Skip to page content
Power & PoliticsUnited States edition
Sections
Only your five-digit ZIP code is sent. We never ask for your address.
Independent · nonpartisan
Voting history · South Dakota

South Dakota

A dated list of changes to how Americans vote: district maps, polling places and drop boxes, voting laws and rules, and courts and election officials. Each entry says who did what and when, shows what became of it, and links to the page it rests on. Attempts that failed are listed as failed. Entries that rest on a news report name the outlet.

This is the state view: events recorded for South Dakota, then national events that apply here. See the national timeline.

Kind of event
Decade

In South Dakota

2026

  1. Sep 18, 2026 State Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Federal court denies League of Women Voters' preliminary-injunction request as moot after the state changes its voter letters

    On September 18, 2026 the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota denied without prejudice, as moot, the preliminary-injunction motion in League of Women Voters of South Dakota v. Johnson (No. 4:26-cv-04162). The court wrote that the Secretary of State had made all of the changes the plaintiffs requested in their motion and "cannot reasonably be expected to return to prior conduct"; Secretary of State Monae Johnson had issued guidance to county auditors on September 14, 2026 and changed the letters sent to applicants who did not provide documentary proof of citizenship. The court said the plaintiffs' due process claims for permanent relief are not moot.

    Related: League of Women Voters of South Dakota sues over how the proof-of-citizenship law is administered

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

  2. Aug 24, 2026 State Courts and officials Pending

    League of Women Voters of South Dakota sues over how the proof-of-citizenship law is administered

    The League of Women Voters of South Dakota and a voter filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota challenging the administration of SB 175 under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act. South Dakota Searchlight reported the suit was filed on a Monday in late August 2026. Democracy Docket later reported that the court denied emergency relief as moot after the state changed its voter notices.

    Related: Governor signs SB 175, requiring documentary proof of citizenship to register · Federal court denies League of Women Voters' preliminary-injunction request as moot after the state changes its voter letters

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

  3. Feb 3, 2026 State Courts and officials Reported

    South Dakota Secretary of State reported to have shared the state voter roll with the Justice Department

    South Dakota News Watch reported on February 3, 2026 that the Secretary of State's office had shared the state's voter rolls with the U.S. Department of Justice, and that Secretary Monae Johnson said she did not expect any names to be removed after the review. The report says the Democratic National Committee wrote to the office with concerns about erroneous removals. In a January 9, 2026 release, the Secretary of State's office confirmed receiving the DNC letter about the National Voter Registration Act and said Johnson looked forward to working with the Justice Department; the release does not say the list was shared.

    Related: Justice Department sues Oregon and Maine for statewide voter registration lists

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

2014

  1. Sep 18, 2014 County Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Oglala Sioux members sue Jackson County over a satellite voting office at Wanblee

    A complaint filed September 18, 2014 (Poor Bear v. County of Jackson, No. 5:14-cv-05059, D.S.D.) alleged that the county's refusal to establish a satellite office for voter registration and in-person absentee voting in Wanblee, on the Pine Ridge Reservation, violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Plaintiffs' counsel reports that the county opened a satellite office for the 2014 election and later agreed with the State to provide one through 2022, and that the court dismissed the case as unripe on June 17, 2016.

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

2013

  1. Aug 6, 2013 County Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Court dismisses without prejudice the Shannon County early-voting suit as not ripe

    In an order filed August 6, 2013, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss Brooks v. Gant without prejudice, writing that "plaintiffs' alleged injuries are too speculative for the court to make a judicial determination on the merits." The opinion notes that plans had been made to ensure early voting occurs in Shannon County through the 2018 election cycle.

    Counties: Oglala Lakota County, Fall River County

    Related: Court denies as moot a request for early voting in Shannon County after the county provided it

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

2012

  1. Mar 14, 2012 County Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Court denies as moot a request for early voting in Shannon County after the county provided it

    Oglala Sioux Tribe members sued on January 13, 2012 over the number of days of in-person early voting available in Shannon County. In a written order of March 14, 2012, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the preliminary-injunction request and denied the request as moot, noting that defendants said all requested preliminary relief had been voluntarily given. Shannon County is now Oglala Lakota County.

