Our Work

"In November 2024, Democrat Josh Stein scored an emphatic victory in the race to become North Carolina’s governor, drubbing his Republican opponent by almost 15 percentage points. His honeymoon didn’t last long, however. Two weeks after his win, the North Carolina legislature’s Republican supermajority fast-tracked a bill that would transform the balance of power in the state.'

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.

"Incoming Gov. Josh Stein will start out his term as North Carolina's chief executive much the same way his predecessor and fellow Democrat Roy Cooper did, battling the Republican-led legislature in court. But Stein faces a much more slanted playing field than Cooper did."

There has been growing public interest in the potential of state courts and constitutions to provide greater protections to people within their borders than what’s offered under the federal Constitution. In 2024, multiple high-profile cases wound through state judiciaries, addressing reproductive rights, democracy, criminal justice, and much more.

Just weeks after North Carolina Democrats won several prominent statewide offices in the 2024 general election, including governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general, the Republican-controlled legislature moved swiftly to limit the authority of these offices in what many have called a significant “power grab.” This Explainer analyzes this and seeks to situate it within the broader context and history of similar efforts in North Carolina and other states.

"Eight states will have constitutional amendments backed by Republican lawmakers on the November ballot designed to make clear that only American citizens can vote in elections in those states. But it’s already illegal for noncitizens to vote in elections in those states and at the federal level, and it rarely happens."

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.

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.