Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• DNC files lawsuit challenging Pentagon's FPCA modifications — The Democratic National Committee filed a federal lawsuit in Washington DC on October 2, 2026, seeking to overturn the Pentagon's August modifications to the Federal Post Card Application. The DNC argues the government violated the Administrative Procedure Act by bypassing standard rulemaking procedures, failing to allow public comment, and implementing changes without proper deliberation. The lawsuit requests a judicial declaration that the government violated the APA and asks the court to set aside the form modifications before the 2026 midterm elections.
• Trump administration initially planned more restrictive mail-in voting requirements — ProPublica reported that Trump's mail-in voting restrictions were initially far more expansive than the final executive order. The administration had wanted to require all ballots be delivered through certified mail, which would have resulted in undelivered ballots if voters were not home to sign for them. Postal Service officials were excluded from important discussions as the Trump administration finalized its executive order on mail-in voting.
• Trump administration removed voter registration option for citizens born abroad — The Democratic National Committee sued the Trump administration after it changed a federal voter form to remove the option for U.S. citizens born abroad who have never lived in the U.S. to register to vote and request a mail ballot. The lawsuit also revealed that the Trump administration removed information from a federal voter assistance guide about which states allow "never resided" voters to register.

Supporting reports

• DOJ solicitor general appeals mail voting injunction to Supreme Court — John Sauer, the DOJ's solicitor general, filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court on September 6 seeking to lift Judge Talwani's permanent injunction and permit Trump's USPS rules restricting mail voting to take effect. Sauer argued the freeze would cause "serious, irreparable harm" and claimed the order merely imposes "reasonable preparation requirements" rather than seizing control of state election administration, contradicting the judge's findings.
• Trump administration appeals to Supreme Court to restrict mail-in voting ahead of midterms — The Trump administration filed an emergency appeal to the US Supreme Court on Sunday seeking to overturn a federal judge's injunction blocking enforcement of an executive order restricting mail-in voting. US District Judge Indira Talwani had extended the court order on Friday preventing the USPS from enforcing Trump's March executive order, which would limit ballot delivery to voters on a federal DHS-approved list. Solicitor General John Sauer argued that ballots already mailing in multiple states risked "confusion and chaos" if the injunction remained in place. This marks the third Supreme Court appeal on the matter.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge extends preliminary injunction blocking Trump mail-in voting executive order — US District Court Judge Indira Talwani extended a preliminary injunction blocking President Trump's March 2026 executive order restricting mail-in voting. The order would have created a nationwide verified voter list and limited ballot delivery to those on the list. Talwani cited the tight election timeline and risk of disenfranchisement, noting states cannot pivot ballot-mailing procedures weeks before the November midterms. The Trump administration immediately appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court.

Supporting reports

• Preliminary injunction ruling — League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump (D. Mass.) 1:26-cv-11549 — Judge Talwani found that USPS Defendants violated the court's preliminary injunction related to “initiating or completing rulemaking to promulgate” specific regulations outlined in Section 3 of EO 14399 by sending a corresponding Final Rule to the Federal Register on Aug. 22, 2026. However, the court declined to impose a remedy “other than identifying the violation,” finding that the relief requested by Plaintiffs would not remedy the past violation but noting that Plaintiffs could choose to file an amended complaint.
• Democratic attorneys general from 23 states filed lawsuit challenging the USPS mail-in ballot rule — Democratic attorneys general from 23 states filed a new lawsuit Wednesday challenging the now-final USPS rule that allows the Postal Service to police mail-in ballot eligibility. The AGs sought an emergency block on the rule, with the first mail-in ballots set to go out the following week.
• Federal judge lifted the last remaining block on Trump's plan to give the Postal Service a new role in policing mail-in ballots — Judge Talwani granted Defendants' motion to reconsider and vacated the court's Aug. 11 preliminary injunction blocking Section 3 of EO 14399 following the Supreme Court's intervening stay of a separate preliminary injunction to Sections 2 and 3 of the same EO in a different but related case, Trump v. California . The vacatur is without prejudice to Plaintiffs amending their complaint. That same day, Plaintiffs filed a Supplemental Complaint adding claims directly challenging the USPS Aug. 21, 2026 Final Rule implementing Section 3 of EO 14399 as a separation-of-powers violation and as unlawful agency action exceeding USPS statutory authority under Title 39. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief that the EO and Final Rules are unlawful and enjoinment of Defendants from continuing implementation of the Final Rule.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — State of California v. United States Postal Service (D. Mass.) 1:26-cv-13917 — A U.S. district judge reluctantly lifted the final injunction blocking Trump's plan to reshape how mail-in ballots are handled. The judge stated the Supreme Court ruling earlier in the week left her little choice. The new Postal Service rules could result in ballots being rejected from voters who do not appear on newly compiled federal eligibility lists. Democratic attorneys general from 23 states filed a new lawsuit Wednesday challenging the now-final USPS rule and seeking an emergency block before mail-in ballots begin going out the following week.
• USPS implements Trump executive order restricting mail-in ballot delivery — Judge Talwani granted in part Plaintiffs' emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO), staying implementation or enforcement of certain provisions of the USPS Final Rule for 14 days as to elections occurring on or before Nov. 3, 2026. The court found Plaintiffs likely to succeed on their claims that USPS lacked statutory authority to issue the Final Rule and that it is unconstitutional. The Court also found Plaintiff Organizations' members to be at risk of irreparable harm, facing a significant risk of disenfranchisement and interference with their rights under state laws. The Court is yet to rule on the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Twenty-four states and DC file lawsuit challenging Trump mail-voting executive order — Judge Talwani granted in part Plaintiffs' emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO), staying implementation or enforcement of certain provisions of the USPS Final Rule for 14 days as to elections occurring on or before Nov. 3, 2026. The court found Plaintiffs likely to succeed on their claims that USPS lacked statutory authority to issue the Final Rule and that it is unconstitutional. The Court also found Plaintiff States face irreparable harm as “compliance [with the Final Rule's requirements] is practically impossible as to the 2026 midterm elections.” The Court is yet to rule on the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
• U.S. District Judge Talwani temporarily blocked mail-voting restrictions — The US Postal Service announced implementation of new rules requiring the post office to withhold ballots for mail-in voting to voters deemed ineligible by Department of Homeland Security and other federal records. The rules stem from a Trump executive order issued earlier in 2026 and apply immediately to November's midterm elections. The US Supreme Court lifted a lower court injunction on Monday; US District Judge Indira Talwani lifted a nationwide block on Wednesday. Twenty-four states and DC filed a lawsuit Wednesday challenging the order as usurping state and congressional authority over elections.
• US District Judge Talwani lifts nationwide block on USPS mail ballot rule — Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit on Wednesday to block the Trump executive order restricting mail-in voting in the 2026 midterm elections. The states argue the USPS policy is part of a broader effort by the administration to "rewrite federal election law and usurp the authority of the states and Congress."
• — Late Thursday, U.S. District Judge Talwani temporarily blocked the Postal Service from enforcing Trump's new mail-voting rule, one day after USPS announced the requirements took effect. The temporary block lasts 14 days while the court considers a longer preliminary injunction, with a hearing scheduled for September 3. The case could quickly return to the Supreme Court. As of Friday morning, Trump's new mail-ballot restrictions are currently blocked.
• — US District Judge Indira Talwani lifted her nationwide injunction blocking implementation of the USPS mail ballot delivery rule, citing the Supreme Court's decision to lift the lower court injunction. The ruling clears the way for the rule to take effect for November's midterm elections.

