Our Work

"Proposals to prohibit federal immigration agents from masking their faces have gained new life in states — thanks in part to a court ruling that blocked the nation’s first such law, in California."

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.

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.

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

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.

In a case involving a state constitutional challenge to Washington's absentee ballot signature matching requirement, the State Democracy Research Initiative filed an amicus brief urging the Washington Supreme Court to reject the federal Anderson-Burdick standard and apply heightened scrutiny to laws that impair the right to vote. On March 6, 2025, the Washington Supreme Court held that the signature matching process did not violate the Washington Constitution.

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.