RNC in the Courts

Below is a high-level summary of important pending litigation, including litigation in which the RNC is involved, and other election law news. Please feel free to reply with any comments or suggestions. If there is anyone else you would like to receive this update, please send us their contact information.

Please see below for more information about our win in the Fifth Circuit challenging Mississippi's post-Election Day ballot receipt deadline and our multiple wins in Pennsylvania.

ARIZONA
Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes, No. 2:21-cv-01423-DWL (D. Ariz.) (“MFV I”). Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in August 2021 challenging SB 1485, which authorizes the removal of voters from the permanent early voting list if they do not vote an early ballot in two consecutive election cycles and fail to confirm that they want to continue receiving early ballots. The RNC and NRSC are intervenor-defendants. The court dismissed plaintiffs’ challenge to SB 1003, which requires voters who submit an early ballot without a signature to cure the deficiency by 7:00 pm on Election Day. The case is currently in discovery.

Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes, No. 2:22-cv-00509-SRB (D. Ariz.) (“MFV II”). These consolidated lawsuits challenge HB 2492, which requires individuals who register to vote using the National Voter Registration Form to provide proof of citizenship in order to vote in presidential elections or vote early by mail, and HB 2243, which requires county recorders to investigate and remove non-citizens from voter rolls. The RNC is an intervenor-defendant. On September 14, 2023, the court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs on several claims, including their claim that the NVRA preempts the proof-of-citizenship requirement. Trial on the remaining claims finished on November 6, 2023. On February 29, the judge issued a decision invalidating several provisions of the law, including the requirement that voters provide their birthplace on voter registration forms, the requirement to provide documentary proof of residence, and the requirement to conduct certain investigations of voters who officials have “reason to believe” are non-citizens. At the same time, the court upheld provisions requiring investigation of voters who do not provide documentary proof-of-citizenship and authorizing cancellation of confirmed non-citizens’ voter registrations.

On May 2, the court entered a final, appealable judgment and the Republican Party of Arizona filed a motion to intervene. On May 8, the RNC and Arizona Legislature filed a notice of appeal. On May 17, the RNC and Arizona Legislature filed a motion to stay the district court’s order pending appeal with respect to the documentary proof of citizenship requirements. The Secretary of State, Attorney General, US Department of Justice, and the Democratic Party filed responses opposing the motion to stay. On June 27, after waiting more than a month for the district court to decide the stay motion, the RNC and Arizona Legislature filed an emergency motion for partial stay pending appeal in the Ninth Circuit. Secretary of State Fontes opposes the stay. (On June 28, the district court finally denied the motion to stay.) On July 4, AZ GOP filed a motion to intervene. On July 18, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion for partial stay of the judgment. The court held election officials may reject state-form applications that lack documentary proof of citizenship. The court granted expedited merits briefing. Oral argument is scheduled for September 10. On July 29, the RNC and Arizona Republican Legislators filed their opening brief in the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider the partial stay. On August 1, the merits panel decided 2-1 to vacate the partial stay. On August 8, the RNC and Arizona Legislature filed an emergency application for a stay in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Republican Party of Arizona, Republican election groups, and 24 Republican state AGs filed briefs in support of an emergency application for stay pending appeal. On August 16, the US DOJ, Arizona AG, Arizona Secretary of State, and the Democratic Party filed responses in opposition to our stay request.

On August 19, the RNC and Arizona Legislature filed a reply in support of their emergency application for a stay in the U.S. Supreme Court. On August 22, the U.S. Supreme Court granted in part and denied in part the emergency stay application. The Supreme Court held that Arizona may reject state-form voter registration applications that lack documentary proof of citizenship rather than registering applicants as federal-only voters. The Court denied the stay request with respect to proof of citizenship requests for voting by mail or in presidential elections, but those claims remain pending in the Ninth Circuit. On August 26, the RNC and Arizona Legislature filed their third brief in the Ninth Circuit. Oral argument occurred on September 10.

RNC v. Fontes , No. CV2024-050553 (Maricopa Cnty. Superior Ct.). On February 9, 2024, the RNC, Arizona GOP, and Yavapai County GOP filed a lawsuit challenging the lawfulness of the 2023 Election Procedures Manual (“EPM”). Plaintiffs maintain that Secretary Fontes failed to follow required notice-and-comment procedures when promulgating the EPM, including by imposing an unlawfully short 15-day period for public input. Plaintiffs also challenge numerous provisions of the EPM as inconsistent with state law, including EPM provisions that weaken safeguards against non-citizen voting and that restrict the ability to challenge early ballots. On February 14, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. On March 18, Secretary Fontes and intervenor-defendants filed motions to dismiss the case and oppositions to our motion for a preliminary injunction. On April 8, Plaintiffs filed a consolidated reply in support of their motion for preliminary injunction and a response in opposition to defendants’ motions to dismiss. Oral argument on the motions took place on May 3. On May 14, the judge granted the motion to dismiss. On June 11, Plaintiffs moved for entry of final judgment. On July 3, Plaintiffs appealed the trial court’s dismissal. On August 21, Plaintiffs filed their opening brief on appeal. On September 30, Defendant Fontes and Intervenor-Defendants filed their responses to Plaintiffs’ opening brief on appeal. On October 17, Plaintiffs filed their reply brief. Update: On October 28, the Court of Appeals denied Plaintiffs’ request for preliminary injunctive relief.