Supporting reports

• Twenty-five Democratic attorneys general sue Trump administration over politicized FEMA disaster aid conditions — Twenty-five Democratic state attorneys general, led by California's Rob Bonta, filed a federal lawsuit in Rhode Island challenging the Trump administration's imposition of "unlawful" conditions on over $740 million in federal disaster preparedness and counter-terrorism grants. The conditions require states to implement federal voter citizenship verification systems, conduct post-election audits, and assist ICE in deportation operations. The lawsuit also challenges FEMA's new authority to cancel grants if states are deemed misaligned with agency priorities. A Trump-appointed judge previously ruled similar conditions "unconscionable and unlawful."
• Twenty-five states and D.C. sued federal government over conditional disaster and homeland security funding — Twenty-five states and the District of Columbia filed a federal lawsuit in Rhode Island challenging FEMA and DHS conditions on billions of dollars in annual disaster relief and homeland security grants. The conditions require states to convert to paper ballots, conduct manual audits, reconcile voter registration lists, verify citizenship of all registered voters, assist DHS in immigration enforcement, and accept DHS authority to withdraw all grants at will. Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha characterized the conditions as "unlawfully withholding billions in critical funding" to coerce election and immigration policy changes.
• Complaint filed — State of Illinois v. Federal Emergency Management Agency — On July 23, 2026, 25 states, the District of Columbia, and the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for Rhode Island challenging FEMA's new Fiscal Year 2026 Homeland Security Grant Program conditions. The conditions require states to transition to hand-marked paper ballots, conduct post-election audits, verify voter and election worker citizenship using federal immigration databases, and comply with other election and immigration-related mandates as a prerequisite to receiving over $1 billion in federal preparedness funding. Plaintiffs allege the conditions exceed FEMA's statutory authority, are arbitrary and capricious, and violate the Spending Clause. They seek declaratory judgment, vacatur, injunctive relief, and a writ of mandamus.

Supporting reports

• House Republicans pass Save America Act linked to spending bill — On Wednesday, July 16, 2026, the House of Representatives passed a combined measure linking the Save America Act—which would ban mail-in ballots and impose voter identification requirements—to an unrelated State Department spending authorization bill. The vote was 217–209, largely along party lines. The bill faces certain opposition in the Senate, where Democrats control enough votes to filibuster. Trump administration officials framed the measure as necessary to prevent non-citizen voting; voting rights advocates warn it could disenfranchise eligible voters ahead of November midterm elections.

Supporting reports

• US Postal Service proposes rule requiring states to surrender voter mail-ballot lists — The US Postal Service, under Postmaster General David Steiner, issued a proposed rule requiring states to hand over lists of voters who requested mail-in ballots and associated barcodes to the postal service. Steiner stated that the postal service would refuse to deliver mailed ballots in states that declined to comply. All 47 Democratic senators sent a letter warning the rule would disenfranchise millions of voters and risked abuse and inaccuracies that would prevent eligible voters from casting ballots.
• Postmaster General announces USPS will not deliver election mail in states refusing to surrender voter rolls — Postmaster General David Steiner testified before the Senate Homeland Security Committee that under a new Trump administration rule, the United States Postal Service will not deliver election mail in states that refuse to surrender their voting lists to the federal government. Senator Gary Peters clarified that the proposed rule coerces states to comply with federal voting requirements or lose mail-in voting access.
• USPS proposes rule to withhold election mail — The Postmaster General testified that under a new proposed rule, the United States Postal Service will not deliver election mail in states that refuse to provide their voting lists to the federal government. This rule is seen as a coercive measure to enforce compliance with federal demands.

Supporting reports

• Louisiana state senate passes bill eliminating one of two majority-Black congressional districts — On Thursday, May 14, the Louisiana state senate voted 27-10 to pass Senate Bill 121, a new congressional redistricting map that would eliminate one of the state's two majority-Black House districts. The map would reshape District 6 (currently represented by Democrat Cleo Fields) from a 250-mile majority-Black district spanning Baton Rouge to Shreveport into a predominantly white suburban district, while preserving District 2 (Troy Carter, Democrat) as majority-Black. The map could give Louisiana Republicans a 5-1 congressional majority. The bill now heads to the state house, which must approve it by June 1.

Supporting reports

• Mississippi governor cancels special session on supreme court redistricting, pledges future congressional map redraw targeting Democratic seat — Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves canceled a special legislative session scheduled to redraw state supreme court districts, citing difficulty in completing the work before the November 2026 midterms. However, Reeves stated he expects the state to redraw its four congressional districts between now and 2027, with explicit focus on eliminating the seat of Democratic Congressman Bennie Thompson, Mississippi's only Democratic representative and longest-serving Black elected official. Reeves indicated coordination with the Trump administration on timing and method.
• Mississippi and Southern Republican officials threaten redistricting to eliminate Black congressional districts — Following the Louisiana v Callais decision, Republican officials in Mississippi, Tennessee, Florida, and Alabama announced plans to redraw congressional districts to eliminate or dilute Black representation. Mississippi Agriculture Commissioner Andy Gipson and State Auditor Shad White publicly called for redrawing Representative Bennie Thompson's district. Governor Tate Reeves stated it was "not a question of if, it's a question of when" regarding redistricting, referring to Thompson's tenure as a "reign of terror." Tennessee Republicans eliminated the state's sole Black congressional district; Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a new map; Alabama prepared maps for use.

