Our Work

"In seeking en banc review, the U.S. Department of Justice argued that a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit misread a section of the 1960 Civil Rights Act that empowers the U.S. attorney general to obtain certain state voting records to enforce federal election law." (References SDRI Research).

"Dissenting Judge John Nalbandian, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, contended that a state’s voter registration file is covered by the 1960 Civil Rights Act, which empowers the U.S. attorney general to obtain certain state voting records to enforce federal election law."

Mail voting is under unprecedented federal pressure heading into the 2026 midterm elections. From the White House to the Supreme Court to Congress, a series of developments is threatening a form of voting that tens of millions of Americans rely on—and that was relatively uncontroversial until just a few years ago. This explainer examines how mail voting became a partisan battleground, what the current federal threats mean for mail voting, and what states, election officials, and advocates can do in response.

Litigation over election results serves an important role in legitimizing the democratic process, but when these challenges drag on for months, they can undermine that legitimacy and leave citizens without representation. North Carolina’s 2024 Supreme Court race, for example, took six months of post-election litigation to resolve, and some observers worry that similar delays could affect control of Congress in 2027. This Explainer examines the gaps in state laws that increase the risk of prolonged election contests and shows how state supreme courts can use their supervisory and rulemaking powers to ensure prompt resolution of such proceedings.

"Two federal appeals courts will soon weigh whether state election officials must turn their unredacted voter rolls over to the Justice Department—an argument President Donald Trump’s administration has yet to win in court. . . . “I do find that fascinating how all the district courts are reaching the same kind of bottom line that the Justice Department loses, but they’re getting there with different reasoning,” said Derek Clinger, senior counsel and director of partnerships with the University of Wisconsin law school’s State Democracy Research Initiative."

The case arose after a new Republican majority in the Michigan House refused to send several bills passed by a previous Democratic-controlled legislature to the governor to become law.

"Michigan was one of several states that refused to share its voter rolls with the federal government. Now, it may be the most likely to have to defend that decision in higher courts — potentially even the U.S. Supreme Court."

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 31 federal lawsuits (so far)—against 30 states plus 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.

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.