Litigation Highlights
The RNC filed its response to the state’s and the DNC’s motions to dismiss the RNC’s complaint in RNC v. DeMarinis. In that case, the RNC is suing Marylandfor failing to maintain accurate voter rolls.
A Montana district court denied plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction in Montana Federation of Public Employees v. Montana. In that case, the RNC is defending a Montana law no longer permits an individual to file a declaration attesting to identity in place of a photo identification.
In Morin v. Burlington, the Vermont Supreme Court upheld a charter provision that permits noncitizens to vote in local elections, including school board elections, ruling that the provision does not violate the Vermont Constitution. In that case, the RNC was challenging the charter provision through individually named plaintiffs.
The Virginia Supreme Court held in McDougle v. Nardo that the state’s newly drawn redistricting maps are unconstitutional. McDougle was the companion case to RNC v. Koski¸ where the Tazewell County Circuit Court enjoined Virginia officials from certifying the results of the redistricting referendum pending the Virginia Supreme Court’s decision. The RNC’s coordinated effort prevented a 10-1 Democrat gerrymander. On May 15, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Virginia’s petition for emergency relief.
Status of State Litigation
Arizona
RNC v. Fontes, No. CV2025-065841
Issue: Arizona’s Secretary of State allowed the “No Labels Party” to change its name to the “Arizona Independent Party” without following proper administrative procedures.
RNC’s Role: Plaintiff
Status: The RNC filed the complaint on December 11 and the Secretary has filed its answer. The No Labels Party intervened as defendants in the action. The RNC and the State filed cross motions for summary judgment. On March 25, the district court ruled that the name change was ultra vires, and the party must remain on the ballot as the No Labels Party. While the No Labels Party has appealed the ruling, the State has declined to file an appeal. The RNC is preparing a motion for attorneys’ fees from the State.
Mi Familia Vota v. Hobbs II, No. 24-3188 (9th Cir.), No. 25-1017, 25-1019 (U.S.)
Issue: Arizona added a documentary proof of citizenship requirement to its voter registration form.
RNC’s Role: Intervenor-Defendant
Status: After the United States Supreme Court allowed Arizona to enforce its proof-of-citizenship requirement for the 2024 election while the parties continued to litigate the merits of the law, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s injunction again in in April 2025. The Ninth Circuit denied the RNC’s petition for en banc review. The RNC filed its cert petition to the Supreme Court on February 19. The Court ordered the opposing parties to file their response to the RNC’s petition by May 26.
Mi Familia Vota v. Hobbs I, No. 21-CV-01423 (D. Ariz.)
Issue: Arizona created a new protocol to remove voters from the Active Early Voting List (i.e., the list of voters who automatically receive mail-in ballots) if they don’t cast an early ballot in any election over two election cycles and don’t respond to a follow-up notice.
RNC’s Role: Intervenor-Defendant
Status: In June 2022, the judge dismissed all the claims except the plaintiffs’ claim that the Active Early Voting List reform law was motivated by discriminatory animus. The parties are currently briefing summary judgment.
RNC v. Arizona, CV2025-022859 (Ariz. Sup. Ct.)
Issue: The RNC sued the State of Arizona for permitting individuals who have never resided in the United States, let alone in the State of Arizona, to register to vote in Arizona.
RNC’s Role: Intervenor-Defendant
Status: The State of Arizona moved to dismiss the RNC’s complaint, and the court denied the motion, allowing the case to proceed.
Delaware
RNC v. Albence, (D. Del.)
Issue: Delaware has failed to produce records related to its maintenance of voter rolls as required by the NVRA. In July, the RNC sent a NVRA violation letter to the State Election Commissioner of Delaware, Anthony Albence.
RNC’s Role: Plaintiff
Status: The RNC filed the complaint on March 27. The parties are now conferring about next steps.
District of Columbia
LULAC v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-946 (D.D.C.)
Issue: The Executive Order targets a number of important election integrity efforts, including proof of citizenship to register to vote; removal of non-citizens from voter rolls; and only counting mail-in ballots received by election day.
