Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Most lawsuits challenging voter rolls, registration have little impact

Apart from Arizona’s new registration requirement, voters face few new hurdles

American flag, ballot box and scales of justice
wildpixel/Getty Images

Rosenfeld is the editor and chief correspondent of Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

Across the country, the earliest deadlines to register to vote before the Nov. 5 presidential election have passed — including in two swing states, Arizona and Georgia. That hard deadline will have a decisive impact on who can vote this fall.

In contrast, there are dozens of ongoing lawsuits — almost entirely from Republicans and groups allied with former President Donald Trump — that have been filed since late summer and contest how battleground states have maintained their voter rolls and register voters.


But with less than one month before Election Day, most of the registration-centered litigation appears unlikely to impact voters this fall. That’s because most of the suits are ongoing in state and federal court, where most judges are averse to last-minute rulings — especially once voting is underway.

The notable exceptions are Arizona’s new proof of citizenship requirement to register for its state and local elections — which was upheld by the Supreme Court — and, possibly, a Georgia effort to mass-challenge registrations (which counties have begun to reject).

On the other hand, this swarm of lawsuits has given Trump campaigners a prop to sow myths about illegal voters — even if their claims are never evaluated.

This split-screen reality exists because the court of legal option — which has rules of evidence and standards of proof — is not the same as the court of public opinion, where the First Amendment protects political speech, regardless of its veracity.

Nonetheless, in recent weeks most of the voter roll litigation has seen little action. Many officials who have been sued have not responded — delaying the process. Few evidentiary hearings have been scheduled. And some suits have been withdrawn for reasons that do not surprise legal experts — including conservative Republicans who investigated and reported on Trump’s 2020 claims and found “Biden’s victory is easily explained.”

“When you look at what is likely to take place in 2024 if it is a close election, the report Lost, Not Stolen ’ is really a handy reference guide,” said Ben Ginsberg, legal counsel for the George W. Bush and Mitt Romney presidential campaigns. “[It] looks at all 64 cases that were filed in 2020, which are similar to the issues that have already been raised in the pre-election litigation for this year. And what we concluded is that the charges that were brought by Donald Trump and his supporters, all 64 cases, lost because of a lack of evidence — not because there were procedural deficiencies in the cases.”

Backing down in Georgia

A Georgia lawsuit by two Trump activists in metro Atlanta is a telling example of a suit that collided with an established federal law — and, after initial bluster, was withdrawn.

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 instructs states how to maintain voter rolls and expands registration. It also bars removing a registered voter within 90 days of an election. The Trump activists sued one day before that cutoff. Their lawsuit began: “Fulton County does not maintain, nor does it even attempt to maintain, accurate voter rolls.”

That claim is false. Nonetheless, the suit wanted a federal court to order Atlanta officials to disregard the NVRA’s purge deadline if their allies challenged tens of thousands of voter registrations — as was done in 2022’s general election. On Sept. 16, the activists withdrew their suit without citing a reason.

Election analysts have reported that there are more than 100 lawsuits across America that target different steps in the process. According to Democracy Docket — a voting rights news platform that tracks election litigation — more than a dozen suits challenging the NVRA have been filed in 2024’s seven battleground states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin).

Almost all challenge technical aspects of the NVRA. For example, they allege:

Most of these claims have not been factually evaluated. And there are yet more voter-list-centered lawsuits. However, a large number of partisan suits does not mean there are massive problems. Indeed, on Oct. 7, the Supreme Court declined to hear a Pennsylvania suit challenging a White House directive to expand registration.

As registration closes in many states, it appears that most of this Republican litigation will not impact voters. Rather, experts say its goal is to “ sow doubts ” if Trump loses.

“What’s important in 2024 is to beware of the rhetoric,” Ginsberg said. “A campaign and party that loses a close election is going to find reasons to file cases.”

