Our Work

"The City of Madison on Monday appealed a ruling that allows it to be sued for monetary damages for disenfranchising nearly 200 voters in the 2024 election, arguing the decision would unrealistically require 'error-free elections' and expose municipalities across the state to liability for mistakes. . . . Bryna Godar, a staff attorney at the University of Wisconsin Law School’s State Democracy Research Initiative, clarified that a court wouldn’t need to overturn the historic Black voting rights case entirely to rule that it doesn’t apply in the lawsuit against Madison."

More than a month after the November 2024 election, the result of the North Carolina Supreme Court race is still uncertain. There have been two recounts—one machine and one partial hand recount—neither of which changed the initial result: Democrat and incumbent North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs still leads over Republican North Carolina Court of Appeals Judge Jefferson Griffin by just under 750 votes. The North Carolina State Board of Elections (NCSBE) also rejected an election protest brought by Judge Griffin, challenging the eligibility of over 60,000 voters who cast a ballot in the last election. Judge Griffin, however, disputes that ruling, and litigation is now underway.

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.

National-level developments in law and government typically grab the biggest headlines and drive discourse in the legal academy. With a high-stakes presidential election, major U.S. Supreme Court rulings, and more, 2024 has been no exception. But many consequential legal developments have unfolded at the state level as well. The Essays in this Special Issue explore questions pertaining to state public law, including examining distinctive features of state governance and the relationship between states and the federal government.

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.

This Article explores the role of standing doctrine in the future of state-court election litigation. Building on existing state practices and state constitutional principles, we defend a presumptively broad approach to state-court standing in election law cases, which we term simply election standing. We find that most state courts already relax standing to some extent in election cases—an approach that reflects both the flexible power of state courts and state constitutions’ commitment to democracy. State courts may be the best (and only) fora able to resolve pressing election-related disputes, and in turn to foster certainty, finality, and confidence in election outcomes.

Commentary on Moore v. Harper has not yet focused on how the Purcell principle might shape what comes next. Litigants will no doubt soon be arguing that state courts (and potentially other state actors) have “transgress[ed] the ordinary bounds of judicial review” in ways that encroach upon the Elections Clause authority of state legislatures. The destabilizing effect of Moore will depend in substantial part on how the Supreme Court ultimately chooses to distinguish the “ordinary” from the out-of-the-ordinary. But it will also depend on how the Purcell principle is applied (or not applied) to Moore claims. There are no guarantees, but if existing practice is a guide, Purcell should limit the extent to which federal courts countermand the pre-election rulings of state courts.

In recent years, litigation has routinely accompanied elections. To better understand developments in election litigation, we recently completed a survey of election-related lawsuits filed in state and federal courts in 2018, 2020, and 2022.

"'Had this unfolded on this kind of timeline in 2020, it really could have created problems, because there would have been questions about whether the state could have actually named a slate of electors,' said Robert Yablon, a law professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School. 'You could imagine there being disputed slates of electors that were sent to Congress, and it could have been a big mess.'"

"As states continue to tabulate votes, the Trump campaign is suing to stop counts in two states and requesting a recount in Wisconsin. An election law expert joins us to talk about the potential for lawsuits and what the Constitution says about the timeline for certifying election results."