Supporting reports

• Tennessee governor redraws congressional map eliminating majority-Black district — Tennessee's governor called a special legislative session and signed a new congressional map that divides Memphis and eliminates the state's only majority-Black congressional district. The action was taken in response to the Louisiana v. Callais decision, which weakened Section 2 protections against racially discriminatory redistricting.
• Tennessee Republican lawmakers approved congressional map dismantling majority-Black district — Tennessee Republican lawmakers approved a new congressional map that breaks apart Memphis and Shelby County, eliminating Tennessee's only majority-Black congressional district. The map splits Black voters across three majority-white districts, positioning Republicans to hold all nine of Tennessee's congressional seats after the midterms. This action follows the Supreme Court's April 29 decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which weakened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act as a tool for challenging racially discriminatory maps.
• Tennessee House speaker removes all Democrats from committees — On May 12, 2026, Tennessee House Speaker Cameron Sexton removed all House Democrats from standing committees, citing their protests against the mid-decade redistricting as disruptive to legislative processes. This action effectively stripped representation from nearly 2 million Tennesseans, including all Black elected officials in the state legislature.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court cleared way for Alabama to use racially discriminatory district map — In an unsigned one-paragraph order, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for Alabama to use a 2023 congressional district map that lower courts had ruled unconstitutional because it diluted Black voting by spreading Black voters across three districts, violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The Court sent the case back to lower courts to reevaluate in light of the Callais decision, effectively allowing Alabama to proceed with the discriminatory map.
• Supreme Court allows Alabama to eliminate majority-Black congressional district — The Supreme Court overturned a lower court order blocking Alabama's use of a 2023 congressional map that reduces majority-Black districts from two to one ahead of the midterm elections. Alabama lawmakers have already passed a law voiding results of some May 19 congressional primaries and are moving forward with special primary elections for more than half of the state's congressional districts. The ruling effectively permits the dilution of Black voting power.
• US Supreme Court vacates lower court injunction, allows Alabama to use congressional map found to intentionally discriminate against Black voters — The US Supreme Court's conservative majority vacated a lower court's injunction blocking Alabama's 2023 congressional map on Monday, May 12, 2026. A three-judge panel had found the map intentionally diluted Black voting strength in violation of the Voting Rights Act and ordered a remedial map with two majority-Black districts. The Supreme Court offered no explanation for overturning this finding, allowing Alabama to use the discriminatory map in the 2026 midterm elections. The three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Sotomayor criticizing the majority for discarding documented findings of intentional discrimination without sound basis.
• Alabama petitions Supreme Court to reconsider majority-Black district requirement — Alabama filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court requesting that the Court lift a prior court order requiring a congressional map with two majority-Black districts. The Court remanded the case for reconsideration in light of the Louisiana v. Callais decision, potentially allowing Alabama to adopt a legislature-approved map containing only one majority-Black district instead of two.
• Alabama requested Supreme Court revisit order requiring two Black districts — Following the Supreme Court's April 29 decision in Louisiana v. Callais, Alabama asked the Supreme Court to revisit a court order that required the state to draw a congressional map with two largely Black districts. This action is part of a broader pattern of Republican-controlled states moving to redraw or revisit congressional maps in the wake of the weakened Section 2 protections.

Supporting reports

• Florida Governor DeSantis signs new congressional gerrymander — Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed a new congressional redistricting map that packs Democratic voters into fewer districts, potentially giving Republicans an advantage in four additional races in the 2026 midterm elections. The map weakens several Democratic-held seats. Voting rights groups immediately sued, arguing the map violates Florida's voter-approved Fair Districts Amendments (2010), which prohibit maps that favor one political party. DeSantis's office has argued that the Callais ruling effectively invalidated Florida's entire voter-approved amendment.

