Our Work

As the federal government carries out aggressive immigration raids in major cities across the U.S., state officials are facing off with the federal government over a centuries-old question: When can states prosecute federal officials for violating state criminal law?

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.

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 roughly half of U.S. states, state constitutions confer rights of direct democracy, allowing the people to make law directly through statutes or constitutional amendments. The exercise of direct democracy rights can lead to power struggles with state legislatures. In particular, state legislatures sometimes respond to successful ballot measures by passing new laws that make ballot measures harder to use. Disputes over these new burdens on direct democracy frequently land in state courts. This Report considers how state courts have responded to these power struggles, with special attention to case law analyzing process-altering legislation under state constitutional direct democracy rights.

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.

"A 2022 ruling by the state's high court that halted the use of drop boxes to collect absentee ballots did not have retroactive effects on previous elections despite the false claims made by those who deny the outcome of the 2020 presidential vote.

The U.S. constitution is quite difficult to change — however, state constitutions are relatively easy…to the extent that 70 state constitution amendments were passed in 2022. Emily Lau, Staff Attorney fort he University of Wisconsin’s State Democracy Research Initiative talks about these “living” documents and the efforts that this non-partisan group is making to make the fifty state constitutions available, and searchable at 50constitutions.org

This Report surveys current state laws affecting direct democracy, with an emphasis on those relating to voter participation and understanding. For instance, what information appears on the ballot, and who prepares it? What standards exist, if any, to ensure that ballot language is clear and impartial? When, and how, can courts step in?

State-level administrative agencies, like their federal counterparts, play a significant role in governance across the nation. Their responsibilities run the gamut—from elections to education; from public waterways to public health; from property to prisons; from taxis to taxes. Many state legislatures, for their part, have sought to retain checks on agencies’ regulatory authority beyond the ordinary legislative and oversight processes via a "legislative veto."