At the Polls, Episode 3: The Role of the Courts in Election 2020
Election Day is fast approaching, and while we’re doing everything we can to prepare, some questions remain unanswered.
Dale Ho, director of the ACLU Voting Rights Project, and University of Michigan law professor Leah Litman join the podcast this week to discuss litigation across the country that could impact who gets to vote and how.
Ahead of this year’s election, we have seen an unprecedented amount of election litigation between both political parties. The Republican National Committee, at the direction of President Trump, has amassed a $20 million war chest for voting right...
Ahead of this year’s election, we have seen an unprecedented amount of election litigation between both political parties. The Republican National Committee, at the direction of President Trump, has amassed a $20 million war chest for voting right...
Election years are always busy for the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, but this year is even more action-packed due to the pandemic. For many, the safest way to vote is to vote by mail, yet millions of eligible voters nationwide cannot access the ballot due to state restrictions on who is allowed to cast an absentee ballot. Other requirements, such as those mandating witness signatures and ballot notarization, do not allow for CDC-recommended social distancing.
The ACLU has filed 25 lawsuits in 19 states and Puerto Rico to expand access to vote by mail and to challenge unnecessary witness, notary, and voter ID requirements. In the latest episode of At the Polls, we take a closer look at how litigation after the election could end up in the Supreme Court, and what we can all do now to avoid that scenario.
to stay up to date on election news.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Voting Rights
Election Day is Over. Why is the Electoral College Voting Now?Election Day is Over. Why is the Electoral College Voting Now?
The Electoral College meets December 17th to certify the results of the 2024 election, but why? The ACLU breaks down if the process is worth keeping. -
New York Supreme CourtDec 2024
Voting Rights
New York Communities for Change v. Nassau CountyNew York Communities for Change v. Nassau County
This case in New York state court centers on the landmark John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA) and the New York Municipal Home Rule Law (MHRL). The NYVRA, like several other state voting rights acts enacted in recent years, expands upon the federal Voting Rights Act’s protections against racial vote dilution. The MHRL prohibits racial discrimination and partisan gerrymandering in local-level redistricting. The ACLU’s Voting Rights Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the New York Civil Liberties Union, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Steptoe LLP filed a lawsuit on behalf of voters of color in Nassau County, New York alleging that a redistricting plan implemented in 2023 for Nassau County’s legislative districts dilutes the voting strength of Black, Latino, and Asian residents and is gerrymandered for partisan advantage in violation of the NYVRA and the MHRL. -
ArizonaNov 2024
Voting Rights
American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona v. RicherAmerican Civil Liberties Union of Arizona v. Richer
We sued elections officials in Arizona to extend the mail ballot “cure” deadline after ballot processing delays threatened to disenfranchise thousands of voters without notice. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
Voting Rights
Civil Rights Groups Respond to Flawed Trial Court Opinion on New York Voting Rights ActCivil Rights Groups Respond to Flawed Trial Court Opinion on New York Voting Rights Act
ORANGE COUNTY, Calif. — On November 7, a New York State Supreme Court trial judge issued an opinion striking down the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA). Today, the Legal Defense Fund, American Civil Liberties Union, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, New York American Civil Liberties Union, and Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law issued the following statement in response to the ruling: “The NYVRA is unquestionably constitutional, and protects the freedom to vote for all New Yorkers by helping to ensure voters are not subjected to discrimination when participating in the political process. “The Nov. 7 decision by a state trial judge is deeply flawed and plainly incorrect. We fully expect the decision to be reversed on appeal. It flies in the face of basic legal principles and constitutes a stunning overreach in striking down the entire law, including provisions that are not at issue in the case. “To put it simply, the NYVRA does not discriminate, it bans discrimination – and in doing so protects New Yorkers’ most fundamental right. “New York is stronger when everyone has an equal opportunity to vote.”