Fontes v. Cavanaugh, No. CV2024-02541 (Pinal Cnty. Superior Ct.). On September 27, the Secretary of State filed a lawsuit against Pinal County for declining to deploy equipment at polling places that would convert the county from a precinct-based voting system to a vote-center system (where a voter can cast a ballot anywhere in the county). Arizona law allows counties to choose which system to adopt. On October 3, the RNC and AZ GOP filedan amicus brief in support of Pinal County, noting that the Republicans are challenging the very EPM provision the Secretary relies on to try to force Pinal County to abandon precinct-based voting. On October 4, the judge denied the Secretary’s request for injunctive relief and dismissed the case. On October 7, the Secretary appealed the decision to the Arizona Court of Appeals. On October 23, the Secretary transferred the appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court. Update: On October 25, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the Pinal County Superior Court’s ruling.

Petersen v. Fontes, No. CV2024-001942 (Maricopa Cnty. Superior Ct.). On January 31, Senate President Warren Petersen and Speaker of the House Ben Toma filed suit challenging provisions of the EPM, including provisions that weaken protections against non-citizen voting and delay the start of reforms to the state’s active early voter list. The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction the same day. A hearing occurred on May 23.

Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Fontes, No. S-1300-CV-2023-00202 (Yavapai Cnty. Superior Ct.). The Arizona Free Enterprise Club, Restoring Trust and Integrity in Elections (RITE), and Arizona GOP filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of State for authorizing the use of signatures that do not appear in a voter’s registration record to conduct signature-matching. On September 1, 2023, the court denied the Secretary’s motion to dismiss.  The parties cross-moved for summary judgment. Oral argument occurred on January 18, 2024. On April 25, the court granted summary judgment for the Secretary. On June 5, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. On September 23, Plaintiffs filed their opening brief.

Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Fontes, No. CV2024-002760 (Maricopa Cnty. Superior Ct.). On February 9, Plaintiffs, supported by America First Policy Institute, filed a challenge to provisions of the EPM, including provisions restricting the right to observe activities at drop boxes and polling places, for violation of freedom of speech, freedom of association, and due process. On April 16, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On May 28, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. On August 6, the court partially granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. On August 13, Defendants filed a notice of appeal. On September 11, Defendants filed a motion for stay pending appeal. On September 27, the Arizona Court of Appeals partially granted Defendants’ motion for stay of the trial court’s decision.

Mussi v. Fontes, No. 2:24-cv-01310-DWL (D. Ariz.). On June 3, Plaintiffs Scott Mussi and AZ GOP Chairwoman Gina Swoboda filed a NVRA lawsuit challenging the adequacy of the state’s voter list maintenance practices. The defendants’ motion to dismiss is currently pending.

Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans v. Fontes, No. 2:22-cv-01374-GMS (D. Ariz.). Plaintiffs challenge provisions of SB 1260, which modifies the criteria for voter registration cancellations and removals of voters from the active early voting list and imposes penalties for aiding illegal voting. The Yuma County Republican Party is an intervenor-defendant. The court preliminarily enjoined two provisions of the law in September 2022. On September 20, 2024, the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction.

CALIFORNIA
California Alliance for Retired Americans v. Weber, No. 24STCP02062 (Super. Ct. Los Angeles Cnty.). Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the state’s signature verification law. The RNC, NRCC, and California GOP filed a motion to intervene. A hearing was held on August 22. On August 22, the court denied the GOP’s motion to intervene. A hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction occurred on September 5. The Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction was denied. On September 30, the case was dismissed.

FLORIDA
Florida Rising Together v. Byrd, No. 6:24-cv-01682 (M.D. Fla.). Several left-wing groups filed a lawsuit challenging a state law requiring information on voter registration applications to match the information in state and federal databases. On October 16, the RNC and the Republican Party of Florida filed a motion to intervene to defend the law. Update: On October 30, Plaintiffs filed a motion in opposition to the RNC and Republican Party of Florida’s motion to intervene.

League of Women Voters v. Byrd , No. 4:21-cv-00186-MW (N.D. Fla.). Plaintiffs filed numerous lawsuits challenging SB 90, a Florida election integrity law. The lawsuits were consolidated with the above-captioned case. The RNC and NRSC are intervenor-defendants. In March 2022, the district court enjoined several provisions of the law, including restrictions on the use of absentee ballot drop boxes, regulations on the activities of third-party voter registration organizations, and prohibition on soliciting voters in polling places or near drop boxes. The court also imposed preclearance requirements on Florida under Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act.

The Eleventh Circuit mostly reversed the district court. See League of Women Voters v. Fla. Sec’y of State, No. 22-11143 (11th Cir. Apr. 27, 2023). The court held that the challenged provisions were not racially discriminatory in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments or the Voting Rights Act and reversed the district court’s preclearance decision. The Eleventh Circuit partially affirmed the district court’s holding that the solicitation ban is unconstitutionally vague. The court remanded the issue of whether any of the challenged provisions violate the constitutional right to vote for decision by the district court in the first instance. On September 21, 2023, the Eleventh Circuit denied plaintiffs’ petition for rehearing en banc.

On February 8, 2024, the district court dismissed the remaining claims and ordered the case closed.

