Our Work

This Report describes the recently enacted mask ban in California and the proposed laws in other states. Under existing precedent, mask bans are neither clearly prohibited nor clearly permissible. This Report also provides an overview of other options states may have to address masking by federal law enforcement.

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.

There has been growing public interest in the potential of state courts and constitutions to provide greater protections to people within their borders than what’s offered under the federal Constitution. In 2024, multiple high-profile cases wound through state judiciaries, addressing reproductive rights, democracy, criminal justice, and much more.

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.

Decisions in California, Michigan, and Utah could serve as models for courts in other states facing power struggles between legislatures and proponents of voter-approved ballot initiatives.

The Michigan Supreme Court finished its 2023-2024 term in July, wrapping up a year in which the court decided several cases that will likely leave lasting impacts on democracy in the state. This report recaps the Michigan Supreme Court’s major democracy decisions from its 2023-2024 term, which ran from August 1, 2023 to July 31, 2024. It begins with an overview of the term before discussing the major democracy-related decisions. It then previews significant democracy cases that are currently working their way through Michigan’s court system and could soon be decided by the Michigan Supreme Court.

In roughly half of U.S. states, state constitutions confer rights of direct democracy, allowing the people to make law directly through statutes or constitutional amendments. The exercise of direct democracy rights can lead to power struggles with state legislatures. In particular, state legislatures sometimes respond to successful ballot measures by passing new laws that make ballot measures harder to use. Disputes over these new burdens on direct democracy frequently land in state courts. This Report considers how state courts have responded to these power struggles, with special attention to case law analyzing process-altering legislation under state constitutional direct democracy rights.

"Michigan progressives gathered enough signatures in 2018 to put two labor measures on the ballot: one to raise the minimum wage, another to mandate paid sick time for employees. Republican lawmakers, who ran the state at that time, thwarted the proposals with a brazen two-step maneuver. Before the measures were put before voters, they adopted legislation that enacted both into law exactly as organizers had drafted them; this eliminated them from the ballot. But once Election Day passed, lawmakers reconvened and gutted the laws they had just passed, all but erasing organizers’ work."

The Michigan Supreme Court held that the Michigan Legislature violated the state constitution when it used a hardball tactic known as “adopt and amend” to thwart two citizen-proposed initiated statutes in 2018. The case is Mothering Justice v. Attorney General. Its most immediate effect is that the thwarted initiatives—one increases the state’s minimum wage and the other provides some guarantees for workers to earn paid sick leave—will take effect in February 2025. In the long term, the case could help safeguard direct democracy rights in Michigan and around the country.

This report analyzes an often-overlooked set of state entities that hold substantial power: judicial conduct commissions. These entities, which exist in every state, are primarily designed to protect the public from judicial misconduct and have broad authority to investigate and sanction state judges. As state courts gain increasing attention, the public and scholars should likewise attend to the entities that oversee them.