RNC’s Role: Intervenor-Defendant
Status: The court granted a preliminary injunction, partially enjoining portions of the President’s Executive Order. Cross-motions for summary judgment were fully briefed. The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgement on the proof-of-citizenship provision. The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgement on the APA claims and the provision that grants the Attorney General enforcement authority to take action against states with post-Election Day receipt deadlines. The court entered final judgment and the parties appealed. The DC Circuit consolidated all appeals and ordered the parties to brief dispositive and procedural motions. The federal government and the plaintiffs filed competing motions for summary reversal and summary affirmance in late April and early May, and the RNC’s brief in support of the EO is due on May 26.
Florida
Florida Rising Together v. Byrd, No. 6:24-cv-01682 (M.D. Fla.)
Issue: Florida law requires the registration information to be an exact match to data maintained by the Florida government or the federal government.
RNC’s Role: Intervenor-Defendant
Status: The district court dismissed plaintiffs’ first complaint for failing to join all of the county supervisors as defendants and for failing to specify which defendants were liable for each claim. The RNC and the Secretary filed motions to dismiss and county defendants filed an answer. The parties jointly moved to stay discovery pending resolutions of the motions to dismiss. The RNC filed its reply on March 18, and we are now waiting for the court to rule.
Vote.Org v. Byrd, No. 4:23-cv-00111 (11th Cir.)
Issue: Florida law requires an original signature (wet signature) on voter registration forms.
RNC’s Role: Intervenor-Defendant
Status: The district court upheld the wet signature requirement, and the plaintiffs appealed. The Eleventh Circuit heard oral argument on May 8, and the parties are waiting on a decision.
Georgia
Fulton County GOP v. Fulton County Board of Commissioners, No. 25CV008083 (Ga. Sup. Ct. Fulton Cnty.)
Issue: The Fulton County Board of Commissioners refused to appoint the Fulton County GOP’s nominees to the Board of Elections.
RNC’s Role: Plaintiff
Status: A judge ordered the Board to appoint the Republican nominees, but the Democratic Commissioners refused to do so. In late August, the trial court found the Board in contempt, but the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the merits decision and contempt order. On April 9, the Fulton County GOP filed a petition for review with the Georgia Supreme Court. After the Board filed its opposition, the Fulton County GOP filed its reply in support of review on May 8.
VoteAmerica v. Raffensperger, No. 1:21-cv-1390 (N.D. Ga.)
Issue: SB202 prohibits groups from prefilling absentee-ballot applications and sending duplicate applications to voters.
RNC’s Role: Intervenor-Defendant
Status: The district court upheld Georgia’s prohibitions, which help reduce voter confusion, support voter confidence, and make elections more secure.
Coalition for Good Governance v. Raffensperger, No. 25-11347 (11th Cir.)
Issue: SB202 allows the State Election Board to temporarily suspend election superintendents after they commit multiple violations of law. SB202 also made it a felony to intentionally observe someone casting a ballot such that the observer can see who the elector voted for. It also strengthens protections for tallying ballots.
RNC’s Role: Intervenor-Defendant
Status: The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the State of Georgia, dismissing the case. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, allowing key parts of SB202 to remain in place. The time for plaintiffs to petition for rehearing expired in February 2026.
In re SB 202, No. 23-13085 (N.D. Ga.; 11th Cir.)
Issue: SB202 prohibits the mailing of unsolicited absentee ballot applications; requires identification to request an absentee ballot; shortens the application window for absentee ballot requests; restricts the use of drop boxes; prohibits the giving of money and gifts at polling places; and restricts the counting of out-of-precinct provisional ballots.
RNC’s Role: Intervenor-Defendant
Status: The court preliminarily enjoined the birthdate requirement on absentee ballots and the 25-foot line-warming prohibition for the 2024 elections. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the injunction of Georgia’s line-warming prohibition and remanded the case to the district court to conduct a new analysis under the correct legal standard. The Court did not address the birthdate requirement. Separately, the parties are waiting on the district court’s decision on summary judgment and are briefing a renewed preliminary injunction motion on the line-warming issues.