Vote.org v. Byrd, No. 4:23-cv-00111-AW (N.D. Fla.). Plaintiffs challenge Florida’s law requiring wet signatures on voter registration applications under the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The RNC and Republican Party of Pasco County are intervenor-defendants. The United States has filed a statement of interest in the case. On October 30, the court granted Florida’s and the Republican Intervenors’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On November 9, the plaintiffs appealed to the Eleventh Circuit. Appellants filed their opening brief on January 25, 2024. The US Department of Justice submitted an amicus brief in support of appellants. On May 15, the RNC and the Republican Party of Pasco County filed their response brief. State Defendants also filed their response brief. On June 5, Plaintiffs-Appellants’ filed their reply brief.

GEORGIA
Ayota v. Fall, No. __ (Cobb Cnty. Super. Ct.). Plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU, sued Cobby County officials and sought to extend the deadline for receiving certain absentee ballots until three days after Election Day, because some ballots were allegedly mailed after the deadline. The RNC and Georgia GOP intervened and opposed the requested relief. The district court granted plaintiffs’ requested relief, and the RNC and Georgia GOP immediately appealed.

Georgia State Conference of the NAACP v. Kemp, No. 1:24-cv-04546 (N.D. Ga.). On October 7, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit to extend the voter registration deadline by one week statewide. The RNC and Georgia Republican Party intervened to oppose the lawsuit. On October 10, the court rejected Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction and declined to extend the voter registration deadline.

In re Georgia Senate Bill 202, No. 1:21-MI-55555-JPB (N.D. Ga.). This consolidated case consists of six lawsuits challenging SB 202, a Georgia election integrity law. The RNC, NRSC, NRCC, and Georgia GOP are intervenor-defendants. In August 2023, the district court preliminarily enjoined the law’s requirement that absentee voters include their birthdate on ballot envelopes and some of the prohibitions on providing food, drink, and gifts to voters in line at a polling place. The Intervenors and State of Georgia appealed those rulings on September 18, 2023, and that appeal remains pending. On July 1, Republican Intervenors and State of Georgia filed their opening briefs in the Eleventh Circuit.  Update: On October 30, Republican Intervenors and State of Georgia filed their reply briefs.

The court denied a motion to preliminarily enjoin the law’s ballot harvesting and drop box restrictions. On October 11, 2023, the district court denied the DOJ’s motion for a preliminary injunction, holding that DOJ was not likely to succeed on its claim that the legislature enacted SB 202 for racially discriminatory reasons. On January 12, 2024, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction claiming that SB 202’s runoff provisions are racially discriminatory.

On October 30, 2023, the Republican Intervenors and State of Georgia filed motions for summary judgment, which are pending. On May 14, 2024, the parties and Republican Intervenors filed replies in support of their motions for summary judgment. On August 1, the Republican Intervenors filed a motion for expedited summary judgment on the birthdate requirement, asking the court to reinstate the requirement before the 2024 general election. On August 23, the district court denied the motion for expedited summary judgment, holding the court lacked jurisdiction over the issue while an appeal is pending.

VoteAmerica v. Raffensperger, No. 1:21-CV-1390-JPB (N.D. Ga.). Plaintiffs in this unconsolidated case challenge certain provisions of SB 202, including its prohibitions on pre-filled absentee ballot applications sending applications to voters who already applied for an absentee ballot and its requirement that absentee ballot applications provided by third parties include disclaimers. The RNC, NRSC, NRCC, and Georgia GOP are intervenor-defendants. On September 27, 2023, the court granted summary judgment for the state on several claims and allowed one claim to proceed to trial. On April 3, intervenor-defendants and defendants filed pre-trial briefs. A bench trial was held from April 15-18. On May 31, intervenor-defendants and defendants filed post-trial briefs. On July 19, the court ordered additional briefing from the parties on the issue of standing.

Vote.org v. Georgia State Election Board, No. 1:22-CV-01734-JPB (N.D. Ga.). Plaintiffs challenge Georgia’s law requiring a wet signature on absentee ballot applications. The RNC and Georgia GOP are intervenor-defendants. The state’s motion to dismiss was denied in March 2023. Summary judgment motions are pending. On April 11, the RNC and Georgia GOP filed a response in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. On April 18, the United States Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in the case.

Coalition for Good Governance v. Raffensperger, No. 1:21-CV-02070-JPB (N.D. Ga.). Plaintiffs in this unconsolidated case challenge certain provisions of SB 202, including the provision authorizing the State Election Board to temporarily suspend election superintendents who commit multiple violations of election law over multiple cycles. The RNC, NRSC, NRCC, and Georgia GOP are intervenor-defendants. The state’s motion for summary judgment is pending. Oral argument on the motion for summary judgment occurred on July 2.

IATSE Local 927 v. Mashburn, No. 1:23-cv-04929-LMM (N.D. Ga.). Plaintiff challenges Georgia’s requirement that absentee ballot applications be received 11 days before the election, arguing that federal law requires a 7-day deadline for presidential elections. On January 12, the RNC and Georgia GOP filed a motion to intervene and a proposed motion to dismiss. On January 29, the plaintiff amended its complaint in response to the RNC’s proposed motion to dismiss, which highlighted the complaint’s legal deficiencies. On February 9, the RNC and Georgia GOP filed a reply in support of their motion to intervene and a proposed motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On April 30, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction. On May 4, the RNC and Georgia GOP were granted intervention. On June 7, the RNC and Georgia GOP filed a response in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. On June 13, the court granted the state defendants’ motion to dismiss. On July 8, the United States filed a notice of intervention in the case. On July 31, the court denied Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The 11-day ballot application deadline will therefore be in effect for the 2024 general election.