Correction 10/15/24: Democracy Docket was previously referenced as run by Democratic Party lawyers. They are a voting rights news platform founded by attorney Marc Elias that tracks election litigation.


Read More

“I’m still under attack:” Karla Toledo, relief and fear after case dismissed

A community member rests on the sidewalk, shielding herself from the sun with a banner outside the Tucson Immigration Court. People show their support for Karla Toledo with banners and petitions, and by wearing pink — a color representing solidarity with communities affected by mass deportation policies.

Credit: Summer Williams

“I’m still under attack:” Karla Toledo, relief and fear after case dismissed

Karla Toledo — the DACA recipient detained by masked immigration agents at her own home in mid-May — celebrated the dismissal of her case by a judge in Tucson. The 31-year-old Latina immigrant expressed both relief and caution.

About 30 people gathered Wednesday outside the Tucson Immigration Court building for what was expected to be Karla’s first hearing after her arrest and confinement at Eloy Detention Center. Family and community members carried signs with Karla’s image that read: “Stand with Karla. Protect Dreamers.”

Keep ReadingShow less
 Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

The Trump Justice Department faces scrutiny over alleged prosecutorial misconduct, political pressure, and threats to the rule of law and judicial integrity.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

Is There Anything That Trump’s Justice Department Lawyers Won’t Do?

There was a time when working for the United States Department of Justice might have been a lawyer’s dream. Speaking on behalf of the United States, working with people who were dedicated to preserving the rule of law and upholding the highest standards of professionalism, not a bad gig.

As Harvard Law School once explained, the department offered lawyers an unparalleled “opportunity to serve the public in a meaningful way while carrying out the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) mandate to ‘pursue justice’ every day…” Not a bad gig.

Keep ReadingShow less

One Year After Arrest, Pressure Mounts on El Salvador to Free Ruth López

Human rights organizations across the Americas are intensifying pressure on the Salvadoran government to immediately release Ruth Eleonora López, a prominent anti‑corruption attorney who has now spent more than a year in pretrial detention under what advocates describe as arbitrary, retaliatory, and rights‑violating conditions. López, who leads the Anti‑Corruption and Justice Unit at Cristosal, was detained on May 18, 2025, and has remained behind bars ever since. Her case has become a flashpoint in the region’s debate over democratic backsliding and the criminalization of civil society under President Nayib Bukele.

According to Amnesty International, López’s first hours in custody amounted to a short‑term enforced disappearance, as authorities refused to reveal her whereabouts to her family or legal team. The organization reports that she has since been held under an incommunicado regime, with sharply restricted access to counsel and relatives, while her case remains sealed under judicial secrecy — preventing any public examination of the evidence against her. Over the past year, the charges have shifted without explanation, moving from alleged embezzlement tied to advisory work more than a decade ago to illicit enrichment. Human Rights Watch notes that no evidence has been presented in open court, and a judge extended her pretrial detention in December 2025, with the current order set to expire this month. The Human Rights Research Center adds that López’s imprisonment reflects a broader pattern in El Salvador of criminalizing human rights defenders, journalists, and anti‑corruption advocates.

Keep ReadingShow less
Judicial Independence Over Judicial Sycophancy
a judge's gaven on a wooden table

Judicial Independence Over Judicial Sycophancy

While the President of the United States has the power under Article II, section 2 of the United States Constitution to appoint justices of the Supreme Court and other federal judges, all of whom have lifetime tenure, the President must exercise this power with the “Advice and Consent” of the Senate. The Senate’s advice and consent cannot be meaningfully exercised without the chance to question judicial nominees. Thus, a key component of the Senate’s evaluative process is the confirmation hearings during which senators question the President’s nominees.

Many nominees are alert to efforts to discern their views on disputed legal issues and unsettled law and decline to answer such questions or answer them in a manner that avoids violating the prohibition against opining. Nominees of both parties who were appointed to the Supreme Court rightly refused to answer such questions.

Keep ReadingShow less