Our Work

"The Wisconsin Supreme Court is scheduled to hear from members of the public this week on a request to require judges to recuse themselves if past donations to or support of their judicial campaign could affect their impartiality in a case."

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.

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."

"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."

"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.

"Michigan was one of several states that refused to share its voter rolls with the federal government. Now, it may be the most likely to have to defend that decision in higher courts — potentially even the U.S. Supreme Court."

"Derek Clinger, a senior attorney with the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s State Democracy Research Initiative, told WPR the federal government’s use of the Civil Rights Act is an interesting approach."

"While the Justice Department now claims the security and sanctity of upcoming elections necessitates the need for speed, the department hasn’t alleged any states are violating federal voter list maintenance requirements, said Derek Clinger, senior counsel and director of partnerships at the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School."