Hawaii
RNC v. State of Hawaii, Office of Elections, No. CCV-25-0001691 (D. Haw.)
Issue: Hawaii failed to turn over any documents in response to the RNC’s public records requests for information about Hawaii’s voter-list maintenance.
RNC’s Role: Plaintiff
Status: The RNC filed a complaint on October 14. Briefing on the State’s motion to dismiss has concluded and the court held a hearing on the motion on January 8. The court directed the parties to work together to identify documents that may be covered by the RNC’s requests.
Illinois
Bost v. Illinois Board of Elections, No. 23-2644 (S. Ct.)
Issue: Whether federal candidates have standing to challenge an election-day receipt deadline law.
RNC’s Role: Amicus
Status: The Seventh Circuit held that federal candidates do not have standing to challenge the Illinois law. The RNC filed an amicus brief in support of Bost in the Seventh Circuit. The United States Supreme Court heard argument on October 8, 2025. The RNC filed another amicus brief in support of Bost at the Supreme Court on July 29, 2025. The Supreme Court decided on January 14 that Bost, and other future candidates, have standing to challenge the rules governing their election.
Maryland
RNC v. DeMarinis, No. 1:25-cv-3989-SAG (D. Md.)
Issue: Maryland has failed to properly maintain accurate voter rolls. In July, the RNC sent a NVRA violation letter to the Maryland State Administrator of Elections Jared DeMarinis.
RNC’s Role: Plaintiff
Status: The RNC filed the complaint on December 5. The parties are currently participating in discovery. The State Board of Elections filed a motion to dismiss and the RNC’s response is due March 13. The RNC filed an amended complaint on March 13. The defendants filed motions to dismiss and the RNC filed its response on May 8.
Michigan
RNC v. Benson (Mich. Ct. Cl.)
Issue: Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson issued an election manual that permits noncitizens to vote in state elections. Michigan law also permits noncitizens, and non-residents of Michigan, to vote in state elections.
RNC’s Role: Plaintiff
Status: The RNC filed the complaint on November 21. Secretary Benson filed a motion to dismiss and the RNC filed its response on February 3. The Michigan Court of Claims granted Secretary Benson’s motion on April 23.
RNC v. Benson, No. 1:24-cv-262-JMB (Mich. Ct. Cl.)
Issue: Michigan law authorizes tabulating ballots only when the number on the ballot stub matches the number on the ballot envelope, but the Secretary of State ordered the tabulation of ballots even when the numbers did not match.
RNC’s Role: Plaintiff
Status: The Michigan Court of Claims ruled that absentee ballots can be counted only when the number on the ballot stub matches the number on the ballot envelop. The Michigan Court of Appeals stayed the permanent injunction pending appeal. Secretary Benson filed her opening brief and the RNC’s response is due on March 17.
RNC v. City of Lansing, No. 25-000919 (Mich. Cir. Ct.)
Issue: The City of Lansing failed to provide video footage of ballot drop boxes after the RNC submitted public records requests and instead said it requires the RNC to pay an exorbitant amount to access these records.
RNC’s Role: Plaintiff
Status: The trial court denied the City’s request to dismiss the RNC’s claim that when a requesting party wants to challenge the legitimacy of a records fee, it may do so without having to pay it upfront. The parties are briefing cross-motions for summary disposition and the court scheduled argument for April 15.
State of California v. Trump, No. 25-1726 (1st Cir.)
Issue: The Executive Order targets a number of important election integrity efforts, including proof of citizenship to register to vote; removal of non-citizens from voter rolls; and only counting mail-in ballots received by election day.
RNC’s Role: Support State GOP
Status: The RNC funded an amicus brief in the First Circuit, which was filed on behalf of the Michigan GOP and a Michigan county clerk to defend President Trump’s election integrity executive order. The RNC supported a similar brief at the district court.