New Georgia Project v. Raffensperger, No. 1:24-cv-03412 (N.D. Ga.). Plaintiffs challenge SB 189, which expands the rights of citizens to challenge the eligibility of voters and requires registered voters with no fixed address to received election mail at local clerks’ offices. On August 16, the RNC and Georgia GOP filed a motion to intervene as defendants.

Georgia State Conference of the NAACP v. Raffensperger, No. 1:24-cv-04287 (N.D. Ga.). Plaintiffs challenge SB 189’s provision requiring voters with no fixed address to received election mail at local clerks’ offices. On October 11, the RNC and Georgia GOP filed a motion to intervene as defendants. Update: On October 25, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss.

Abhiraman v. State Election Board, No. 24CV010786 (Fulton Cnty. Sup. Ct.). The Democratic National Committee, Democratic Party of Georgia, and local election officials from several different counties filed this lawsuit challenging new regulations that clarify that county election board members may conduct a reasonable inquiry into the truth and accuracy of election results before certifying the results. On September 3, the RNC and Georgia GOP filed a motion to intervene. On September 11, the court granted Republicans’ motion to intervene. On September 25, Republican Intervenors and Defendants filed their trial briefs. A bench trial occurred on October 1.

Eternal Vigilance Action v. Georgia, No. 24CV011558 (Fulton Cnty. Sup. Ct.). Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit challenging SEB regulations regarding certification of election results, drop box security, poll watcher access, and other election integrity issues. On September 27, the RNC and Georgia GOP filed a motion to intervene to defend these regulations. On October 3, the RNC and Georgia GOP were granted intervention.  On October 16, the court enjoined the regulations. The RNC and Georgia GOP immediately appealed. On October 22, the Georgia Supreme Court denied the parties’ motion for emergency relief and expedited appeal.

Henderson v. Abhiraman, No. 24CV8564 (DeKalb Cnty. Sup. Ct.) On September 17, a DeKalb County voter and the DeKalb County Republican Party filed this lawsuit against members of the DeKalb Board of Voter Registration and Elections office after they passed a resolution to illegally refuse to hear voter challenges allowed by law. The RNC is providing financial and strategic support for the lawsuit. On September 30, Vet Voice filed a motion to intervene as Defendants. On October 2, Georgia NAACP and several left-wing groups filed a motion to intervene.

Fulton County Republican Party v. Williams, No. 24CV012584 (Fulton Cnty. Sup. Ct.). On October 3, the Fulton County Republican Party, Georgia Republican Party, and RNC filed a lawsuit challenging Fulton County’s failure to hire a sufficient number of Republican poll workers. The GOP submitted 78 names of individuals willing to serve as poll workers in the 2024 general election, but only 12 were hired. The county evidently prioritized hiring other workers over hiring Republican workers, in violation of a Georgia statute protecting partisan representation in poll-worker hiring. On October 23, Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion to expedite. Update: On November 1, the court denied injunctive relief.

RNC v. DeKalb County Voter Registration and Elections Office, No. 24CV5079 (DeKalb Cnty. Sup. Ct.). The RNC filed a lawsuit seeking to compel DeKalb County to produce documents in response to a records request seeking information regarding a significant grant for election-related activities received through the U.S. Alliance for Election Excellence. The county provided deficient responses to our public records requests. Private funding of election activities—i.e., “Zuckbucks”—is illegal in Georgia. On June 28, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On August 26, Defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss.
  
IOWA
League of United Latin American Citizens of Iowa v. Pate, No. 05771 CVCV061476 (Polk Cnty. Dist. Ct.). Plaintiffs challenge provisions of SF 413 and SF 568, including provisions banning absentee ballot harvesting and drop boxes. The RNC, NRSC, NRCC, and Iowa GOP are intervenor-defendants. The trial date has been postponed while the Iowa Supreme Court resolved a dispute concerning discovery sought from non-party Iowa legislators. On February 23, 2024, the Iowa Supreme Court upheld the legislators’ claims of legislative privilege with respect to the discovery sought. The RNC filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court. The case returned to the trial court.
        
MICHIGAN
Michigan Republican Party v. Benson II, No. 24-000165 (Mich. Ct. Cl.). On October 8, the RNC, Michigan GOP, and a municipal clerk filed this lawsuit challenging Secretary Benson’s unlawful guidance that purports to allow overseas citizens who never resided in Michigan to cast ballots in Michigan elections. These individuals are not eligible to vote under the Michigan Constitution, and the federal UOCAVA statute does not extend eligibility to such individuals. On October 17, there was a hearing on the parties’ cross-motions for summary disposition. On October 22, the court granted the defendants’ motion for summary disposition. Plaintiffs have appealed.

