Congressman Darrell Issa sued to prevent California from counting mail ballots postmarked by election day and received within the following seven days, consistent with California law. If successful, literally hundreds of thousands of Californians will be disenfranchised at each election. The ACLU and its three California affiliates have sought to intervene in the case on behalf of the League of Women Voters of California to ensure that California voters are able to have their ballots counted consistent with state procedures.

Congressman Michael Bost brought suit trying to prevent Illinois from counting mail ballots that are voted by election day and received within the following fourteen days, consistent with Illinois law. The Seventh Circuit ruled that Congressman Bost lacks standing to sue. Bost sought certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court on the question whether he has standing as a federal candidate to bring his lawsuit and have it decided on the merits.   While the ACLU strongly opposes Congressman Bost’s position on the merits and has repeatedly defended similar state laws from challenge, the rules that determine whether Bost has standing to even bring his anti-voter lawsuit also apply to civil rights groups when they bring suit to expand or protect the rights of voters.

This lawsuit challenges HB 1569, a new law that will make New Hampshire the only state to require every person to produce documentary proof of citizenship when they register to vote for both state and federal elections. It also challenges HB 1569’s elimination a preexisting protection for voters—namely, an affidavit option that allowed voters who faced surprise challenges to their eligibility at the polls to swear to their qualifications and cast a ballot. Accordingly, HB 1569 violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution by placing substantial burdens on New Hampshirites at all stages of the voting process, and will arbitrarily disenfranchise hundreds, if not thousands of qualified voters.

In Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment, the 8th Circuit became the first federal appeals court to rule that private plaintiffs cannot enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In doing so, the court left open the question whether private plaintiffs could enforce Section 2 through an alternative civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In this case, a divided panel on the 8th Circuit has held that plaintiffs may not use Section 1983, either. If the holding stands, Section 2 of the VRA will be functionally out of reach for voters across the 8th Circuit in Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. On behalf of the NAACP Arkansas State Conference and the Arkansas Public Policy Panel, the ACLU and ACLU of Arkansas has filed a brief supporting the plaintiffs' request that the full Eighth Circuit rehear and correct this decision.