Amicus Briefs

In a case concerning whether a federal statute, the Westfall Act, precludes all state-law damages actions against federal officials, even those based on federal constitutional violations, the State Democracy Research Initiative filed an amicus brief explaining that the U.S. Constitution’s structure envisions an active role for state laws and institutions in redressing the constitutional violations of federal actors, and, historically, state-level causes of action were the primary way for individuals to recover for injuries caused by such actors.

In a case challenging the Oregon Department of Justice's creation of a sweeping domestic surveillance program, State Democracy Research Initiative filed an amicus brief arguing that, in the absence of explicit statutory authorization, mere inclusion of funding for the program in an omnibus appropriations law does not amount to proper authorization of the program itself.

The State Democracy Research Initiative filed an amicus brief urging the Arizona Supreme court to uphold a voter-initiated statute requiring the disclosure of major donors to "dark money" political groups.

In a case determining whether the state constitution prohibits election officials from excluding timely-received absentee ballots because they lack a written date on the return envelope, the State Democracy Research Initiative filed an amicus brief arguing that the practice is inconsistent with the Pennsylvania Constitution's democratic commitments.

In a challenge to the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules's ability to indefinitely block administrative rules promulgated by executive agencies, the State Democracy Research Initiative filed an amicus brief arguing that this power violates the Wisconsin Constitution by allowing an unrepresentative legislative committee make binding statewide policy decisions. In 2025, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that legislative vetoes over administrative rules violate the Wisconsin Constitution’s bicameralism and presentment requirements.

In a challenge to Governor Tony Evers use of his partial veto powers to extend a school funding increase from two to 402 years, the State Democracy Research Initiative filed an amicus brief arguing that this use of the power violates constitutional limits on the power and is contrary to the constitution's democratic commitments. In 2025, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that Governor Evers had not violated the limits on the partial veto power.

In a case involving a state constitutional challenge to Washington's absentee ballot signature matching requirement, the State Democracy Research Initiative filed an amicus brief urging the Washington Supreme Court to reject the federal Anderson-Burdick standard and apply heightened scrutiny to laws that impair the right to vote. On March 6, 2025, the Washington Supreme Court held that the signature matching process did not violate the Washington Constitution.

In a case involving a state constitutional challenge to the practice of excluding timely-received absentee ballots which lack a correct written date on the return envelope, the State Democracy Research Initiative filed an amicus brief urging the Pennsylvania Supreme Court block this practice. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated the lower court decision blocking the practice on jurisdiction grounds.

In 2023, New York adopted a law enabling all registered voters to vote early by mail. The State Democracy Research Initiative filed an amicus brief urging the New York Court of Appeals to uphold the law, arguing that the law was within the legislature's constitutional authority to enact. In 2024, the New York Court of Appeals upheld the law.

After Minnesota passed a law restoring the right to vote to those convicted of felonies once they are no longer incarcerated, plaintiffs challenged the law arguing that such re-enfranchisement violates the state constitution. The State Democracy Research Initiative filed an amicus brief explaining that the challenged statute is consistent with the state constitution's pro-democratic commitments. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order dismissing plaintiffs' petition for lack of standing.