Our Work

"As President Joe Biden and Donald Trump step up their campaigning in swing states, a quieter battle is taking place in the shadows of their White House rematch. The Republican National Committee, newly reconstituted under Trump, has filed election-related lawsuits in nearly half the states. Recent lawsuits over voter roll maintenance in Michigan and Nevada are part of a larger strategy targeting various aspects of voting and election administration."

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.

Every 10 years, following the federal census, states are required to redraw their congressional and legislative district maps. In the majority of states, the duty to redistrict rests with the state legislature. Because line-drawing decisions can have significant electoral consequences, the redistricting process is often highly contentious. An especially prominent concern is with partisan gerrymandering—that is, the adoption of maps that unduly advantage one political party over another. This report assesses the rise of state court litigation as one important tool for curbing partisan gerrymandering and provides a state-by-state analysis of the viability of state partisan gerrymandering claims.

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

This Report surveys current state laws affecting direct democracy, with an emphasis on those relating to voter participation and understanding. For instance, what information appears on the ballot, and who prepares it? What standards exist, if any, to ensure that ballot language is clear and impartial? When, and how, can courts step in?

State-level administrative agencies, like their federal counterparts, play a significant role in governance across the nation. Their responsibilities run the gamut—from elections to education; from public waterways to public health; from property to prisons; from taxis to taxes. Many state legislatures, for their part, have sought to retain checks on agencies’ regulatory authority beyond the ordinary legislative and oversight processes via a "legislative veto."

This Report surveys and classifies the standards that state courts around the country use to adjudicate state constitutional challenges to restrictive voting laws. This survey found that a majority of states apply a standard more rigorous than federal Anderson-Burdick review.

State constitutions reflect a powerful commitment to democracy. This website highlights state constitutional provisions across the nation that contribute to the democracy principle.

Explore the full, up-to-date text of each of the 50 state constitutions. Search within and across states, and use the “Tracking Constitutional Change” feature to see how each state’s constitution has evolved over time.

This Explainer offers legal and practical context to the calls for Justice Janet Protasiewicz to recuse herself from hearing two lawsuits challenging the state's legislative maps. It begins by describing the relevant federal and Wisconsin-specific legal standards for recusal. It then gives examples from Wisconsin and around the country of other instances in which recusal has—and has not—been required. The purpose of this explainer is to describe existing recusal rules, precedents, and practices, not to endorse or criticize them or to express a view on what the law of recusal should be.