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

Pennsylvania Mail-In Ballot Challenges

Ongoing litigation focused on Pennsylvania’s mail-in ballot procedures has reached the U.S. Supreme Court. In Genser v. Butler County Board of Elections, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed on Oct. 23 that voters whose mail-in ballots have certain deficiencies must be allowed to cast a provisional ballot. Republicans requested a stay from SCOTUS on Oct. 28. Meanwhile, back in Pennsylvania, in Center for Coalfield Justice v. Washington County Board of Elections, civil rights groups and voters challenged the board’s refusal to notify voters if their mail-in ballots were rejected. Briefing at the Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded on Oct. 11 and a decision is expected imminently. On Oct. 30, in Baxter v. Philadelphia Board of Elections, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania allowed the counting of un- and mis-dated absentee and mail-in ballots, terming the date requirement “meaningless” (in the context of 69 ballots in a 2024 special election).

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Voter Purge Challenges

Just six days before Election Day, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed Virginia to resume a purge of an estimated 1,600 registered voters. A lower court had blocked Virginia’s purge in response to a lawsuit by civil society groups and the Department of Justice (DOJ), finding that it violated the National Voter Registration Act’s so-called “quiet period” within 90 days of an election. In Alabama, civil society groups and the DOJ brought similar suits that were later consolidated. U.S. District Judge Anna Manasco, a Trump appointee, issued a preliminary injunction blocking the state’s voter purge on Oct. 16.

Overseas Voter Eligibility Challenges

In Michigan, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania, Republicans have lost challenges to rules allowing overseas and military voting under the federal Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA). In Michigan and North Carolina, Republicans are appealing trial court rulings that rejected GOP claims and allowed U.S. citizens who are the children or spouses of legal residents of those states to vote absentee. These attacks on absentee voting under UOCAVA have stoked controversy among military service members and others.

Court of Appeals, State of Michigan

RNC, et al., v. Aguilar, et al.

On Oct. 28, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed that late ballots without a postmark received in Nevada within three days of election day must be counted. Republicans originally sued to stop two Nevada counties—Washoe and Clark—from counting these ballots, but a trial judge rejected the request in a decision affirmed on appeal.

Supreme Court of Nevada

Fontes v. Lewis, et al.

On Oct. 25, the Arizona Supreme Court rejected the Arizona Secretary of State’s emergency request for injunctive relief, meaning voters in Pinal County this November will be unable to cast a ballot if they arrive at the incorrect precinct. The lower court ruled that Pinal County is violating state law by not following a provision of the state’s Election Procedures Manual, which ensures that voters who go to the wrong precinct are given the opportunity to cast a ballot and have it counted. The court did not order the county to comply with this provision in the upcoming election.

Supreme Court of Arizona

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

On Oct. 25, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Mississippi’s mail-in ballot receipt deadline was preempted by federal law and remanded the case to the lower court to determine the appropriate relief. The Mississippi law, which permitted the counting of ballots received up to five business days after the election as long as they are postmarked on or before election day, remains in effect pending further lower court proceedings.

U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit

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

Civil rights groups on Sept. 24 challenged provisions of Georgia’s S.B. 189, which was passed earlier this year. The plaintiffs 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 moved to intervene in support of Raffensperger. The court may consolidate this case with two similar lawsuits (here and here).

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

Boustani, et al., v. LaRose

The Ohio ACLU argued in an Oct. 23 emergency motion that Secretary of State Frank LaRose violated a court order by allegedly reimplementing election rules a federal court had previously stricken. Plaintiffs asked a federal court to issue a civil-contempt order compelling LaRose to comply with the court’s 2006 order, which overturned the state’s prior policy of requiring voters to show naturalization papers if their citizenship status was challenged at a polling place. Briefing concluded on Oct. 28.

U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio

Department of Homeland Security Sharing of Citizenship Information Challenges

Florida, Texas, and Ohio have all sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) requesting additional information relating to immigrants’ citizenship status. That comes after the attorneys general of those three states joined 13 others to send a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas demanding that DHS hand over this data.

U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division

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