Our Work

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.

"Two federal appeals courts will soon weigh whether state election officials must turn their unredacted voter rolls over to the Justice Department—an argument President Donald Trump’s administration has yet to win in court. . . . “I do find that fascinating how all the district courts are reaching the same kind of bottom line that the Justice Department loses, but they’re getting there with different reasoning,” said Derek Clinger, senior counsel and director of partnerships with the University of Wisconsin law school’s State Democracy Research Initiative."

"With federal redistricting lawsuits increasingly difficult, state laws offer gerrymandering opponents another path. Thirty states have some form of a constitutional requirement for free elections, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. And at least 10 state supreme courts have found that state courts can decide cases involving allegations of partisan gerrymandering, according to a 2024 review by the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School."

For decades, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) limited enforcement operations at so-called “sensitive locations” like courthouses, schools, or hospitals. But during both Trump Administrations, officials rescinded those guidelines. This report discusses states and localities’ ability to adopt their own state-law policies to protect “sensitive locations” from the disruption of warrantless immigration arrests.

"Iowa has shared voter registration data — including sensitive personal information — with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Secretary of State Paul Pate announced Tuesday. . . . Federal judges in six states have dismissed the lawsuits, according to the University of Wisconsin’s State Democracy Research Initiative, and Oklahoma reached a settlement with the DOJ and agreed to provide its voter data."

"State law requires the elector to return an absentee ballot to the municipal clerk so that it can be delivered by closing on election day. It continues to clarify that a ballot cannot be counted if it is not mailed or delivered before that same deadline. Bryna Godar, a staff attorney with the State Democracy Research Initiative, told Courthouse News that the language of the statute doesn’t clearly dictate the clerk’s responsibility here."

"Diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, is on the November ballot in Wisconsin. That’s because the state Legislature passed a GOP proposal to ban governmental entities from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment based on race, sex color, ethnicity, or national origin. Now the issue goes to voters in a referendum that could amend the state constitution to include that ban. . . . "This is a process that doesn’t require the governor’s approval," says Lau."

"Not every state agrees that the government is entitled to the requested data. The federal government has filed lawsuits against 30 states and the District of Columbia for withholding their voter information. . . . Federal courts so far have dismissed lawsuits against California, Oregon, Michigan, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Arizona, according to the University of Wisconsin's State Democracy Research Initiative."

The case arose after a new Republican majority in the Michigan House refused to send several bills passed by a previous Democratic-controlled legislature to the governor to become law.

"Bridget Lavender, a lawyer who has researched mask bans for the University of Wisconsin Law School’s State Democracy Research Initiative, said that most case law tied to the supremacy doctrine was old and largely dated."