filed an amicus brief in support of existing precedent holding that Wisconsin law does not authorize the use of drop boxes. Oral argument in the Wisconsin Supreme Court occurred on May 13. On July 5, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled 4-3 to reauthorize drop boxes, overturning its 2022 decision in Teigen v. WEC.

Liebert v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, No. 3:23-CV-00672-SLC (W.D. Wis.). Plaintiffs challenge Wisconsin’s witness requirement for absentee voting under the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act. On October 16, 2023, the RNC and the Republican Party of Wisconsin filed a motion to intervene as defendants. On October 25, the WEC filed a motion to dismiss. On October 30, the Wisconsin Legislature filed a motion to intervene. On December 5, the court granted the Wisconsin Legislature intervention and granted RITE’s motion to file an amicus. The court denied intervention to the RNC and Republican Party of Wisconsin. On December 6, the Wisconsin Legislature filed a motion to dismiss. On January 17, the court dismissed WEC from the case on sovereign immunity grounds but is allowing the suit to proceed against the commissioners. The court further stated it will defer a ruling on the merits of the case in light of two pending state-court cases in Dane County raising similar issues, Priorities USA v. WEC, No. 2023-CV-1900, and League of Women Voters of Wisconsin v. WEC, No. 2022-CV-2472. The parties subsequently filed motions for summary judgment. On May 9, the district court granted the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, upholding the witness requirement.

Kormanik v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, No. 2022-CV-1395 (Waukesha Cnty. Cir. Ct.). Plaintiff challenges unlawful WEC guidance allowing voters who have already returned their absentee ballots to “spoil” their ballot and revote. The RNC, Wisconsin GOP, and RITE are supporting the Plaintiff. On November 29, 2023, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the WEC’s guidance is unlawful. On January 16, 2024, the court entered a declaratory judgment in favor of Plaintiff. On March 5, intervenor-defendant Rise, Inc. appealed the decision to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. On April 4, Rise, Inc. filed a petition to bypass the court of appeals with the Wisconsin Supreme Court. On April 18, Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the petition for bypass. On May 21, the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied the petition to bypass. On July 18, the court paused the proceedings pending the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Wisconsin Elections Commission.

Rise, Inc. v. Wisconsin Elections Commission , No. 2022-CV-002446 (Dane Cnty. Cir. Ct.). Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief regarding the information required under law for a witness’s street address to be considered properly completed on an absentee ballot witness certificate. The RNC, Wisconsin GOP, and RITE supported plaintiffs in a previous case and obtained a judgment temporarily enjoining the WEC’s guidance allowing election officials to fill in missing address information. The WEC subsequently withdrew this guidance. The plaintiffs from that separate case attempted to intervene, but their request was denied. The Wisconsin Legislature is an intervenor-defendant. On January 2, 2024, the court issued a decision holding that a witness’s address information is sufficient if it enables officials to be able to communicate with the witness. In a related case (League of Women Voters of Wisconsin v. WEC, No. 2022-CV-2472), the court held that rejecting ballots for missing or incorrect address information violates the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act. On January 30, the Wisconsin Legislature appealed the decisions. On February 27, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals denied the Wisconsin Legislature’s motion for a stay pending appeal. On April 3, the Wisconsin Legislature filed its opening brief in the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. On July 11, the court issued an opinion largely affirming the trial court’s decision.

Brown v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, No. 2022-CV-1324 (Racine Cnty. Cir. Ct.). Plaintiff challenges WEC’s dismissal of his administrative complaint against the City of Racine’s use of mobile voting sites. On January 8, 2024, the court held that the use of mobile voting sites is inconsistent with Wisconsin election law. On February 9, Racine filed a notice of appeal. On April 1, the trial court denied the defendants’ and intervenors’ motions to stay the decision pending appeal. On May 3, the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted the intervenors’ petition to bypass the court of appeals. On June 3, intervenors Wisconsin Alliance for Retired Americans filed their opening brief in the Wisconsin Supreme Court. On June 11, the state Supreme Court granted WEC’s motion to stay a portion of the trial court’s opinion. On August 2, the RNC and Republican Party of Wisconsin filed an amicus brief . The Wisconsin Supreme Court held oral argument on September 10.