Supporting reports

• Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry declared state of emergency and suspended primary elections to enable gerrymandering — Following the Louisiana v. Callais decision, Louisiana's Republican Governor Jeff Landry declared a state of emergency and suspended the state's primary elections to allow for redistricting to capture one or two additional Republican seats. Over 100,000 absentee ballots had already been distributed, with some returned and voting scheduled to begin within days. The action violated the constitutional provision granting state legislatures, not governors, authority over the "Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections."
• Louisiana Governor suspended congressional primaries — Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry signed an executive order suspending the state's congressional primaries just two days before early voting was scheduled to begin, citing the Supreme Court's ruling that struck down a majority Black congressional district. The order postponed primaries until July 15 or a new date set by the legislature. State Republican leaders announced plans to pass new congressional maps, effectively using the Supreme Court ruling to delay elections and redraw districts to reduce Black representation.
• Democratic congressional candidate files federal lawsuit to restore Louisiana primary election — Lindsey Garcia, a Democratic congressional candidate in Louisiana's fifth district, filed suit in federal court on Thursday, May 1, 2026, shortly after Governor Landry announced the suspension, arguing that the material number of absentee ballots already returned by mail creates constitutional due process considerations and violates federal election-timing laws. The suit seeks immediate action to restore the suspended congressional primary.
• Democrats filed lawsuit challenging Louisiana's election suspension — Democrats filed a lawsuit against Governor Jeff Landry's suspension of Louisiana's primary elections, arguing that the Constitution grants state legislatures, not governors, the authority to determine the "Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives." The lawsuit sought to allow the election to proceed despite the governor's emergency order.
• Louisiana governor suspends congressional primary election after Supreme Court invalidates voting rights protections — Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry suspended the state's congressional primary election on Thursday, May 1, 2026, after early voting had begun, citing a Supreme Court decision (Louisiana v Callais, 6-3) that invalidated portions of the Voting Rights Act and struck down a majority-nonwhite congressional district. Votes cast in the congressional race will not be counted, though other races and constitutional amendments remain on the ballot. The ACLU and voting rights groups filed suit in state court Friday seeking a temporary restraining order, arguing the suspension lacks legal basis under Louisiana law and creates chaos for voters who have already cast absentee ballots.
• Louisiana postpones primary elections following redistricting injunction — Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry and Attorney General Liz Murrill announced on Thursday, April 30, 2026, that the state would postpone its May 16 primary elections. The state declared itself "enjoined from carrying out congressional elections under the current map" following the Supreme Court's weakening of the Voting Rights Act. Early voting had been scheduled to begin on Saturday. State officials said they were working with the Legislature and Secretary of State to develop a new path forward.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court weakens Voting Rights Act; states initiate emergency redistricting — On Wednesday, April 28, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that severely weakened the landmark Voting Rights Act, eliminating key protections against racial discrimination in voting maps. In immediate response, Louisiana postponed its May primaries, and multiple southern states—Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee—initiated or announced special legislative sessions to redraw congressional districts. Florida's Republican-controlled legislature passed new maps delivering four additional seats to Republicans. Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee announced plans to follow suit, with governors and Republican officials explicitly targeting majority-Black districts for dilution.
• Supreme Court decision weakened Voting Rights Act Section 2 protections — On April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Louisiana v. Callais that weakened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act as a tool for challenging racially discriminatory congressional maps. Within days of the ruling, several Republican-controlled states moved to redraw or revisit congressional maps, including Tennessee, which signed a new map, and Alabama, which asked the Supreme Court to revisit a court order requiring a map with two largely Black districts.
• Supreme Court narrowed Section 2 of Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v. Callais ruling — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Louisiana v. Callais that Louisiana's second majority-Black congressional district (represented by Congressman Cleo Fields) constitutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The majority, written by Justice Samuel Alito, held that the Voting Rights Act did not require the state to create the district, eliminating a compelling reason to consider race in redistricting. Justice Elena Kagan's dissent warned the ruling renders Section 2 "all but a dead letter" and permits states to "systematically dilute minority citizens' voting power" without legal consequence. The decision shifts the legal standard from results-based to intent-based scrutiny, requiring plaintiffs to prove discriminatory motive rather than demonstrating discriminatory effect.
• Supreme Court ruling weakens Voting Rights Act Section 2 protections — On April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Louisiana v. Callais that significantly weakened how Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act can be used to protect voters of color in redistricting cases. For decades, Section 2 has been a central tool for communities to challenge maps and election systems that dilute minority voting power. The Court's ruling gave Republican-led states new grounds to attack majority-Black districts before the midterms.
• Supreme Court weakens Voting Rights Act Section 2 in Louisiana v. Callais decision — On April 29, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais that significantly narrowed Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act as a tool for challenging racially discriminatory congressional maps. Justice Kagan's dissent warned the ruling "renders Section 2 all but a dead letter." The decision prompted immediate action by Republican-controlled states to redraw maps, including Louisiana suspending House primaries, Tennessee redrawing its map to eliminate its only majority-Black district, and Alabama petitioning the Court to reconsider a prior order requiring two majority-Black districts.
• Supreme Court weakens Voting Rights Act Section 2 protections in Louisiana v. Callais — On April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais holding that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not require states to create majority-minority congressional districts. The decision makes it substantially harder for voters of color to challenge electoral maps that dilute their political power. Within days, Louisiana's governor suspended the state's primary election to redraw congressional maps, and Alabama filed to reinstate maps a lower court had previously struck down for diluting Black votes.
• Supreme Court weakens Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v Callais ruling — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Louisiana v Callais on Wednesday, April 29, 2026, holding that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not require states to draw majority-minority congressional districts. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito affirmed that Louisiana's maps violated the equal protection clause but rejected the use of Section 2 to mandate such districts. The ruling opens the door for Republicans to eliminate majority-minority districts across the South, immediately threatening Black lawmakers Terri Sewell and Shomari Figures in Alabama, who may lose their seats after redistricting in 2028.
• US Supreme Court guts Voting Rights Act Section 2 in Louisiana redistricting case — The US Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais that effectively neutralizes Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the last major provision preventing racial discrimination in voting. The majority, led by Justice Samuel Alito, rewrote the legal test for Section 2 claims to require proof of intentional racial discrimination—a nearly impossible standard—and added new restrictions preventing consideration of race in alternative redistricting maps. The decision permits states to draw districts that dilute minority voting power under the guise of partisan goals.
• US Supreme Court ruling in Callais v. Landry weakens Voting Rights Act Section 2 — The US Supreme Court issued the Callais v. Landry decision, which substantially weakened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by requiring litigants to prove racial motivations in redistricting rather than allowing challenges based on discriminatory effect. The ruling permits Republican-controlled state legislatures to use partisan gerrymandering as cover for racial vote dilution, particularly targeting concentrated Black voters in urban areas. The decision eliminates protections that had enabled Congress to achieve record racial and ethnic diversity, and threatens to reverse decades of voting-rights gains.
• Supreme Court gutted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v. Callais — On April 29, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 6–3 to declare Louisiana's majority-minority congressional district unconstitutional under the Fifteenth Amendment, ruling it an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The decision overturned decades of precedent recognizing that states could create majority-minority districts to remedy historical exclusion of Black voters and ensure Black representation. The ruling eliminated a key enforcement mechanism of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
• Supreme Court gutted voting rights protections for Black-majority districts — On April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that eliminated protections for Black-majority districts established under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The decision reversed years of congressional effort to safeguard minority voting power. Following the ruling, Republican-dominated southern state legislatures began redrawing district lines to dilute the votes of Black Democrats, effectively weakening the electoral power of Black communities.
• Supreme Court issues decision in Callais v. Louisiana — The Supreme Court issued a decision in the case Callais v. Louisiana on April 29, 2026. The article indicates this ruling is significant enough to warrant substantial analysis but does not provide details of the holding, reasoning, or outcome within the text provided.
• Supreme Court makes Louisiana v. Callais decision immediately effective — The U.S. Supreme Court made its April 29 decision in Louisiana v. Callais immediately effective, rather than waiting the standard 32 days for finalization. The decision struck down Louisiana's creation of a second congressional district designed to enable Black voters to elect a representative of their choice under the 1965 Voting Rights Act, finding the race-conscious district creation unconstitutional. The immediate effectiveness allowed Louisiana to redraw maps before its primary election, which was already underway.
• Supreme Court rejected majority-minority district interpretation in Louisiana v. Callais — On April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais rejecting the longstanding interpretation that states may create majority-minority districts to guarantee Black representation in government. The right-wing justices in the majority declared Louisiana's construction of a majority-minority district unconstitutional under the Fifteenth Amendment, characterizing it as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The ruling continues the Court's dismantling of voting rights protections.
• Supreme Court Decision on Voting Rights Act — The Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision that significantly weakens the Voting Rights Act, allowing for increased gerrymandering practices that could disproportionately affect minority voters. This ruling is expected to lead to widespread changes in how electoral districts are drawn, potentially impacting the fairness and representation in future elections across the United States.
• Supreme Court weakened Voting Rights Act provision — The Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling effectively weakening a key provision of the Voting Rights Act that has prohibited racial discrimination in voting for six decades. The decision will allow Republicans to redraw congressional maps in the South, potentially netting the GOP 19 additional House seats compared to 2024 maps and potentially causing the largest drop in Black representation in Congress ever. Justice Elena Kagan's dissent warned the decision renders the provision "all but a dead letter" with "far-reaching and grave" consequences.
• Supreme Court releases opinion in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport (24-781) — The Supreme Court released an official slip opinion in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport. Docket number(s): 24-781.
• Supreme Court releases opinion in Louisiana v. Callais (24-109) — The Supreme Court released an official slip opinion in Louisiana v. Callais. Docket number(s): 24-109.
• Supreme Court guts Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v. Callais — The Supreme Court issued a decision in Louisiana v. Callais that substantially weakened the Voting Rights Act, enabling Republican-controlled states to pursue aggressive gerrymandering of congressional maps ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. The ruling removes a key federal constraint on partisan map-drawing and follows the Court's 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause decision, which barred federal courts from reviewing partisan gerrymandering claims. Together, these decisions have eliminated judicial oversight of extreme partisan maps.
• Supreme Court gutted Voting Rights Act Section 2 — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision on Wednesday, April 30, 2026, that effectively gutted the Voting Rights Act, particularly Section 2, which had allowed plaintiffs to challenge electoral maps drawn in racially discriminatory ways. The ruling eviscerated protections codified during the civil rights era. Voting rights advocates, including Ashley K Shelton of Power Coalition for Equality and Justice and Anneshia Hardy of Alabama Values, responded by pledging to shift their strategy toward state-level litigation, grassroots organizing, and coalition-building across state lines to restore voting protections.
• Supreme Court ruling in Louisiana v Callais eviscerates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act — The U.S. Supreme Court, voting 6-3 along ideological lines, ruled that Louisiana's attempt to create a second electoral district giving African American voters proportionate representation constitutes unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. The decision, authored by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, dismantles a 40-year-old tool used to prevent dilution of minority voting power. The ruling overturns Congressional intent expressed in the original 1965 statute and subsequent reauthorizations, marking the culmination of decades of legal assault on voting rights protections by Roberts and Alito.
• US Supreme Court rules race-based redistricting unconstitutional in Louisiana v Callais — The US Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Louisiana v Callais on April 30, 2026, prohibiting states from using race-conscious redistricting to protect minority voting power. The ruling effectively dismantles Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by requiring proof of intentional racial discrimination rather than discriminatory effect. Multiple southern states, including Louisiana, have already begun redrawing congressional maps to reduce Black voter representation ahead of the November midterm elections.
• Supreme Court ruled in Louisiana v. Callais that race-based redistricting claims require proof of intentional racial discrimination — The Supreme Court's six Republican-appointed justices ruled in Louisiana v. Callais that plaintiffs challenging district lines as racially discriminatory must prove that lawmakers intentionally based their decisions on race rather than partisanship. The decision effectively removed federal court oversight of partisan gerrymandering and opened the door for southern states to redraw maps to shift 10–15 seats from Democrats to Republicans by targeting minority voting power.
• Supreme Court struck down Louisiana congressional map with majority-Black district — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais invalidating Louisiana's congressional redistricting map that included a second majority-Black district. Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion held that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act did not require the state to create the district. Justice Elena Kagan's dissent characterized the decision as demolishing the Voting Rights Act and rendering Section 2 a dead letter. Within hours, a request was filed to expedite the judgment to allow the state legislature to redraw lines before the 2026 midterms.
• Supreme Court decision in Callais v. Louisiana gutting Voting Rights Act Section 2 — The Supreme Court issued a decision Wednesday striking down core protections of the Voting Rights Act, specifically Section 2. The ruling established that Section 2 violations now require a "strong inference" of intentional discrimination rather than evidence of discriminatory impact on minority voters. The decision immediately triggered chaos across voting rights litigation nationwide, with courts pausing proceedings, state officials moving to dismiss cases, and election administration disrupted as the legal standard for challenging discriminatory maps and election rules became substantially harder to meet.
• Supreme Court Decision in Louisiana v Callais — On April 29, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in the case of Louisiana v Callais, effectively weakening the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The ruling, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, declared a new 2024 electoral map unconstitutional because it diluted the voting power of white Republican voters, despite previous lower court rulings that supported the creation of a second majority-Black district in Louisiana. This decision has been criticized for undermining protections for Black voters and is seen as a significant step back for racial equality in electoral opportunities.
• US Supreme Court strikes down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v Callais — The US Supreme Court ruled in Louisiana v Callais, effectively dismantling Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which had been used to ensure minority voters receive fair treatment in district drawing. The decision weakens Black voters' power to elect their own representatives and triggers renewed state-level efforts to enact voting rights protections. Nine states already have state voting rights acts; eleven others have introduced bills to create their own versions in response.
• Supreme Court gutted Voting Rights Act in 6-3 ruling — The Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision that gutted the Voting Rights Act, eliminating federal protections for voting rights that Congress had established. Justice Elena Kagan dissented, arguing that the decision "will set back the foundational right Congress granted of racial equality in electoral opportunity."

