Our Work

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.

Election administrators in the U.S. face persistent financial strain with local governments and their tax bases shouldering most costs while state and federal support remains limited. At the same time, states collect billions each year in unclaimed funds, which are assets like abandoned bank accounts and forgotten insurance proceeds. States are increasingly using unclaimed funds to support public programs like education and housing, but none have earmarked them for election administration.

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.

In a case determining whether the state constitution prohibits election officials from excluding timely-received absentee ballots because they lack a written date on the return envelope, the State Democracy Research Initiative filed an amicus brief arguing that the practice is inconsistent with the Pennsylvania Constitution's democratic commitments.

Unlike the U.S. Constitution, which has no explicit voting rights guarantee, state constitutions both affirmatively grant the right to vote and list explicit, enumerated exceptions from that right. But state actors routinely overstep those bounds—a practice this article refers to as “disenfranchisement creep.” This article identifies two primary ways in which state actors disenfranchise people beyond the scope of state constitutions.

On April 1, 2025, Wisconsin voters will choose the newest justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. In doing so, they will determine whether the court retains its current 4-3 liberal lean or flips back to a conservative-leaning majority. Either way, the race could have major implications for high-profile issues likely to come before the court, including abortion, election law, and union rights. To provide context and background on the supreme court candidates, this explainer details the types of cases Crawford and Schimel have handled as circuit judges, looks at how their rulings have fared on appeal, analyzes key democracy-related decisions they have authored, and examines what they have said about major issues that may soon come before the court.

On Wisconsin’s April 1, 2025, spring election ballot, voters will see a proposed constitutional amendment asking whether to add a voter ID requirement to the state constitution. Wisconsin already has a state statute that requires voters to present an acceptable photo ID in order to vote. By constitutionalizing this requirement, the amendment would, if approved, make it more difficult for a future legislature or court to change course on voter ID. This explainer describes the proposed amendment, lays out the main arguments being made for and against the proposal, and provides national context on voter ID requirements.

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.

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.