吃瓜大本营

Texas requires voters who register to vote electronically or via fax to mail an original copy with the voter鈥檚 鈥渨et signature鈥� to the applicable registrar. A voter may be denied registration merely because the mailed copy of the form has a scanned signature on it rather than a 鈥渨et ink鈥� one. But the Civil Rights Act prohibits states from disenfranchising voters based on immaterial paperwork errors. We鈥檙e fighting to make sure that every vote counts and supported Vote.org鈥檚 challenge to the 鈥渨et ink鈥� law as unlawful under the Civil Rights Act.

Florida has arrested and prosecuted many returning citizens鈥攑ersons with felony convictions who are no longer incarcerated鈥攆or registering and voting while ineligible. These prosecutions have occurred amid widespread confusion about voting rights restoration in Florida and have been initiated by an Office of Statewide Prosecutor (鈥淥SP鈥�) that has no authority to bring these criminal actions.

Mississippi is home to one of the strictest felon disenfranchisement schemes in the nation. The Mississippi Constitution permanently disenfranchises citizens upon a single felony conviction for certain crimes, including minor offenses like writing a bad check. As a result, the loss of rights under Mississippi鈥檚 scheme is mandatory, permanent, and effectively irrevocable. In Hopkins, plaintiffs, a class of formerly incarcerated individuals who lost their right to vote despite completing their sentences, argued that their disenfranchisement violated the Eighth Amendment鈥檚 prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in the plaintiffs鈥� favor and struck down Mississippi鈥檚 disenfranchisement scheme as cruel and unusual punishment. But the Fifth Circuit decided to rehear the case en banc, a rare occurrence in which a case is reconsidered by the entire panel of the circuit鈥檚 active judges.

This case involved a state constitutional challenge to New Hampshire鈥檚 2022 statewide Executive Council redistricting plan, which bore the hallmarks of a stark partisan gerrymander. The ACLU and the ACLU of New Hampshire filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge to the map in the New Hampshire Supreme Court.