Supporting reports

• House passes Save America act with restrictive voting provisions — The House approved the Save America act, legislation requiring documented proof of U.S. citizenship to register and vote, voter ID requirements, prohibitions on mail voting, bans on gender-affirming care for minors, and restrictions on transgender women in sports. The bill would allow private parties to sue election officials and impose criminal penalties for registration without citizenship documentation. Voting rights advocates warned the measure would prevent millions of Americans from voting, particularly affecting married women whose documents may not match current names.

Supporting reports

• Dallas district court orders polling places to remain open two additional hours — A Dallas district court judge ordered Democratic primary polling places to remain open for two additional hours after the original 7:00 PM closing time. The judge cited "mass confusion as to where voters were entitled to cast their ballots on election day" and noted that "voter confusion was so severe that the Dallas County Election Department website crashed." The order was issued in response to an emergency petition filed by Dallas County Democratic Party chair Kardal Coleman.
• Williamson County judge orders two polling places to remain open until 10:00 PM — A Williamson County judge ordered two polling places to remain open until 10:00 PM to address voter confusion caused by the elimination of countywide polling access. The order was issued in response to an emergency petition filed by the Texas Civil Rights Project.
• Dallas and Williamson County Republican Party chairs eliminate countywide polling place access — Republican Party chairs in Dallas and Williamson counties, Texas, eliminated the previous system allowing voters to cast ballots at any polling place in their county. The change was made without adequate public notice, creating confusion and chaos on election day. Williamson County Republican Party chair Michelle Evans stated the change was made "because we can. It's legal. It's something we're entitled to do, and it's something that our party would like us to do." The Texas Secretary of State's office failed to provide accurate voting location information to affected voters.