RNC v. Benson, No. 24-000148 (Mich. Ct. Cl.). On September 18, the RNC, Michigan GOP, and municipal clerk filed this lawsuit against Secretary Benson for disregarding state law requiring serial numbers on absentee ballots to match the serial numbers on ballot envelopes and in poll books. This requirement ensures that the person returning the ballot was the person who was issued the ballot. State law requires ballots with mismatching numbers to be rejected, and the voter given the opportunity to cure the issue, while Benson’s guidance directs clerks to count such ballots. A hearing was held on September 26. On October 3, the court partially granted Plaintiffs’ motion, ordering Defendant to revise her guidance to require clerks to verify that the serial number on the ballot matches the serial number on the envelope. The court noted that Defendant’s counsel conceded at the hearing that mismatched serial numbers could be the result of voter fraud. The case otherwise remains pending.

Michigan Republican Party v. Benson, No. 24-000143-MZ (Mich. Ct. Cl.). On September 10, the RNC and Michigan GOP filed a lawsuit against Secretary Benson challenging her guidance’s omission of the statutory requirement that clerks must mark ballot envelopes that signatures have been verified before the ballots can be tabulated. In response to the lawsuit, Secretary Benson agreed to amend her guidance to require clerks to mark ballot envelopes after signatures are verified as approved for tabulation. The parties agreed to a stipulated order of dismissal, which the court entered on September 27.

RNC v. Election Commission of the City of Detroit, No. 24-012212-AW (Wayne Cnty. Cir. Ct.). On August 22, the RNC, Michigan GOP, and chairs of Wayne County Republican Party committees filed a lawsuit against Detroit officials for failure to hire a sufficient number of Republican poll workers in the August primary election. Michigan law requires officials to hire an “equal number, as nearly as possible,” of election inspectors from both major parties. The Republican Party nominated 675 election inspectors, but Detroit appointed only 52 of these individuals and hired an additional 258 Republicans who had not been nominated by the party. In contrast, the city hired more than 2,300 Democratic election inspectors. A ratio of 7.5 Democratic election inspectors for every one Republican election inspector is not an “equal number, as nearly as possible.” The RNC seeks a court order compelling Detroit to comply with partisan parity requirements for this November’s election. On October 10, we reached a settlement agreement with the City of Detroit, which agreed to comply with parity requirements and hire, as nearly as possible, an equal number of Republican poll workers for the November 2024 general election.

RNC v. City of Detroit Department of Elections, No. 24-015223-CZ (Wayne Cnty. Cir. Ct.). On October 15, the RNC filed a lawsuit against the City of Detroit Department of Elections for deleting video surveillance footage of an absentee ballot drop box that was the subject of a pending FOIA request.

RNC v. Whitmer, No. 1:24-cv-00720 (W.D. Mich.). On July 15, the RNC, Trump Campaign, and a Republican voter filed a lawsuit against the Biden Administration, Governor Whitmer, and Secretary of State Benson for the unlawful designation of two federal agencies—the Small Business Administration and Department of Veterans Affairs—to conduct voter registration activities. This is a challenge to implementation of Biden’s executive order weaponizing the federal government to engage in voter registration and get-out-the-vote activities. On July 24, Vet Voice Foundation filed a motion to intervene. On August 7, the Defendant Agencies filed a response in opposition to Vet Voice’s motion to intervene. On August 19, the RNC filed a response opposing Vet Voice’s motion to intervene. On August 21, the court denied Vet Voice’s motion to intervene but will permit them to file briefs amicus curiae. On August 23, the RNC filed a motion for summary judgment asking the court to enjoin use of the federal agencies to conduct voter registration. State Defendants also fileda motion to dismiss. On September 27, Plaintiffs filed their response to State Defendants’ motion to dismiss. On October 18, Plaintiffs filed their response to the Federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

RNC v. Benson, No. 24-000041 (Mich. Ct. Cl.). On March 28, the RNC, NRCC, Michigan GOP, and individual plaintiffs filed a lawsuit challenging Secretary Jocelyn Benson’s secret instructions to local clerks to presume the validity of an absentee voter’s signature. Three years ago, a court struck down this unlawful policy, yet Secretary Benson has nevertheless tried to re-impose it outside the public eye. The instructions violate the Michigan Constitution, which requires clerks to verify the identity of absentee voters by comparing the signature on the ballot envelope with the signature on file. Presuming the validity of a signature is inconsistent with this command. On April 5, the Michigan Alliance for Retired Americans and the A. Philip Randolph Institute filed a motion to intervene. On April 22, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary disposition and defendants filed a cross-motion. On May 6, Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to Defendants’ cross-motion for summary disposition and Defendants filed a brief in response to Plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary disposition. Oral argument was held on May 13. On June 12, the court granted partial summary disposition in favor of Plaintiffs, holding that the presumption of validity is inconsistent with the Michigan Constitution and signature verification must be conducted without presuming signatures’ validity. On July 30, the court entered final judgment, declaring the “presumption of validity” invalid and requiring the Secretary to revise her guidance accordingly.

