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 And some suits have been withdrawn for reasons that do not surprise legal experts — including conservative Republicans who investigated and reported on Trump’s 2020 claims and found “Biden’s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

Activists march across Edmund Pettus Bridge.

Activists march across Edmund Pettus Bridge on May 16, 2026 in Selma, Alabama.

Jason Davis / Getty Images

Racism & MAGA-Gerrymandering—Combating the Noxious Mix

There is an old saying: If anyone insists something definitely is not about money; it is definitely about money. The Supreme Court’s right-wing majority claims that its recent election districting rulings are not about abetting racism or siding with MAGA politics, but they are definitely about both.

The Court’s recent Louisiana v. Callais decision cynically demands that anyone challenging election districts as violating the Voting Rights Act must “disentangle race from politics” and show that intentional racial discrimination, rather than politics, was the motivator when minority communities are divided and segments are placed into majority white districts.

Keep ReadingShow less
Judicial Courage?
a wooden judge's hammer sitting on top of a table
Photo by Wesley Tingey on Unsplash

Judicial Courage?

While some believe that being a judge is an easy gig that requires only a dartboard, it is a challenging position that takes courage, especially when a judge must render an unpopular decision. There are many examples of judicial courage throughout history, such as the biblical King Solomon, whose decision to cut a baby in half must have caused quite a commotion, at least until the true mother’s selfless concern for her baby rendered his judgment unnecessary.

In recent years, many judges have been criticized for issuing decisions that don’t sit well with the present administration in Washington, DC. Many are plagued by death threats and bomb scares. (See Jaffe, “Judges Face Rising Threats but Are Barred from Responding,” Our Town, Oct. 18, 2025, https://www.ourtownny.com/voices/judges-face-rising-threats-but-are-barred-from-responding-EN5179240) (providing statistics on judicial threats). Consequently, courage is an essential judicial trait.

Keep ReadingShow less
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court building.
Casey He

The Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Act Decision Will Fuel the “Disuniting” of the United States and the Unraveling of American Democracy

On April 29, the Supreme Court delivered a devastating blow to the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA). As bad as it was, the decision fit with a long line of cases in which the conservative- dominated Court has turned a blind eye to the lived realities of racism in the United States.

By insisting that people seeking relief under the VRA must prove intentional discrimination in the drawing of legislative districts, the Court erected a burden of proof so substantial as to effectively allow states to get away with anything during the reapportionment process. Add that to the Court’s 2019 decision allowing partisan gerrymandering, and we have turned back the clock to a time when drawing districts was used by the party in power to keep Black people from getting their fair share of representation.

Keep ReadingShow less
Despite Court Order, NYPD Failed to Properly Monitor Stop-and-Frisks by Aggressive Unit

Members of the New York City Police Department’s Community Response Team conduct a raid on a smoke shop in lower Manhattan in 2024.

Luiz C. Ribeiro/New York Daily News/Tribune News Service via Getty Images

Despite Court Order, NYPD Failed to Properly Monitor Stop-and-Frisks by Aggressive Unit

More than a decade ago, a federal court found that the New York City Police Department had been unconstitutionally stopping and frisking Black and Hispanic residents. The ruling laid out required fixes, including something quite basic: The NYPD would review officers’ stops to make sure they were legal.

But for most of the past three years the nation’s largest police department failed to do that for a key part of an aggressive and politically connected unit as it stopped New Yorkers.

Keep ReadingShow less