Supporting reports

• Texas Attorney General Paxton challenges lower court polling extension orders — Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican candidate for the same Senate seat James Talarico is seeking, challenged the Dallas and Williamson County court orders extending polling hours. Paxton's challenge was successful; the Republican-dominated Texas Supreme Court blocked the lower court orders. The state supreme court allowed only those voters already in line by 7:00 PM to cast ballots, with other ballots separated and their counting status uncertain.

Supporting reports

• SAVE Act Threatens Voter Disenfranchisement — The SAVE Act, currently under consideration, would require all voters to prove their citizenship, potentially disenfranchising women who have changed their names due to marriage, transgender individuals, and others. While the act may face challenges in the Senate, its passage could lead to significant barriers to voting for many citizens. Advocacy groups are urging the public to contact elected officials to oppose this legislation.
• Congressional Republicans advance restrictive voter eligibility bill — Congressional Republicans have fast-tracked the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, a restrictive anti-voting bill based on Trump's baseless claims of widespread voter fraud by noncitizens. The bill would instantly disenfranchise millions of eligible voters by imposing citizenship verification requirements that exceed constitutional and statutory protections.
• Republicans advancing Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act — Republicans are advancing the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act, which would require proof of citizenship to register to vote and to vote. Only five states—Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Vermont, and Washington—have "enhanced" driver's licenses meeting the requirement; in all other states, voters would need either a passport or a birth certificate. Approximately half of Americans lack a passport, others lack birth certificates, and the names of married women who took their husband's last name and transgender Americans would not match their birth certificates. The Brennan Center for Justice found that if the measure passes, approximately 21 million Americans could lose their votes. The bill also calls for state officials to purge voter rolls.
• Republicans propose voter suppression legislation — The Republican Party is advancing the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act, which would require proof of citizenship to register and vote. This legislation could disenfranchise approximately 21 million Americans who lack the necessary documentation.
• White House issued fact sheet promoting the SAVE America Act and voter ID requirements — The White House issued a fact sheet asserting that voter ID requirements are "overwhelmingly popular" across all demographics and calling on Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, which the document states requires photo ID and implements "critical measures to protect federal elections from fraud and abuse." The fact sheet cites polling data from Pew Research Center (83% support), Gallup (84% support), and quotes from CNN and NBC anchors, and characterizes Democratic opposition as "placing partisan politics above the clear will of the American people."
• SAVE America Act passed House with narrow margin — The SAVE America Act passed the House of Representatives on February 11, 2026, by a vote of 218 to 213. The bill requires documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote and would affect not only first-time registration but also routine voter registration updates. Evidence from Kansas, which implemented a similar proof-of-citizenship law, showed that the documentary requirement prevented approximately 31,000 eligible citizens (12 percent of all applicants) from registering to vote, blocking far more citizens than noncitizens. Noncitizen voting in federal elections is already illegal and documented to be exceedingly rare.
• House Passes Restrictive Election Bill — The Republican-controlled House passed the SAVE America Act, which imposes strict voter ID requirements and mandates frequent voter roll purges. Critics argue it disenfranchises millions, particularly women and minorities, by requiring proof of citizenship that many lack. The bill now moves to the Senate, where it faces opposition.
• House Passes SAVE Act Requiring Citizenship Proof for Voting — The Republican-controlled House passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, legislation requiring proof of citizenship—such as passports or birth certificates—for voters to cast ballots. The Center for American Progress notes that approximately half of Americans lack a valid passport, and 69 million women cannot use birth certificates to prove citizenship due to name changes upon marriage. The bill also eliminates mail-only registration, mandates photo ID in all states, and requires states to conduct voter roll purges every 30 days. The measure now moves to the Senate.
• House passes SAVE America Act — The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE America) Act passed the House on Wednesday. The measure would require voters to show either a passport or birth certificate with matching names to register and would require states to purge their voting rolls every month. The bill must overcome a filibuster to pass the Senate.
• House passes SAVE America Act restricting voting for Americans abroad — The House of Representatives passed the SAVE America Act, which imposes in-person citizenship verification, proof of state residency, and repeated photo ID and citizenship document submission requirements at registration, ballot request, and voting stages. The bill would effectively prevent millions of eligible Americans living abroad—including military service members, diplomats, and expatriates—from voting. The measure centralizes voter eligibility authority in the federal executive, departing from two centuries of state election administration.
• House passes Save America Act, restricting voting access nationwide — The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Save America Act on February 12, 2026, by a vote of 218–213, with one Democratic defection. The bill requires proof of citizenship at voter registration, imposes a strict nationwide photo ID requirement (excluding student IDs), and significantly curtails mail-in voting. Implementation would be immediate, forcing states to rapidly realign voting systems. The bill faces a difficult path in the Senate and is expected to face federal court challenges.
• House passed SAVE America Act requiring use of flawed voter-verification system — The House passed the GOP's SAVE America Act this week, which would require states to use a federal voter-verification tool that ProPublica documented as consistently misidentifying U.S. citizens as noncitizens. The tool has a documented error rate that results in approximately 775 legal voters being disenfranchised for every 1 ineligible voter prevented from registering.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge dismisses DOJ lawsuit in California voter data case — A federal judge, identified as Judge David O. Carter, dismissed the Department of Justice's lawsuit in California challenging the state's refusal to provide voter registration data. In his opinion, Judge Carter characterized the case as a fundamental threat to democratic governance, stating that the erosion of privacy and rolling back of voting rights should be decided by the Legislative Branch, not the Executive, and that the Executive may not unilaterally usurp authority over elections.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration sues California cities over natural gas restrictions — The Trump administration's Department of Justice filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court (Northern District of California) against the San Francisco-area cities of Morgan Hill and Petaluma, seeking to block local ordinances restricting natural gas infrastructure and appliances in new construction. The complaint alleged the ordinances violated a 1975 federal law preventing states and cities from regulating the "energy use" of products subject to federal standards. The suit represents the administration's latest effort to challenge local climate policies.
• Justice Department sued Arizona and Connecticut for failure to produce voter registration lists — The Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division announced federal lawsuits against Arizona and Connecticut for failing to produce complete voter registration lists upon request. Attorney General Pamela Bondi stated this brings the total number of states sued to 23 plus the District of Columbia. The department cited authority under the National Voter Registration Act, Help America Vote Act, and Civil Rights Act of 1960 to demand production and inspection of statewide voter registration lists.
• Justice Department sued California cities over natural gas bans in new construction — The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of California against the cities of Morgan Hill and Petaluma, alleging their ordinances banning natural gas infrastructure and appliances in new construction violate federal law and preemption doctrine. The complaint seeks a declaration that the bans are preempted and a permanent injunction against their enforcement. Attorney General Pamela Bondi characterized the ordinances as "radical" and stated they harm consumers and American energy dominance.
• Trump administration demands voter lists from states; DOJ sues 22 states refusing compliance — The Trump administration has demanded that states surrender complete voter lists including sensitive personal information. The U.S. Justice Department is suing 22 states—many led by Democratic secretaries of state—that have refused to comply. The administration is reportedly attempting to build a national voter file and push states to more aggressively remove people from voter rolls. This action occurs amid heightened attention to secretary of state races in 2026, particularly in swing states critical to the 2028 presidential election.

