Issues
States play a crucial role in voting and election administration. From voter registration to determining when, where, and how people cast ballots, state and local governments often determine how people participate in the democratic process.
The State Democracy Research Initiative’s work on voting and election administration considers how states and localities vary in their approach to election administration and how state and local choices can affect the quality of democracy.
Report Series
2026 Midterm Elections
The 2026 midterm elections will be a vital test of the country’s democracy, and state officials and state courts will play a critical role in ensuring that the elections are free and fair. In a series of ongoing projects, we are exploring several critical issues, from the protection of state voter data, to efforts to guard against meddling with mail voting, and we are sharing recommendations for how courts can efficiently and effectively handle highly expedited cases. In the coming weeks, we plan to tackle additional questions on topics ranging from state election crimes, deployments of federal officers at the polls, and safeguarding voting machines and ballots from federal seizure, among other topics.
Litigation over election results serves an important role in legitimizing the democratic process, but when these challenges drag on for months, they can undermine that legitimacy and leave citizens without representation. North Carolina’s 2024 Supreme Court race, for example, took six months of post-election litigation to resolve, and some observers worry that similar delays could affect control of Congress in 2027. This Explainer examines the gaps in state laws that increase the risk of prolonged election contests and shows how state supreme courts can use their supervisory and rulemaking powers to ensure prompt resolution of such proceedings.
As part of President Trump’s efforts to expand federal control over the country’s historically state-run election infrastructure, the U.S. Department of Justice has demanded copies of states’ complete voter registration lists, including voters’ highly sensitive data like birthdates, partial Social Security numbers, and driver’s license numbers. The Justice Department claims it needs this information to assess whether states are complying with federal requirements to maintain accurate voter rolls, but states have mostly resisted these demands, citing state and federal privacy laws that protect Americans’ sensitive personal data. Faced with widespread pushback, the Justice Department has filed lawsuits against 30 states (so far) and Washington, D.C., seeking orders compelling these jurisdictions to turn over their data.
This Report examines the legal issues at the heart of these standoffs. It discusses how states administer voter registration under federal law, explores the privacy protections states have enacted to safeguard sensitive voter data, and analyzes the key statutes the Justice Department is invoking—the National Voter Registration Act, the Help America Vote Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1960. While existing case law suggests that these federal laws can be harmonized with state privacy protections to allow states to withhold voters’ most sensitive information, how courts will resolve the federal government’s requests remains to be seen. The Report also discusses the possibility of citizen-led lawsuits in states where officials may be more willing to comply with federal demands, assessing both the promise and limitations of this strategy for protecting voter privacy.
For more up-to-date information on the DOJ’s lawsuits seeking states’ sensitive voter data, see our tracker here.
Mail voting is under unprecedented federal pressure heading into the 2026 midterm elections. From the White House to the Supreme Court to Congress, a series of developments is threatening a form of voting that tens of millions of Americans rely on—and that was relatively uncontroversial until just a few years ago. This explainer examines how mail voting became a partisan battleground, what the current federal threats mean for mail voting, and what states, election officials, and advocates can do in response.
Featured Resources
View All
Articles & Essays
Disenfranchisement Creep
Bryna Godar
03.13.25
Last Updated 05.18.26
Unlike the U.S. Constitution, which has no explicit voting rights guarantee, state constitutions both affirmatively grant the right to vote and list explicit, enumerated exceptions from that right. But state actors routinely overstep those bounds—a practice this article refers to as “disenfranchisement creep.” This article identifies two primary ways in which state actors disenfranchise people beyond the scope of state constitutions.
Reports
State Constitutional Standards for Adjudicating Challenges to Restrictive Voting Laws
Emily Lau
10.03.23
Last Updated 02.18.26
This Report surveys and classifies the standards that state courts around the country use to adjudicate state constitutional challenges to restrictive voting laws. This survey found that a majority of states apply a standard more rigorous than federal Anderson-Burdick review.
All States
Voting and Election Administration
Articles & Essays
Purcell Principles for State Courts
Rob Yablon & Derek Clinger
09.11.24
Last Updated 11.25.24
This Essay identifies several considerations for state courts to weigh as they decide whether to grant pre-election remedies. These considerations—Purcell principles for state courts—aim to get at each case’s underlying equities and help courts discern whether, on balance, intervention ahead of an election is warranted. The Essay concludes by discussing how the federal Purcell principle impacts U.S. Supreme Court review of state court remedial rulings, such as when litigants ask the Court for emergency relief on the ground that a state court violated the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause.
Featured Event
View All
Election Matters 2026 | Year in Review: Democracy Litigation in SCOTUS and the States
07.08.26
3:00-4:15 PM CDT
This annual panel, part of the Elections Matters series, will review major democracy-related rulings from the past year at both the state and federal levels. Panelists will include Special Counsel Amit Agarwal of Protect Democracy, Chief Counsel Christina Bull Arndt of the California Department of Justice, Attorney Julie Murray of the ACLU State Supreme Court Initiative, and former U.S. Solicitor General Don Verrilli.
Read More