RNC v. Benson, No. 1:24-cv-00262 (W.D. Mich.). On March 13, the RNC and two Republican voters filed a lawsuit challenging Secretary Benson's inadequate voter roll maintenance procedures under Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act. The RNC initiated this action after discovering that 53 of the state’s 83 counties have more active registered voters than adult citizens and that 23 additional counties have unusually high registration rates exceeding 90%. On March 22, Detroit Disability Power and Michigan Alliance for Retired Americans filed a motion to intervene. On April 4, the League of Women Voters of Michigan filed a motion to intervene. On April 5, Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to DDP’s and MARA’s motion to intervene. On April 15, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On April 19, Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the League of Women Voters of Michigan’s motion to intervene. On May 20, Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the motion to dismiss. On June 17, Defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss. On October 22, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Michigan Republican Party v. Donahue, No. 22-118123-AW (Genesee Cnty. Cir. Ct.). The RNC and Michigan GOP filed suit after the City of Flint failed to hire an equal number of Republican and Democrat poll workers for the November 2022 election. The court dismissed the lawsuit for lack of standing, and Plaintiffs appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals. On March 7, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. On April 18, Plaintiffs filed an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court. On June 6, Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their application for leave to appeal.

MINNESOTA
Minnesota Alliance for Retired Americans v. Simon, No. 62-cv-24-854 (Ramsey Cnty. Dist. Ct.). Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit challenging the state’s absentee ballot witness requirement under the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act. On March 15, the RNC and Minnesota GOP filed a notice of intervention to defend the law. On May 2, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and a motion for a temporary injunction. On May 9, the RNC and Minnesota GOP filed a proposed response in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for temporary injunction. On June 14, the court issued an order denying plaintiff’s motion for a temporary injunction, denying defendant’s motion to dismiss, and denying the Republican intervenors’ motion to intervene. On July 15, the Secretary of State filed a petition for discretionary and expedited appeal of the court’s June 14 decision denying his motion to dismiss in the Minnesota Court of Appeals. On July 22, Republican Intervenors filed a notice of appeal of their denial to intervene and Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the petition. On August 13, the Minnesota Court of Appeals granted Defendants’ petition for discretionary review. On August 22, the RNC and Minnesota GOP filed their opening brief appealing their denial to intervene. On September 12, Secretary Simon filed his opening brief for his appeal of the trial court’s order denying his motion to dismiss. On September 19, the RNC and Minnesota GOP filed as amici in support of Defendant-Appellant.

MISSISSIPPI   
RNC v. Wetzel, No. 1:24-cv-25 (S.D. Miss.). The RNC, Mississippi Republican Party, and two individual plaintiffs filed a lawsuit on January 26, 2024, which asserts that Mississippi’s post-Election Day absentee ballot receipt deadline violates federal law. The federal Election Day statute requires federal elections to occur on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. This lawsuit will implicate the laws of seventeen states that count ballots that are received after Election Day. On March 5, the court entered a briefing schedule for cross-motions for summary judgment, which will conclude briefing by April 16. On March 26, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. You can view the RNC’s motion here. On April 9, Defendant Secretary of State filed a response in opposition to the RNC’s motion for summary judgment. The RNC also filed a response opposing defendants’ cross-motions for summary judgment. On April 11, the United States Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in the case. On April 16, Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their cross motion for summary judgment. A hearing on the motions occurred on July 9. On July 28, the court granted summary judgment for defendants. The court held that plaintiffs had standing to bring the claim but rejected the claim that the federal Election Day statute precludes counting ballots received after Election Day. On August 2, the RNC and other plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. On August 6, the RNC filed a motion to expedite, which the Fifth Circuit granted on August 9. On August 16, the RNC filed its opening brief in the Fifth Circuit. On September 16, the RNC filed its reply brief. Oral argument occurred on September 24. Update: On October 25, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision, holding that federal law prohibits counting ballots received after Election Day in federal elections.

MONTANA
Montana Public Interest Research Group v. Jacobsen, No. 6:23-cv-00070-BMM (D. Mont.). Plaintiffs challenge Montana’s law prohibiting voters from being purposefully registered to vote in more than one jurisdiction. On October 24, 2023, the RNC and Montana Republican Party filed a motion to intervene in the case. On November 6, 2023, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction. On November 20, 2023, RITE filed an amicus brief opposing the Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. On December 1, the RNC and the Montana Republican Party filed a proposed brief in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. On January 18, 2024, the court granted the RNC and Montana GOP’s motion to intervene. A hearing on the preliminary injunction motion occurred on March 20. On April 24, the court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. On May 1, Defendants and Intervenors filed an appeal of the preliminary injunction order and filed a joint motion to stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal. On May 16, the trial court denied the motion to stay. Defendants and Intervenors filed a motion in the Ninth Circuit for a stay pending appeal. On May 30, the Ninth Circuit denied the stay motion. Defendants and Intervenors filed their joint opening brief. On July 18, Defendants and Intervenors filed a joint reply brief. Oral argument occurred on August 14. On September 3, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision and upheld the preliminary injunction.

Montana Democratic Party v. Jacobsen, No. DV 21-0451 (13th Jud. Dist. Ct.). Plaintiffs in this consolidated case challenge several provisions of Montana law, including the ban on same-day voter registration, voter ID requirements, and ban on paid ballot collection. The district court held that these laws violate the Montana Constitution. The state appealed to the Montana Supreme Court, where RITE and Lawyers Democracy Fund filed amicus briefs in support of the state. On March 27, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court.On June 12, the Montana Secretary of State filed an application for the extension of time to file a writ of cert to the U.S. Supreme Court. On August 26, the Montana Secretary of State filed a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.