    Counties: Oglala Lakota County, Fall River County

    Related: Court dismisses without prejudice the Shannon County early-voting suit as not ripe

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

2010

  1. May 5, 2010 County Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Eighth Circuit, sitting en banc, orders dismissal of Section 2 suit over the City of Martin's council wards

    In Cottier v. City of Martin, decided May 5, 2010, the en banc Eighth Circuit wrote that it concluded "the district court properly dismissed the action in its order of March 22, 2005, which was reversed by a panel of this court," vacated the later judgment of February 9, 2007, and remanded with directions to dismiss. The plaintiffs were members of the Oglala Sioux Tribe and residents of Martin. The Census Bureau's place file lists Martin city in Bennett County.

    Source last checked Oct 22, 2026

2006

  1. Aug 22, 2006 State Courts and officials Upheld

    Eighth Circuit affirms the Section 2 ruling and remedial plan in Bone Shirt v. Hazeltine

    On August 22, 2006, the Eighth Circuit wrote that it affirmed "the decision of the district court and find that the preponderance of the evidence shows that the plaintiffs met their burden in proving a Section 2 violation," and also affirmed the district court's decision to impose the plaintiffs' proposed remedial plan.

    Related: Federal court finds South Dakota's 2001 legislative plan violated Section 2 by packing District 27 · South Dakota Supreme Court answers certified question on the Legislature's power to redraw Districts 26 and 27

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

2005

  1. Jun 29, 2005 State Courts and officials Decided by a court

    South Dakota Supreme Court answers certified question on the Legislature's power to redraw Districts 26 and 27

    On June 29, 2005, the South Dakota Supreme Court answered a question certified by the federal district court: whether the Legislature is authorized under Article III, Section 5 of the state constitution to reapportion Districts 26 and 27 and other affected areas in response to the federal finding of a Section 2 violation. The court wrote: "We answer the question in the affirmative."

    Related: Federal court finds South Dakota's 2001 legislative plan violated Section 2 by packing District 27 · Eighth Circuit affirms the Section 2 ruling and remedial plan in Bone Shirt v. Hazeltine

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

2004

  1. Sep 15, 2004 State Courts and officials Struck down

    Federal court finds South Dakota's 2001 legislative plan violated Section 2 by packing District 27

    In Bone Shirt v. Hazeltine, decided September 15, 2004 after a bench trial, the district court addressed the claim that South Dakota's 2001 legislative redistricting plan diluted Indian voting strength by packing District 27 with a 90 percent supermajority of Indians. The Eighth Circuit later described the district court as having found a Section 2 violation and ordered a remedy.

    Related: South Dakota Supreme Court answers certified question on the Legislature's power to redraw Districts 26 and 27 · Eighth Circuit affirms the Section 2 ruling and remedial plan in Bone Shirt v. Hazeltine

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

Nationwide

2026

  1. Oct 29, 2026 National Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Judge refuses to pause the injunction on Homeland Security election field operations during the appeal

    On October 29, 2026, U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin denied the federal defendants' October 27 ex parte motion to stay, pending appeal, her October 21 preliminary injunction in California Nurses Association v. Mullin (N.D. Cal. No. 4:26-cv-10680-AMO). The injunction bars Homeland Security field operations involving U.S. citizens through Election Day in the nine states where the department focused its surge operations. The order finds the defendants did not show irreparable harm, notes they filed their appeal five days and the stay motion six days after the injunction, and says the department may still investigate voter fraud "by lawful means" while the injunction is in effect.

    Related: Federal judge bars Homeland Security election field operations aimed at people believed to be citizens in nine states · Homeland Security appeals the injunction on its election field operations to the Ninth Circuit

    Source last checked Oct 29, 2026

  2. Oct 28, 2026 National Courts and officials Pending

    Civil rights groups sue Homeland Security over its citizenship checks of naturalized voters

    On October 28, 2026, OCA-Asian Pacific American Advocates, OCA-San Mateo, OCA-Sacramento and Common Cause sued the Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Markwayne Mullin, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and its director, Joseph B. Edlow, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (No. 3:26-cv-12617). The complaint says USCIS adopted an "Unlawful Voter Initiative" in August 2026 that targets naturalized and derivative citizens flagged by Homeland Security as possible noncitizen voters for investigation. It asks the court to vacate the initiative under the Administrative Procedure Act and to order the agencies to expunge records created under it. The ACLU of Northern California's release says the plaintiffs are represented by the ACLU Voting Rights Project.

