Our Work

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.

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.

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.

This Essay identifies several considerations for state courts to weigh as they decide whether to grant pre-election remedies. These considerations—Purcell principles for state courts—aim to get at each case’s underlying equities and help courts discern whether, on balance, intervention ahead of an election is warranted. The Essay concludes by discussing how the federal Purcell principle impacts U.S. Supreme Court review of state court remedial rulings, such as when litigants ask the Court for emergency relief on the ground that a state court violated the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause.

In a case involving a state constitutional challenge to the practice of excluding timely-received absentee ballots which lack a correct written date on the return envelope, the State Democracy Research Initiative filed an amicus brief urging the Pennsylvania Supreme Court block this practice. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated the lower court decision blocking the practice on jurisdiction grounds.

In 2023, New York adopted a law enabling all registered voters to vote early by mail. The State Democracy Research Initiative filed an amicus brief urging the New York Court of Appeals to uphold the law, arguing that the law was within the legislature's constitutional authority to enact. In 2024, the New York Court of Appeals upheld the law.

After Minnesota passed a law restoring the right to vote to those convicted of felonies once they are no longer incarcerated, plaintiffs challenged the law arguing that such re-enfranchisement violates the state constitution. The State Democracy Research Initiative filed an amicus brief explaining that the challenged statute is consistent with the state constitution's pro-democratic commitments. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order dismissing plaintiffs' petition for lack of standing.

Election law is a dynamic and rapidly expanding field that generates enormous public interest. It is also of great practical importance to lawyers and law students, with increasing litigation and many controversial Supreme Court decisions, including Bush v. Gore, Citizens United v. FEC, and Shelby County v. Holder. This Nutshell provides a succinct and thorough description of the law governing elections, the right to vote, and the political process in the United States.

This year, states have stepped into the spotlight. The Supreme Court’s opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization has focused attention on the state role in defining individual rights, while democracy cases like Moore v. Harper have underscored the important state role in elections. In addition, many high-profile issues are being brought directly to voters through state ballot measures. As state institutions take center stage, state-focused scholarship has never been more timely or important.