Minnesota
MN Alliance for Retired Americans v. Simon, No. 62-cv-24-854 (Minn.)
Issue: Minnesota law requires that absentee voters have a witness observe their completion of the absentee ballot.
RNC’s Role: Amicus
Status: The Court of Appeals upheld Minnesota’s witness requirement, and while the RNC was denied intervention, the RNC filed an amicus brief in the Minnesota Supreme Court, asking the court to affirm the decision.
Mississippi
Watson v. RNC (formerly RNC v. Wetzel), No. 24-1260 (S. Ct.)
Issue: Mississippi permits the counting of mail-in ballots after election day.
RNC’s Role: Plaintiff
Status: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the federal election-day statutes require that ballots be cast by voters and received by election officials by election day. Mississippi filed a cert petition in June, asking the United States Supreme Court to review the Fifth Circuit’s decision. The Supreme Court granted the cert petition on November 10 and heard oral arguments on March 23.
Montana
Montana Federation of Public Employees v. Montana, ADV 2025-268 (Mont. 1st Jud. Dist.)
Issue: Montana law no longer permits an individual to file a declaration attesting to identity in place of a photo identification.
RNC’s Role: Intervenor-Defendant
Status: The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction and summary judgment, and the RNC responded on February 20. On May 8, the district court denied the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, upholding Montana’s new identification requirements.
Nevada
RNC v. Aguilar, No. 2:24-cv-518 (D. Nev.)
Issue: The RNC sued Nevada for failing to maintain accurate voter rolls as required by the NVRA.
RNC’s Role: Plaintiff
Status: The district court granted the state’s motion to dismiss the RNC’s complaint but gave the RNC leave to amend the complaint. The RNC filed an amended complaint, the defendants moved to dismiss again, and the district court stayed the motion to dismiss pending resolution of another case that may impact the parties’ standing arguments.
RNC v. Burgess, No. 3:24-cv-00198 (9th Cir.)
Issue: Nevada law permits the counting of mail-in ballots up to four days after election day.
RNC’s Role: Plaintiff
Status: The district court dismissed the RNC’s claims for lack of standing. The RNC appealed, and the court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs the Bostdecision and Watson, which the RNC filed on February 29. The Ninth Circuit is currently holding the case pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Watson v. RNC.
New Hampshire
Coalition for Open Democracy v. Scanlan and New Hampshire Youth Movement v. Scanlan, No. 1:24-cv-00291 (D.N.H.)
Issue: New Hampshire passed a law requiring documentary proof of citizenship.
RNC’s Role: Amicus
Status: The RNC filed an amicus brief in support of New Hampshire’s motion to dismiss. The RNC is waiting on the district court’s decision.
Robertson v. Scanlan, No. 218-2025-CV-00951 (N.H. Super. Ct.)
Issue: New Hampshire passed a law that requires anyone requesting an absentee ballot to either include a copy of their photo ID, present photo ID in person at the clerk’s office, or have their signature on the application notarized.
RNC’s Role: Intervenor-Defendant
Status: The RNC filed a motion to intervene on October 30. The court dismissed the complaint before ruling on the RNC’s motion to intervene.
New Jersey
New Jersey Democratic State Committee v. Board of Elections of Bergen County, No. BER-L-7347-25 (N.J. Sup. Ct. Bergen Cnty)
Issue: The Bergen County Board of Elections rejected more than 300 unsealed ballots.
RNC’s Role: Support State GOP
Status: The Democratic State Committee sued on November 3, asking the court to allow the voters who submitted unsealed ballots to cure the defect. The New Jersey Republican Party intervened to help defend the Bergen County Board of Election’s decision. On November 6, the court denied the Democratic State Committee’s request to compel the Board to implement a cure process.
Republican National Committee v. Division of Elections, MER-L-1499-25 (N.J. Sup. Ct.)
Issue: New Jersey failed to turn over records regarding voter list maintenance and the seal audit logs from the June 2025 Primary.
