Ruthelle Frank was able to vote in Tuesday's primary elections in Wisconsin. But it took multiple lawsuits and 10 months to make it happen. And she still may not be able to vote in November.
Ruthelle is the ACLU’s 84-year-old plaintiff challenging Wisconsin’s voter ID law. She is only one of millions of people who are at risk of losing their right to vote this November as a result of wide-ranging state-by-state efforts to deny people access to the polls.
%3Ciframe%20width%3D%22480%22%20height%3D%22274%22%20src%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2FHbiby7_hNA0%3Fautoplay%3D1%26version%3D3%22%20frameborder%3D%220%22%20allowfullscreen%3D%22%22%3E%3C%2Fiframe%3E
Privacy statement. This embed will serve content from youtube.com.
Please note that by playing this clip You Tube and Google will place a long-term cookie on your computer. Please see on their website and on theirs to learn more. To view the ACLU's privacy statement, click here.
The right to vote is what makes a country a true democracy, and it is the most basic right we share as Americans. And yet, outrageous attempts to deny people the right to vote are under way in state after state — virtually guaranteeing that many Americans won’t really have the right at all. It’s estimated that in this year’s general election as a result of new voter suppression measures on the books.
The ACLU is launching Let People Vote today, a campaign that highlights stories of voters across the country who will be impacted by these voter suppression measures. From Wisconsin to Texas, Ohio to South Carolina, every person who loses the right to vote takes us one more step away from being a nation of free people.
Learn more about voters suppression: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .
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.”