Disability Rights Wisconsin v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, No. 2024-CV-1141 (Dane Cnty. Cir. Ct.). Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit seeking to require Wisconsin to make available to certain disabled voters the option to receive and cast a ballot electronically. On June 25, the court partially granted plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary injunction, requiring clerks to distribute absentee ballots by email to voters who self-certify that they have a print disability, but denying the request to permit electronic return of ballots. RNC filed an amicus brief opposing the temporary injunction. On June 28, intervenor-defendant Wisconsin Legislature filed an appeal of the trial court’s order granting the plaintiffs’ temporary injunction. On July 24, the GOP filed a motion to dismiss. On August 1, the judge denied the Legislature’s request to pause the temporary injunction pending appeal. Update: On September 24, Appellant WEC submitted its opening brief on appeal.

Milwaukee Elections Commission v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, No. 24-CV-3558 (Milwaukee Cnty. Cir. Ct.). Earlier this year, the Wisconsin Elections Commission issued a mixed decision on an administrative complaint brought by an individual supported by the RNC challenging various early voting practices conducted by the Milwaukee Elections Commission in 2022. WEC agreed with the RNC that MEC could not engage in any voting activities at its main office during the time period in which the city was permitting voting activities at alternate early voting locations. MEC filed this lawsuit challenging that aspect of the WEC decision. The individual complainant from the WEC proceeding moved to intervene, with the support of RNC and RITE, to defend the decision. Update: On September 20, the League of Women Voters of Milwaukee filed a motion to intervene.

Braun v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, No. 2022-CV-1336 (Waukesha Cnty. Cir. Ct.). Plaintiff supported by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) challenged Wisconsin’s use of the national voter registration form as illegal because WEC had never lawfully adopted it and because it failed to meet statutory requirements. On September 5, 2023, the court ruled in favor of WILL that the use of the national form was illegal and enjoined WEC from issuing any guidance that the form can be used in Wisconsin unless it is legally adopted. On July 31, 2024, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed a decision denying Vote.org’s motion to intervene.

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT LITIGATION

The RNC filed amicus briefs across the country opposing efforts to disqualify President Trump from primary and general election ballots. The RNC filed amicus briefs in Colorado, Maine, Michigan, and Minnesota. The RNC also filed amicus briefs at the United States Supreme Court in support of President Trump. On March 4, the Supreme Court unanimously held that states may not disqualify President Trump from the ballot. The Court agreed with the argument in the RNC’s amicus briefs that states are not authorized under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to disqualify federal candidates from the ballot.

News Stories

The RNC, Minnesota’s Republican House delegation, and the Minnesota GOP sent a letter demanding more answers after Minnesota Department of Public Safety Commissioner admitted there were approximately 1,000 individuals who may have been improperly registered to vote under the automatic voter registration process. Read more from Fox News here.

Election officials in some battleground states declared they are willing to sue local governments if they refuse to certify the 2024 presidential election.

The Arizona Supreme Court ruled last week that the nearly 98,000 voters whose registration statuses were jeopardized by a state government clerical error will be eligible to cast a full ballot in November. The Arizona Motor Vehicle Department says it will assign a code to those voters that will alert the Secretary of State’s Office that they may need to provide citizenship verification.

Colorado Secretary of State Griswold entered into a settlement with the Public Interest Legal Foundation, which ordered Secretary Griswold to turn over voter list maintenance records, including data received from the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC).

The Georgia State Election Board last week voted 3-2 to require counties to hand-count ballots to ensure the number of physical ballots matches the machine count.

The Georgia State Election Board voted to investigate at least 8 counties for failing to properly investigate challenges disputing voter eligibility.

Georgia Democrats in the U.S. House reintroduced the Voter Empowerment Act of 2024 that would allow same day registration for federal elections and ban officials from removing voters from the rolls if their mail was returned.

An Illinois state representative introduced a bill to make individuals who are knowingly registering non-citizens to vote in elections guilty of a class four felony.

Nebraska Governor Pillen declined to call a special legislative session to restore the winner-take-all electoral system before the November election.

Several Nevada city clerks were sued to compel them to process voter roll challenges.

North Carolina’s State Board of Elections announced it removed over 747,000 ineligible people from its list of registered voters over the past 20 months.

The U.S. Justice Department sued two Wisconsin towns for allegedly not providing voting equipment to accommodate people with disabilities in violation of federal law.

A Wisconsin legislator sent a letter to Madison City Clerk Witzel-Behl demanding answers after more than 2,200 voters were sent duplicate ballots. Madison City Clerk Witzel-Behl has since responded.