RNC’s Role: Plaintiff
Status: The trial court dismissed the RNC’s claim, and the RNC moved for reconsideration. After granting the RNC’s motion for reconsideration, plaintiffs renewed their motion to dismiss, claiming they did not possess these documents. The court granted plaintiffs’ motion on February 19.
Republican National Committee v. Burlington County Board of Elections, No. BUR-L-002476-25 (N.J. Super. Ct.)
Issue: In August, under the Open Public Records Act, the RNC requested records about ballot drop boxes, including custody logs and security footage. The Burlington County Board of Elections failed to properly respond to the RNC’s request.
RNC’s Role: Plaintiff
Status: The RNC filed the complaint on October 24.
Republican National Committee v. Way, No. 2:25-cv-17612 (D.N.J.)
Issue: New Jersey failed to turn over any documents in response to the RNC’s public records requests for information about New Jersey’s voter-list maintenance.
RNC’s Role: Plaintiff
Status: Since March, the RNC has sent eighteen separate records requests in New Jersey. The RNC filed the complaint on November 17 and the state’s response is due January 22.
Republican National Committee v. Bergen County (N.J. Super. Ct.)
Issue: Bergen County failed to turn over its list of poll workers assigned to each precinct in the county when the RNC requested it under New Jersey’s Open Public Records Act in November 2025.
RNC’s Role: Plaintiff
Status: The RNC filed its complaint on March 2. On April 17, Bergen County was ordered to turn over all relevant records.
Pennsylvania
Baxter v. Philadelphia Board of Elections, No. 240902481 (Pa.)
Issue: Pennsylvania law requires mail-in ballots to be dated in order to be counted.
RNC’s Role: Intervenor-Defendant
Status: The lower court concluded that Pennsylvania’s date requirement violates the Free and Equal Elections Clause in the Pennsylvania Constitution. The RNC appealed, and the parties are now waiting on a decision.
Eakin v. Adams County Board of Elections, No. 1:22-cv-00340 (Pa.)
Issue: Pennsylvania law requires mail-in ballots to be dated in order to be counted.
RNC’s Role: Intervenor-Defendant
Status: The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s injunction of Pennsylvania’s mail-in ballot requirement, holding that it failed to satisfy a judicial balancing test. The Third Circuit denied the RNC’s petition for en banc review. The RNC filed a cert petition with the U.S. Supreme Court on February 11.
Smerconish v. Schmidt, No. 474 MD 2025 (Pa.)
Issue: A group of independent voters in Pennsylvania are challenging Pennsylvania Election Code Section 2812, which bars independent voters from participating in partisan primaries.
RNC’s Role: Intervenor-Defendant
Status: The RNC filed its motion to intervene on February 13. The court held a hearing on the motion on April 27, and we are awaiting the court’s ruling.
South Carolina
Public Interest Legal Foundation v. Knapp, No. 3:24-cv-1276-JFA (4th Cir.)
Issue: South Carolina refused to turn over the requested information about voter rolls under the NVRA because PILF was not a citizen of South Carolina.
RNC’s Role: Amicus
Status: The district court held that South Carolina was required to turn over the requested information because the NVRA’s open records provisions are not just limited to citizens of a specific state. South Carolina appealed, and the RNC filed an amicus brief in support of PILF. The Fourth Circuit heard oral argument in late October.
Texas
La Union del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott, No. SA-21-CV-00844-XR<> (5th Cir.)
Issue: Texas enacted SB1, which—among other things—increases protections for voters needing assistance, reinforces voter identification requirements, and prohibits vote harvesting.
RNC’s Role: Intervenor-Defendant
Status: The district court held that SB1’s vote harvesting ban is unconstitutional. The Fifth Circuit has stayed that order and oral argument on December 2. On February 12, the Fifth Circuit issued a unanimous decision reversing the lower court’s ruling that struck down SB1’s ballot harvesting ban and held the Republican Party, as intervenors, have standing to appeal the lower court’s rulings independent of the State.