Supporting reports

• North Carolina Republicans gerrymander congressional map; challenge filed under Section 2 of VRA — Republican lawmakers in North Carolina are further gerrymandering the congressional map they already gerrymandered in 2023, which gave the GOP a 10-4 edge in what was an evenly split delegation. The new map cuts up Eva Clayton's old district, currently held by Rep. Don Davis, a Black Democrat. The new map is currently being challenged for violating Section 2 of the VRA, but a decision from the federal panel hearing the case is unlikely before the Supreme Court issues its opinion in Callais v. Louisiana.

Supporting reports

• Louisiana v Callais case scheduled for oral arguments on Voting Rights Act — The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear Louisiana v Callais on October 15, a case challenging Louisiana's creation of a majority-Black congressional district required under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The case will determine whether such majority-minority districts violate the 14th or 15th Amendments. Legal experts predict the court may strike down the Voting Rights Act's majority-minority district provision on "color-blind" grounds, potentially enabling Republican-run states to gerrymander districts and affecting the 2026 midterm elections.
• Oral arguments in Louisiana v Callais on Voting Rights Act Section 2 — The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments on 15 October in Louisiana v Callais, which challenges whether Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is constitutional. Louisiana is accused of creating a second majority-Black congressional district to comply with the act's minority representation provisions, which the state argues violates the 14th and 15th Amendments. The case will determine whether the Voting Rights Act's core protections for racial minorities remain enforceable or whether the Court will further restrict voting rights protections.
• US Supreme Court hears Louisiana v Callais, case that could gut Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act — The US Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on October 15, 2025, in Louisiana v Callais, a case challenging the constitutionality of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The dispute centers on Louisiana's redrawing of a congressional district to create a second majority-Black district after Black voters sued under Section 2. White voters are now challenging that district as an unconstitutional race-based gerrymander. The Court has invited briefing on whether the district violates the 14th and 15th Amendments. A ruling striking down or severely limiting Section 2 would eliminate the primary remaining tool for challenging racially discriminatory voting practices nationwide.
• Supreme Court hears arguments in Louisiana v. Callais and Robinson v. Callais challenging Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act — The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two consolidated cases challenging a federal court decision that struck down Louisiana's racial gerrymander and required the state to create a second majority-Black congressional district. The right-wing majority indicated opposition to the use of race in redistricting to comply with the Voting Rights Act, suggesting such remedies are unconstitutional. A ruling against Section 2 could eliminate more than a dozen Democratic-held districts in the South and fundamentally alter the balance of power in the House of Representatives.
• Supreme Court re-heard case on Voting Rights Act Section 2 — The Supreme Court re-heard a case that could further undercut the 1965 Voting Rights Act by dismantling Section 2, the law's main safeguard against racially discriminatory redistricting. If the justices strike down Section 2, Republicans could gain 19 new safe U.S. house seats, enough to lock in one-party control of the House of Representatives for a generation.
• US Supreme Court hears arguments on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana electoral districts case — The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Wednesday in a case challenging Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination in voting. The case involves Louisiana electoral districts. Voting rights activists, predominantly Black, gathered outside the Court to protest, invoking the legacy of civil rights leaders and warning that weakening the Voting Rights Act would reverse decades of progress. Legal advocates including Janai Nelson of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund argued on behalf of Black voters, expressing confidence that the law and the justices' own precedent support their position.
• US Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Callais v Louisiana, case challenging Voting Rights Act Section 2 — The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Wednesday in Callais v Louisiana, a case in which Louisiana, non-African American voters, and the Trump administration challenge Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits electoral maps that dilute minority voting power. The conservative majority appeared sympathetic to weakening or eliminating this provision. The case centers on Louisiana's 2024 congressional map that created a second majority-Black district following a prior Voting Rights Act lawsuit. A ruling against Section 2 could set a precedent making redistricting lawsuits based on race considerably harder to bring.
• US Supreme Court oral arguments signal intent to narrow Section 2 of Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v Callais — The US Supreme Court's conservative majority appeared poised during oral arguments on October 16, 2025, to weaken Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act as applied to redistricting. The case, Louisiana v Callais, involves Louisiana's sixth congressional district, which was redrawn to create a second majority-Black district following a successful Section 2 challenge by Black voters. White voters and the Trump administration challenged the map, arguing that race-conscious redistricting violates the 14th and 15th Amendments. A ruling narrowing Section 2 could strip minority voters of a key tool to challenge discriminatory district lines and potentially cost Democrats around a dozen House seats.
• Supreme Court hears arguments in Louisiana v. Callais — The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Louisiana v. Callais, which challenges a federal court decision that found Louisiana's congressional district map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by racially gerrymandering Black voters. The case could determine the future of majority-minority districts and the enforcement of voting rights protections. The right-wing majority of the Court indicated a potential shift away from previous understandings of race in redistricting.

Supporting reports

• U.S. House approves Save Act requiring proof of citizenship to vote — The U.S. House of Representatives approved the Save Act, a far-reaching federal bill requiring voters to submit proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote and limiting mail and online voter registration. The bill restricts voter registration efforts based on false narratives about noncitizen voting.

