Research

State courts are encountering a new type of “vote dilution” claim, which asserts that certain election rules or practices are unconstitutional because they increase the hypothetical risk that fraudulent votes which will be cast, which would dilute the weight of “legal” ballots. These hypothetical vote dilution claims increasingly invoke state constitutional rights. With sparse, unsettled, and often conflicting precedent on these types of claims, state courts may understandably find these claims difficult to adjudicate, especially in the highly charged election space. This Report offers state courts context on these claims and analytical frameworks with which to evaluate them under state constitutions.

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.

For decades, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) limited enforcement operations at so-called “sensitive locations” like courthouses, schools, or hospitals. But during both Trump Administrations, officials rescinded those guidelines. This report discusses states and localities’ ability to adopt their own state-law policies to protect “sensitive locations” from the disruption of warrantless immigration arrests.

State and local governments are increasingly using property law to push back on ICE operations. This report unpacks the viability of these efforts, from banning new detention centers to barring officers from staging operations on city property.

As part of President Trump’s efforts to expand federal control over the country’s historically state-run election infrastructure, the U.S. Department of Justice has demanded copies of states’ complete voter registration lists, including voters’ highly sensitive data like birthdates, partial Social Security numbers, and driver’s license numbers. The Justice Department has filed 31 federal lawsuits (so far)—against 30 states plus Washington, D.C.—seeking orders compelling these jurisdictions to turn over their data. This tracker monitors the Justice Department’s lawsuits.

The U.S. Justice Department has demanded states' complete, unredacted vote registration lists. States have mostly declined to provide their full, unredacted voter registration lists. This report examines the questions raised by the federal government's demands about the long-established authority of states to administer elections and the scope of the federal government’s role in the voter registration process.

Federal laws and institutions have long played a central role in addressing public corruption. This report considers the potential for states to play a more central role in addressing public corruption. To date, the vast majority of state public corruption prosecutions have involved misconduct by state or local officials. But beyond addressing public corruption at the state and local levels, state law also provides an underexplored pathway for deterring and punishing corrupt conduct at the federal level.

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.

Victims of unconstitutional federal actions often have difficulty recovering money damages for their injuries. This Report discusses a potential remedial pathway that is beginning to garner interest among policymakers and litigants: state-created causes of action authorizing people to sue federal officials for damages.