Top 10 Election Litigation Cases in 2024 Implicating the Rule of Law

Georgia Election Board Challenges

Seven controversial rules passed by the GOP-dominated State Election Board (SEB) will remain blocked through Election Day, after the Georgia Supreme Court refused to pause a trial judge’s ruling voiding them. The now-stricken rules include a hand-counting rule, a so-called “reasonable inquiry” rule, an “examination rule” and others. Additionally, a Georgia trial court has declared that election superintendents have “no discretion” to delay or refuse certifying races. Other challenges remain pending at the trial court level, including in Fulton, Dekalb, and Muscogee Counties, but most seek relief already granted elsewhere.

Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia

Overseas Voter Eligibility Challenges

In multiple states, Republicans are challenging policies regarding overseas and military voters under the federal Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA). This week, trial court judges rejected GOP-led lawsuits in Michigan and North Carolina, affirming that U.S. citizens who are the children or spouses of legal residents of those states are eligible to vote absentee. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on Oct. 22. Meanwhile, Republicans have another lawsuit pending in Pennsylvania relating to UOCAVA and voters abroad. These attacks on absentee voting under UOCAVA have stoked controversy among military service members and others.

Michigan Court of Claims

Pennsylvania Mail-In Ballot Challenges

Two challenges against Pennsylvania counties’ mail-in ballot procedures are currently on appeal at the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. In Center for Coalfield Justice v. Washington County Board of Elections, civil rights groups and voters challenged the county election board’s refusal to notify voters if their mail-in ballots were rejected. Briefing concluded on Oct. 11. In Genser v. Butler County Board of Elections, two voters challenged the election board’s refusal to let voters cast provisional ballots to correct deficiencies in their mail-in ballots. The case has been fully briefed and awaiting decision for almost a month. In both instances, the RNC and Republican Party of Pennsylvania sided with the counties’ efforts.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

DOJ ‘Quiet Period’ Challenges

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has brought cases in two states to prevent the systematic removal of names from voter rolls during the so-called “quiet period,” within 90 days of an election. In an Alabama case, U.S. District Judge Anna Manasco, a Trump appointee, issued a preliminary injunction blocking that purge on Oct. 16. DOJ also brought a similar suit in Virginia, which was consolidated with a related case last week. U.S. District Judge Patricia Giles scheduled a hearing for Oct. 24.

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division

Republican National Committee, et al. v. Wetzel, et al.

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. (Note: This case was not on last week’s list but was number 6 on the Oct. 8 top ten list.)

U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit

Mi Familia Vota, et al., v. Fontes, et al.

This consolidated case challenges two Arizona laws establishing new proof of citizenship standards for voters and requiring those who cannot meet those standards to be removed from voter rolls. The case could have broader implications because the RNC and Republican state legislators have argued that the Arizona law should stand because Congress lacks authority to regulate presidential elections. Oral arguments were Sept. 10.

U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit

Republican National Committee, et al., v. North Carolina State Board of Elections, et al.

The RNC and the North Carolina Republican Party sued the North Carolina State Board of Elections over purportedly processing 225,000 voter registrations without collecting required identification information. Plaintiffs sought the removal of the voters from the rolls. On Oct. 17, a federal judge dismissed one count and remanded the second back to state court. The State Board of Elections appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the court administratively stayed the remand order until Oct. 25.

U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit

La Union del Pueblo Entero, et al., v. Abbott, et al.

A district judge in Texas struck down various provisions of a Texas law, S.B. 1, in two rulings on Sept. 28 and Oct. 11. Some of the provisions at issue prevented targeted canvassers from assisting voters with their mail-in ballots. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) used that law in part as the basis for search warrants, many of which target Latino organizers and voters. However, all of the challenged provisions will remain in effect for this election because both rulings have been stayed. On Oct. 15, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the district court’s Sept. 28 decision pending appeal; and, in the Oct. 11 decision, the district court stayed its injunction until after the November election.

U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit

Fontes v. Cavanaugh, et al

An Arizona court ruled on Oct. 4 that Pinal County is violating state law by not following a provision of the state’s Election Procedures Manual ensuring that voters who go to the wrong precinct are given the opportunity to cast a ballot and have that ballot counted. But the court declined to issue an injunction now, ruling that it is too close to the election to force a change. The Arizona Secretary of State is appealing the ruling, and as is the Pinal County Board of Supervisors.

Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two

Georgia State Conference of the NAACP, et al., v. Raffensperger

Filed Sept. 24, this lawsuit challenges provisions of Georgia’s S.B. 189, which was passed earlier this year. Civil rights groups asked the court to block a provision that empowers private citizens to challenge another voter’s eligibility. They also challenge a provision that imposes requirements on voters without a permanent address, arguing that it unduly burdens unhoused voters. State and national branches of the Republican Party have requested leave to intervene in support of Raffensperger.

U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division