Our Work

Following the 2024 election, we updated our survey of election-related lawsuits to help understand the role of litigation in our elections. This update underscores key themes from our survey of litigation from 2018 to 2022: litigants continue to file election suits at high rates, primarily in state courts, and most often presenting claims related to election administration and the mechanics of voting.

Ahead of Election Day 2024, courts—and especially state courts—continue to be inundated with election-related lawsuits. As in 2020, courts may see a deluge of post-election litigation as well. A recurring question in these pre- and post-election cases is whether the plaintiffs waited too long to sue. Under the longstanding equitable doctrine of “laches,” courts sometimes reject claims as untimely even when plaintiffs satisfy the applicable statute of limitations if, in fairness, the claims should have been brought sooner. This Research Note offers a 50-state survey of laches doctrine in the election context.

As part of the November 5th election, Wisconsin voters will be asked for the fifth time this year whether to amend the Wisconsin Constitution. Wisconsin voters will decide whether to amend the constitutional provision defining suffrage or voting rights. Specifically, the ballot question asks: “Shall section 1 of article III of the constitution, which deals with suffrage, be amended to provide that only a United States citizen age 18 or older who resides in an election district may vote in an election for national, state, or local office or at a statewide or local referendum?”

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.

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.

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 August, Wisconsin voters will see two proposed state constitutional amendments on their ballots, both aimed at increasing the legislature’s role in allocating federal funds received by the state. The amendments stemmed from legislators’ desire to be more involved with the funding distribution process for billions of dollars in federal COVID-19 pandemic relief funding. This explainer describes each proposed amendment, lays out the main arguments being made for and against the proposals, and provides some broader national context.

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.

Election law is a dynamic and rapidly expanding field that generates enormous public interest. It is also of great practical importance to lawyers and law students, with increasing litigation and many controversial Supreme Court decisions, including Bush v. Gore, Citizens United v. FEC, and Shelby County v. Holder. This Nutshell provides a succinct and thorough description of the law governing elections, the right to vote, and the political process in the United States.