NEVADA
Dagusen v. Aguilar, No. 24-0C-001531B (Nev. Dist. Ct. Carson City). On September 11, the RNC, Trump Campaign, and the Nevada Republican Party filed a lawsuit against Nevada Secretary of State Aguilar for failure to verify citizenship of registered voters. The RNC brought this lawsuit after discovering evidence of thousands of non-citizens on Nevada’s voter rolls who are at risk of casting ballots this November, which would result in unconstitutional dilution of citizens’ voting power. The complaint asks the court to compel the Secretary to conduct citizenship verification before the presidential election. On October 3, the DNC and Nevada Democratic Party filed a motion to dismiss. Update: On October 28, Plaintiffs filed a motion in opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

RNC v. Aguilar, No. 2:24-cv-00518 (D. Nev.). On March 18, the RNC and Nevada Republican Party filed a lawsuit challenging Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar’s inadequate voter list maintenance practices under Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act. Three counties in Nevada have more active registered voters than voting-eligible adults, and two counties have implausibly high registration rates exceeding 90%. On March 20, several groups represented by Marc Elias filed a motion to intervene as defendants. On April 4, plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the groups’ motion to intervene. On April 11, proposed intervenor-defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to intervene. On April 15, the Secretary of State filed a motion to dismiss. On April 29, the RNC and Nevada Republican Party filed a response to the Secretary’s motion to dismiss. On June 18, the court granted the state’s motion to dismiss on redressability grounds but granted plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. On July 2, Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint. On July 12, the court granted the motion to intervene. On July 16, the Nevada Secretary of State filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 30, Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the Secretary’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On August 6, the Secretary filed a reply in support of his motion to dismiss the amended complaint and Intervenors filed a reply in support of their motion as well. On October 18, the district court again granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss on standing grounds but gave Plaintiffs the opportunity to file a motion to amend the complaint to plead additional facts.

RNC v. Burgess, No. 3:24-cv-00198 (D. Nev.). On May 3, the RNC, Trump Campaign, and the Nevada Republican Party filed a lawsuit challenging Nevada’s post-Election Day ballot receipt deadline. Nevada counts mail ballots received up to four days after Election Day. This is inconsistent with the federal Election Day statute, because it unlawfully extends the day of the election past the date that Congress prescribed. The DNC, Vet Voice Foundation, and Nevada Alliance for Retired Americans filed motions to intervene as Defendants, which were granted by the court. On May 24, Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to Vet Voice’s and NARA’s motion to intervene. On May 30, the DNC and Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On June 7, Intervenor-Defendants Nevada Alliance for Retired Americans and Vet Voice Foundation filed a motion to dismiss. On June 13, Plaintiffs filed responses to the Secretary’s motion to dismiss and the DNC ’s motion to dismiss. On June 20, Intervenor-Defendant DNC filed a reply in support of the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint. On June 21, Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to Vet Voice Foundation’s Motion to Dismiss. On July 17, the court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of standing. On August 16, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

RNC v. Aguilar II, No. 24 OC 00101 B (Nev. Dist. Ct. Carson City). The RNC, Trump Campaign, and Nevada GOP filed a lawsuit challenging Nevada’s counting of non-postmarked mail ballots received after Election Day. Nevada law requires such ballots to have a postmark in order to be counted. On June 10, Vet Voice and the Nevada Alliance for Retired Americans filed a motion to intervene, which was granted on June 14. On July 2, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and motion for a preliminary injunction. On July 16, Vet Voice and Nevada Alliance for Retired Americans filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and opposition to the RNC’s motion for a preliminary injunction. On July 31, Plaintiffs filed a reply to County Defendants in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction. On August 2, the court held a hearing on the motion and denied the preliminary injunction. On August 6, the court entered the order denying the motion. On August 8, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court. On August 23, Plaintiffs filed their opening brief. On September 13, Defendants filed their brief. On September 20, Plaintiffs filed their reply brief. Oral argument in the Nevada Supreme Court occurred on October 8. Update: On October 28, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision.

Nevada Republican Party v. Second Judicial District Court of Nevada ex rel. County of Washoe, No. ____ (Nev. Dist. Ct. Washoe Cnty.). On September 6, the RNC and Nevada GOP filed a lawsuit against the Second Judicial District (Washoe County) seeking juror questionnaire responses in which the respondent indicated they are not a citizen.

NEW HAMPSHIRE
603 Forward v. Scanlan, No. 226-2022-CV-00233 (Hillsborough Superior Ct.). Plaintiffs challenge SB 418, which requires voters registering on Election Day who do not provide acceptable ID to vote by provisional ballot and submit proof of their identity within seven days. The NH Republican State Committee, supported by the RNC and RITE PAC, is an intervenor-defendant. On November 3, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the lawsuit for lack of standing. On December 4, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. On December 19, the New Hampshire Supreme Court accepted the case. On April 16, the NH Republican State Committee filed its response brief in the state Supreme Court. On October 3, the NH Republican State Committee filed a supplemental memorandum of law. On October 8, the court stayed the appeal until after the election, thus guaranteeing that the voter ID law will be in effect for the election.

