In the lead-up to the 2024 election, hundreds of election-related lawsuits brought across the country present a complex litigation landscape well before all ballots are cast and counted. Many of these cases have clear echoes of the 2020 presidential election, seeking to raise unfounded fears of voter fraud or non-citizen voting, erode confidence in mail-in and absentee voting, or encourage baseless non-certification of eventual election results. Others seek to address legitimate concerns of voter disenfranchisement, needed voting administration fixes, or steps that may need to be taken to advance free and fair voting, counting, and certification of the votes.
In this top ten list, we seek to identify the most important of these hundreds of cases for their rule of law implications and to convey an overall sense of the election litigation landscape. We will regularly update this list to achieve those purposes. The criteria that we use to derive this list are as follows:
- Seriousness of implications for the democratic process;
- Potential to distort democratic process or subvert democratic outcomes in a state or nationally; and
- New and notable development or unresolved and serious legal question with implications for the democratic process.
For questions, comments, or suggestions, please contact lte@justsecurity.org.
2024 Election Litigation Top 10
| Rank | Change in Position | Weeks on Chart | Case Title | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ⬆ +8 | 2 |
New PA Project Education Fund, et al. v. Schmidt, et al. On Saturday, Oct. 5, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declined to exercise its extraordinary authority to hear two cases challenging the state’s election plans. One case challenged Pennsylvania’s plan not to count undated or misdated ballots; allowing those policies to stand could result in a serious undercount of such ballots. Another case, filed by the Republican National Committee, sought to block elections officials from notifying potentially disenfranchised voters and allowing them to cure defects on their ballots. Other cases on similar issues are ongoing. |
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
| 2 | ⇅ 0 | 2 |
Abhiraman, et al., v. State Election Board The state and national branches of the Democratic Party, along with 10 Georgia voters, challenge new State Election Board (SEB) rules that could delay election certification. Trial started on Oct. 1, and the parties agreed that certification by the statutory deadline is mandatory. Whether Judge Robert McBurney will issue a decision to that effect remains to be seen. There are other cases pending in state courts challenging the new SEB rules here, here and here. |
Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia |
| 3 | ⬆ +1 | 2 |
American Encore, et al., v. Fontes, et al. On Sept. 27, a Trump-appointed federal judge granted conservative advocacy groups’ request for a preliminary injunction blocking a provision of Arizona’s 2023 Election Procedures Manual (EPM) that would empower the secretary of state to certify statewide results without including the votes of counties that fail to timely certify their county’s vote totals. After taking office, Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes (D) updated the EPM, in part, to protect election results from efforts to delay or thwart certification. The RNC and conservative groups have brought separate challenges to the EPM here and here. |
U.S. District Court, District of Arizona |
| 4 | ⇅ N/A | 1 |
United States of America v. State of Alabama, et al. On Sept. 27, the U.S. Department of Justice sued Alabama to stop a voter purge that is allegedly removing naturalized citizens who formerly had noncitizen identification numbers from the rolls. The lawsuit, which was consolidated with another that challenges the voter purge, alleges that Alabama is violating the National Voter Registration Act, which prohibits states from systematically removing names from voter rolls within 90 days of an election. |
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama |
| 5 | ⬆ +6 | 2 |
La Union del Pueblo Entero, et al., v. Abbott, et al. On Sept. 28, a federal judge struck down a provision of a Texas law that prevented paid canvassers from assisting voters with their mail-in ballots. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has used the provision as the basis for search warrants, many of which target Latino organizers and voters. On Oct. 1, the ruling was appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the appellate court has granted a temporary stay of the decision until Oct. 10. |
U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas |
| 6 | ⇅ N/A | 1 |
On Sept. 24, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in a case challenging Mississippi’s mail-in ballot receipt deadline as unconstitutional. Mississippi law permits the counting of ballots that are received up to five business days after the election as long as they are postmarked on or before Election Day. The Fifth Circuit has not yet issued a decision. |
U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit |
| 7 | ⬇ -6 | 2 |
Michigan Welfare Rights Organization, et al., v. Trump, et al. A civil rights group and Michigan residents filed a Voting Rights Act lawsuit against Donald Trump and his campaign in Nov. 2020, during the early stages of the attempt to overturn the state’s election results. They later added new claims under the Reconstruction-era Ku Klux Klan Act in an amended complaint filed in federal court in Washington, D.C. In August, Trump’s challengers asked U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to impose court supervision over his campaign and his party from violating the Voting Rights Act before the 2024 election. |
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia |
| 8 | ⬇ -5 | 2 |
Mi Familia Vota, et al., v. Fontes, et al. In March 2022, a Latino advocacy group sued over Arizona’s passage of H.B. 2492, legislation imposing proof of citizenship requirements for voters. Their case was consolidated with seven others, and therefore also challenges H.B. 2243, requiring county recorders to remove voters from the rolls if they cannot prove citizenship under the revised procedures. For now, newly registered voters will be required to provide documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote in state (but not federal) elections this year, while an appeal in the Ninth Circuit is ongoing. Arizona’s “federal-only” voters, who signed affidavits attesting to their citizenship, also will be able to vote in the presidential elections. |
U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit |
| 9 | ⇅ N/A | 1 |
In This Together NEPA Inc., et al., v. Crocamo, et al. A Pennsylvania advocacy group and three mail-ballot voters challenge the Luzerne County Manager’s decision to eliminate all drop boxes for the 2024 general election. The lawsuit was filed on Oct. 1. On Oct. 6, the defendants and plaintiffs informed the court that the County Manager had agreed to reverse her decision, ensuring that voters will have access to drop boxes in the upcoming election. |
Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania |
| 10 | ⬇ -4 | 2 |
Daugsen, et al., v. Aguilar, et al. On Sept. 11, the state and national branches of the Republican Party, the Trump campaign, and a Clark County voter sued Nevada’s Democratic Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar (in addition to the state’s Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee), alleging he had “fail[ed]” to purge thousands of noncitizens from voter rolls. The lawsuit claims to have found 6,136 active voter registrations that were “positive matches” to noncitizens registered with the DMV. |
First Judicial District Court for the State of Nevada in and for Carson City |