Our Work

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 federal lawsuits against 29 states (so far) and Washington, D.C., seeking orders compelling these jurisdictions to turn over their data. This tracker monitors the Justice Department’s lawsuits.

"States have broad power to regulate within their borders unless the U.S. Constitution bars it, but many of these laws raise novel issues that courts will have to sort out, said Harrison Stark, senior counsel with the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School."

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.

As concerns mount about the conduct of federal agents, the possible solution of state-created damages remedies for federal constitutional violations is gaining steam in states. It’s what Professor Akhil Amar once dubbed “converse § 1983.” As the State Democracy Research Initiative details, the core idea is simple: States can enact (or amend existing) civil rights statutes that allow damages suits against any person — including a federal officer — who violates federal constitutional rights. While there are some unanswered questions and likely hurdles, the historical pedigree and legal footing for such remedies is perhaps stronger than some skeptics might assume.

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.

This report explores when states can or cannot pursue prosecutions against federal officials and what that has looked like in practice. This practice stretches back to at least the early 1800s, but it comes with a mixed track record. This report explores when states can or cannot pursue prosecutions against federal officials and what that has looked like in practice.

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.

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).

Little-known state judicial conduct commissions play a key role in investigating judicial misconduct. These often-overlooked bodies exist in every state and typically include judges, attorneys and other members of the public. Their job is to investigate complaints and hold judges accountable for misconduct. But what happens when politicians use these commissions to target judges they disagree with or seek favorable outcomes in court? We’re starting to find out.

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.