DNC v. Scanlan, No. 226-2023-CV-00613 (Hillsborough Superior Ct.). After the court dismissed the complaint in 603 Forward on standing grounds, the DNC and New Hampshire Democratic Party brought another suit challenging SB 418. Plaintiffs claim that SB 418 violates a state constitutional provision requiring election results to be sent to the secretary of state within five days of the election (Count I) and violates procedural due process (Count II). The RNC and NH Republican State Committee, supported by RITE, intervened. On April 17, the court issued a decision granting RNC’s motion to dismiss with respect to Count I and denying the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Count II and on April 30 filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal of Count I. Plaintiffs sought an expedited appeal. On May 9, the New Hampshire Supreme Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for an expedited appeal. On July 26, the RNC and NH GOP filed their appellate brief. On October 3, Republican Intervenors filed a supplemental memorandum of law. On October 8, the court stayed the appeal until after the election, thus guaranteeing that the voter ID law will be in effect for the election.

NEW YORK
Stefanik v. Hochul , No. 908840-23 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Albany Cnty.). The RNC, and a host of lawmakers, party committees, county election administrators and voters supported by RITE, filed suit in New York state court challenging the recently enacted law authorizing no-excuse absentee voting as a violation of the New York state constitution, which permits absentee voting in only certain circumstances. New York voters overwhelmingly rejected a proposed constitutional amendment in 2021 that would have permitted no-excuse absentee voting. The DCCC, Senator Gillibrand, and several state representatives and voters intervened as defendants. The court held a hearing on plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction on October 13, 2023. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. On November 13, the plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss and cross-motion for summary judgment.

On December 4, Plaintiffs submitted a letter to the court requesting the preliminary injunction be entered promptly in light of the upcoming special election in the NY-03 congressional district. On December 26, the trial court issued an order denying the motion. Plaintiffs immediately appealed to the Appellate Division and filed a motion for preliminary injunction there. On January 16, the Appellate Division denied the motion.

On February 5, the trial court issued a decision holding that the no-excuse absentee voting law is constitutional. Plaintiffs immediately appealed to the Appellate Division. On February 15, Plaintiffs-Appellants filed their opening brief on appeal. On February 29, the court granted Plaintiffs-Appellants’ motion for expedited briefing. On March 18, the defendants filed their response briefs. On March 25, Plaintiffs-Appellants filed their reply brief. Oral argument was held on April 29. On May 9, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s decision. On May 13, Plaintiffs-Appellants filed a notice of appeal. On May 23, the New York Court of Appeals granted the appeal on an expedited briefing schedule. Oral argument is scheduled to occur July 30. On June 6, Plaintiffs filed their opening brief in the New York Court of Appeals. On July 1, the State filed their response brief, and Democrat Intervenors filed theirs as well. Oral argument occurred on July 30. On August 20, the New York Court of Appeals upheld the law.

Fossella v. Adams, No. 85007/2002 (Richmond Cnty. Sup. Ct.). The RNC, New York GOP, and a bipartisan coalition of officeholders and concerned citizens, challenged a New York City law allowing non-citizens to vote in city elections. The trial court granted summary judgment to Plaintiffs, holding that the city’s law violates state law. On February 21, 2024, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court, holding that the city’s law violates the New York state constitution. On March 23, Intervenor-Defendants filed a notice of appeal to the New York Court of Appeals.

Amedure v. New York, No. 2023-2399 (Saratoga Cnty. Sup. Ct.). A group of plaintiffs, including the New York Republican Party, are challenging certain absentee ballot voting procedures found in A.B. 7931 as inconsistent with the New York Constitution. Plaintiffs have filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which remains pending. On February 16, 2024, Defendants filed a motion for change of venue. On March 14, the court denied this motion. On May 8, the court upheld all but one provision. The Defendants filed a notice of appeal. On June 4, the New York Senate also appealed. On July 30, Republican Plaintiff Legislators and the New York Republican Party filed their opening briefs in the Appellate Division. Oral argument occurred on August 15. On August 23, the Appellate Division upheld the law in its entirety. Plaintiffs appealed to the New York Court of Appeals. Oral argument in the New York Court of Appeals occurred on October 15. Update: On October 31, the New York Court of Appeals upheld the law in its entirety.

NORTH CAROLINA
Kivett v. N.C. State Board of Elections, No. 24CV031557-910 (Wake Cnty.). The RNC, North Carolina GOP, and two North Carolina voters filed a lawsuit challenging a state statute that purports to allow certain individuals overseas who never resided in North Carolina to register to vote in the state. The statute is inconsistent with the state constitution, which clearly requires residency to be eligible to vote, nor are these voters covered by the federal UOCAVA statute. Read more about the case from The Federalisthere. On October 9, the DNC filed a motion to intervene. On October 11, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. On October 21, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs immediately appealed the decision to the North Carolina Court of Appeals. On October 23, Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of supersedeas and motion for temporary stay and temporary injunction. Update: On October 29, the North Carolina Court of Appeals denied Plaintiffs’ petition for writ of supersedeas. On November 1, Plaintiffs filed an emergency application to the North Carolina Supreme Court.

RNC v. N.C. State Board of Elections, No. 24CV028888-910 (Wake Cnty.). The RNC and North Carolina GOP filed a lawsuit and motion for temporary restraining order on September 12 challenging NCSBE’s approval of digital college student identifications as an acceptable form of voter ID. On September 19, the court denied the Plaintiffs’ motion for