Vermont
Morin v. Burlington, No.24-CV-02403 (Vt.)
Issue: The City of Burlington permits noncitizens to vote in local elections, including school board elections.
RNC’s Role: Plaintiff (through individually named plaintiffs)
Status: The RNC brought a similar lawsuit several years ago, but the Vermont Supreme Court determined that the Vermont Constitution does not prohibit all noncitizen voting in local elections but rather prohibits noncitizen voting in local elections that concern “statewide issues” as opposed to “municipal issues.” The present lawsuit builds on this decision, challenging the ability of noncitizens to vote in school board elections. The Vermont Supreme Court heard oral arguments on October 15 and upheld the charter provision that permits noncitizens to vote in local elections.
Virginia
RNC v. Fairfax County Electoral Board (Fairfax Cnty. Cir. Ct.)
Issue: Fairfax County’s Election Officer Training Notebook directions to allow individuals with non-citizen identification to vote without challenge despite Virginia law requiring election officials to challenge any voter they suspect is not a U.S. citizen.
RNC’s Role: Plaintiff
Status: The RNC filed the complaint on April 17. The court held a hearing on the RNC’s motion for a temporary restraining order on April 20 and denied the motion.
Virginia Coalition for Immigrant Rights v. Beals, No. 1:24-cv-01778
Issue: Several groups sued to block Virginia election officials from removing noncitizens from voter rolls within 90 days of an election.
RNC’s Role: Intervenor-Defendant
Status: The RNC filed the motion to intervene on March 25. The plaintiffs filed oppositions to the RNC’s motion to intervene, and the RNC’s reply is due April 14. The parties settled the case on April 20.
RNC v. Koski, No. CL26-266 (Tazewell Cnty. Cir. Ct.)
Issue: The Virginia General Assembly passed a proposed constitutional amendment on redistricting to be voted on in a special election on April 21.
RNC’s Role: Plaintiff
Status: The RNC and NRCC filed a complaint and an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order on February 18, which the court granted and the Virginia Supreme Court later stayed. The Circuit Court held a hearing on the RNC’s motion for final judgment on April 22 and granted the motion, enjoining certification of the referendum. The defendants appealed and moved to stay the injunction pending appeal, but the Virginia Supreme Court denied the motion.
RNC v. Virginia State Board of Elections, (Richmond Cty. Cir. Ct.)
Issue: Virginia’s 2026 Plan drew a 10-1 map favoring Democrats. The RNC alleges a violation of Virginia’s decennial redistricting provisions and Virginia’s compactness requirement.
RNC’s Role: Plaintiff
Status: The RNC filed the complaint on March 3. The RNC moved for a preliminary injunction on March 31. The court heard oral arguments on April 20 and denied the RNC’s motion for a preliminary injunction on April 27.
RNC v. Virginia State Board of Elections, (Richmond Cty. Cir. Ct.)
Issue: The RNC sued the Virginia State Board of Elections for permitting individuals who have never resided in the United States, let alone in the State of Virginia, to register to vote in Virginia.
RNC’s Role: Plaintiff
Status: The RNC filed the complaint on April 6.
Wisconsin
Kormanik v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, No. 2022CV001395 (Wisc. Ct. App.)
Issue: Wisconsin law provides for the spoiling of ballots in limited circumstances, but the Wisconsin Elections Commission ordered clerks to destroy unspoiled ballots and give the voter a new ballot for any reason.
RNC’s Role: Intervenor-Defendant
Status: The lower court determined that the Commission’s interpretation violated state law. The DNC appealed, and the RNC recently filed a response brief. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court and determined that the joint committee for review of administrative rules (JCRAR) was not properly served.
Paid for by the Republican National Committee. 310 First Street S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003, 202-863-8500. www.GOP.com. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.
Please feel free to reach out to me with any questions or comments at hegop@nvc.net or heidi@sdgop.com.
Heidi Engelhart, South Dakota Republican National Committeewoman
www.voiceoftheplainssd.substack.com
