Our Work

Harry Black, staff attorney with the State Democracy Research Initiative, reviews decisions from the the New York Court of Appeals’ last term including ‘Hoffmann’ (redistricting), ‘Stefanik’ (vote-by-mail), and ‘Amedure’ (absentee ballot law), and he also offers a preview to anticipated decisions on the horizon such as ‘Cuomo’ (constitutionality of NY’s ethics watchdog), ‘Fossella’ (noncitizen voting in local elections), and ‘Onondaga’ (constitutionality of even-year election law).

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.

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.

Our research shows that in two states with judicial elections – Georgia and Minnesota – nearly every state supreme court justice steps down midterm, allowing the governor to appoint a successor instead of the state holding an open election for a new justice. This practice can at times place the governor at odds with the voters. It is also an incentive for governors, justices and other state officials to manipulate the process of judicial selection for partisan gain.

Wisconsin’s Joint Committee on Finance (JCF) has a range of statutorily conferred powers, including powers to veto executive-branch actions. Litigants are challenging the constitutionality of several of those veto powers in a pending Wisconsin Supreme Court case. This Research Note and accompanying table document the history of JCF’s veto powers, identifying their origin and evolution over time.

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.