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."

Property owners have challenged programs meant to assist vulnerable populations, alleging they are unconstitutional takings of private property for public use.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Every campaign season brings renewed attention to the amount of money influencing American politics, and who is spending it, and for what purposes. In particular, people are concerned about what is called “dark money.” The term sounds scary and raises the specter of shadowy people manipulating the nation’s politics. This piece unpacks what dark money is, what concerns it raises and what might be done to address it.

This report analyzes an often-overlooked set of state entities that hold substantial power: judicial conduct commissions. These entities, which exist in every state, are primarily designed to protect the public from judicial misconduct and have broad authority to investigate and sanction state judges. As state courts gain increasing attention, the public and scholars should likewise attend to the entities that oversee them.

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.