Supporting reports

• Jefferson Griffin campaign challenges election results with flawed voter residency data — Republican candidate Jefferson Griffin, who lost the 2024 North Carolina Supreme Court election to Democrat Allison Riggs by 734 votes despite two recounts confirming Riggs' victory, submitted a list of approximately 260 voters allegedly classified as "never residents" of North Carolina to challenge the election result. The Griffin campaign compiled this list based partly on voters who checked a box on Federal Post Card Applications indicating they were U.S. citizens living outside the country, without verifying actual residency status. The campaign targeted ballots exclusively from four heavily Democratic counties.
• North Carolina Supreme Court invalidates 260 ballots based on flawed residency determinations — The North Carolina Supreme Court ordered the invalidation of approximately 260 ballots cast in the 2024 general election for a state Supreme Court seat, based on a list of voters allegedly classified as "never residents" of North Carolina. The court accepted findings that these voters were ineligible, despite evidence that at least 29 of them have documented histories of living or currently living in North Carolina. The invalidations were sought by Republican candidate Jefferson Griffin, who lost to Democrat Allison Riggs by 734 votes. The court did not provide affected voters an opportunity to prove their eligibility before discarding their ballots.
• Allison Riggs challenges election certification in North Carolina — Allison Riggs continued to contest Judge Jefferson Griffin's legal challenge to her election results. The dispute centers on ballot curing and election certification in North Carolina, with supporters organizing legal funding and petition drives to support Riggs's position.
• North Carolina judge Jefferson Griffin challenges voter eligibility to overturn election loss — Jefferson Griffin, a judge who lost his election to Allison Riggs in North Carolina, sought to overturn his loss by challenging the eligibility of tens of thousands of voters in a closely watched case. The state appellate court sided with Griffin, requiring voters to prove eligibility, though the ruling is on hold pending state supreme court review. This represents an attempt to use the courts to overturn an unfavorable election outcome.

Supporting reports

• North Carolina Supreme Court temporarily stayed the Court of Appeals ruling — On Monday, April 7, 2025, the North Carolina Supreme Court temporarily stayed the Court of Appeals' ruling that would have invalidated 60,000 ballots to consider Democrat Allison Riggs' appeal. Riggs, who won the November 2024 election and should already be months into her first full term, will recuse herself from the case, leaving Republicans with a 5-1 majority on the court. The stay prevents immediate disenfranchisement of voters while the case proceeds to the state's highest court.
• Jefferson Griffin filed and pursued ballot challenges violating the Purcell principle — Republican Jefferson Griffin, who lost the November 2024 North Carolina Supreme Court election to Democrat Allison Riggs by 734 votes, spent five months attempting to overturn the election by challenging over 60,000 ballots. Griffin recycled arguments previously rejected by a Trump-appointed federal judge before the election, violating the Purcell principle—a federal election doctrine prohibiting courts from altering election rules directly before, during, or after an election. Griffin's post-election challenges sought to disenfranchise voters based on missing driver's license or Social Security numbers on registration forms and military/overseas voters, despite no evidence of ineligibility.
• North Carolina Republican Party sent postcards with QR codes to notify voters of ballot challenges — The North Carolina Republican Party sent postcards to voters whose ballots were being challenged by Jefferson Griffin, instructing them to scan a QR code for additional information rather than providing direct notice of the quasi-judicial election protest. The postcards did not identify a protestor or campaign committee, provided no forwarding address, and directed voters to a partisan website containing dozens of challenges and thousands of names not listed alphabetically. A dissenting Court of Appeals judge noted that forcing voters to possess technological means and trust to scan an anonymous QR code and navigate a partisan website cannot be considered reasonably calculated to notify affected voters.
• North Carolina State Board of Elections rejected Griffin's ballot challenges — The North Carolina State Board of Elections, which has a Democratic majority, rejected Jefferson Griffin's claims that over 60,000 ballots cast in the November 2024 Supreme Court election were invalid. Griffin had filed legal challenges against these ballots, primarily targeting voters whose registration forms lacked a driver's license or Social Security number, as well as military and overseas voters. The Board's rejection was the first official action to defend the election result against Griffin's post-election challenges.
• North Carolina Supreme Court stays Court of Appeals ruling in Riggs-Griffin election dispute — The North Carolina Supreme Court placed a stay on the Court of Appeals' ruling that would have required notification and cure procedures for 60,000 voters with incomplete registrations. The stay halts implementation of the lower court's order while the state Supreme Court reconsiders the case. Based on prior rulings by the justices, a 3-3 deadlock is described as the best-case scenario for incumbent Justice Riggs; if a deadlock occurs, the Court of Appeals ruling would stand.
• North Carolina Court of Appeals orders notification and cure period for 60,000 voters with incomplete registrations in Riggs-Griffin Supreme Court race — The North Carolina Court of Appeals, in a decision by judges Fred Gore and John Tyson, ruled in favor of Republican Jefferson Griffin's challenge to Justice Allison Riggs' narrow November 2024 election victory. The court ordered election officials to notify approximately 60,000 voters that their registrations were incomplete and gave them 15 days to complete their registrations if they want their ballots to count. The dissent characterized the ruling as "mass disenfranchisement." Riggs appealed to the state Supreme Court, which placed the ruling on hold pending reconsideration.
• North Carolina Supreme Court orders overseas voters to prove eligibility or face ballot discard — The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that thousands of overseas voters, including military members, must prove their eligibility within 30 days or have their votes retroactively discarded in a state supreme court race won by Democrat Allison Riggs by 734 votes. The court dismissed challenges to 60,000 other voters but upheld the requirement for overseas voters. Justice Anita Earls dissented, arguing the decision amounts to overturning a valid election. Riggs announced plans to challenge the ruling in federal court.
• North Carolina Supreme Court orders overseas voters to prove eligibility, threatening election results — The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled on April 11 that overseas voters must prove their eligibility within 30 days or have their votes discarded, potentially overturning Democratic Justice Allison Riggs's November 2024 election victory by 734 votes. The ruling followed a Republican opponent's challenge to over 65,000 ballots cast by voters who had followed all existing state rules. Riggs has petitioned federal court to intervene, arguing the post-election rule change violates the Constitution and federal law protecting military and overseas voters.
• Jefferson Griffin challenges Alison Riggs' North Carolina Supreme Court election win — Jefferson Griffin filed a legal challenge to Alison Riggs' victory in the North Carolina Supreme Court election. The challenge prompted calls for voters to verify whether their votes were challenged and to contact county Boards of Elections. Pro-democracy organizations including Common Cause NC mobilized to defend the election certification in court.