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.

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.

Every campaign season brings renewed attention to the amount of money influencing American politics, and who is spending it, and for what purposes. In particular, people are concerned about what is called “dark money.” The term sounds scary and raises the specter of shadowy people manipulating the nation’s politics. This piece unpacks what dark money is, what concerns it raises and what might be done to address it.

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.

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.

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.

"As part of our “Doing Democracy” series, we look at state courts and constitutions. Each state has its own constitution, and they generally offer more rights than the U.S. Constitution. For example, the California constitution guarantees the right to happiness, reproductive freedom, and the ability to fish on public land, among other enumerated rights. With a conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court, activists are increasingly looking at states to protect – and even expand – rights. But will this strategy work? We’ll talk to legal experts about how state courts and constitutions are increasingly becoming battle grounds for preserving or expanding civil rights, and what the impact in California and neighboring states might be."

In recent years, legal commentators have analyzed—and often criticized—the U.S. Supreme Court’s “shadow docket.” To date, this dialogue has focused on the U.S. Supreme Court. But the real engines of the American legal system are state, not federal, courts. This paper offers a primer on shadow dockets in the states. ts core observation is that state supreme court shadow dockets are broader and less transparent versions of the federal model—shadow shadow dockets.

The U.S. constitution is quite difficult to change — however, state constitutions are relatively easy…to the extent that 70 state constitution amendments were passed in 2022. Emily Lau, Staff Attorney fort he University of Wisconsin’s State Democracy Research Initiative talks about these “living” documents and the efforts that this non-partisan group is making to make the fifty state constitutions available, and searchable at 50constitutions.org