    Related: Federal judge bars Homeland Security election field operations aimed at people believed to be citizens in nine states

    Source last checked Oct 28, 2026

  3. Oct 28, 2026 National Courts and officials Reported

    Reuters counts more than 100 federal subpoenas for voter records in at least 13 states

    Reuters reported on October 28, 2026 that the administration had issued more than 100 subpoenas demanding records on tens of thousands of voters in at least 13 states, most of them to state and local election officials in the previous three months and some dating to the start of 2026. Reuters says it identified them through public-records requests and interviews with officials; they were issued by the Justice Department and Homeland Security, at least 49 under the authority of grand juries, which indicates criminal investigations. It names Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Los Angeles and other California cities, and the states of Texas, Kansas and Georgia among the places reached. White House spokesperson Lauren Bis told Reuters that "anyone who illegally votes in our elections will be held accountable."

    Related: Secretary of State's office discloses seven Justice Department subpoenas about voter information · Homeland Security subpoenas Texas counties for voters' registration records

    Source last checked Oct 29, 2026

  4. Oct 26, 2026 National Courts and officials Pending

    Homeland Security appeals the injunction on its election field operations to the Ninth Circuit

    On October 26, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security, its component agencies and the officials named in California Nurses Association v. Mullin (N.D. Cal., No. 4:26-cv-10680) filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit from Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín's October 21 order granting a preliminary injunction against certain election-related field operations in nine states.

    Related: Federal judge bars Homeland Security election field operations aimed at people believed to be citizens in nine states · Judge refuses to pause the injunction on Homeland Security election field operations during the appeal

    Source last checked Oct 27, 2026

  5. Oct 26, 2026 National Courts and officials Pending

    Democratic plaintiffs ask for a restraining order against federal involvement in voter lists, ballots and counting

    On October 26, 2026, the plaintiffs in DSCC v. Trump (D.D.C. No. 1:26-cv-03674-JEB), the DSCC, the DCCC, the Democratic Governors Association, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, House Minority Leader Hakeem S. Jeffries, the Nevada State Democratic Party and Erick Jose Jimenez, moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The motion asks the court to bar the defendants from imposing themselves on election procedures the plaintiffs say the Constitution and federal law assign to the states, including removing registered voters from statewide lists, issuing ballots to registered voters, and counting ballots. A joint notice filed October 27 says the parties could not agree on a schedule and that the court had already set a hearing on the plaintiffs' expedited-discovery motion for 2 p.m. on October 29. The government filed its opposition to expedited discovery on October 27 and the plaintiffs replied on October 28.

    Related: Democratic plaintiffs ask for fast-tracked discovery in their suit over federal pressure on election officials

    Source last checked Oct 28, 2026

  6. Oct 23, 2026 National Courts and officials Pending

    Democratic plaintiffs ask for fast-tracked discovery in their suit over federal pressure on election officials

    On October 23, 2026, the plaintiffs in DSCC v. Trump (No. 1:26-cv-03674-JEB, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia) filed a motion for expedited discovery. The plaintiffs are the DSCC, the DCCC, the Democratic Governors Association, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, House Minority Leader Hakeem S. Jeffries, the Nevada State Democratic Party and Erick Jose Jimenez. The motion asks for all non-privileged communications the defendants have sent since July 1, 2026 to state or local election officials demanding or requesting that they remove specific registered voters from statewide lists, refuse ballots to specific voters, or set aside or not count ballots returned by specific voters, plus answers to interrogatories. It says the plaintiffs are "seriously contemplating" a request for emergency relief before the November 3 election, and cites an October 21, 2026 order allowing narrow expedited discovery in NAACP v. DHS in the same court.

    Related: Democratic leaders and party committees sue to bar federal orders removing voters or holding back ballots · Democratic plaintiffs ask for a restraining order against federal involvement in voter lists, ballots and counting

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  7. Oct 21, 2026 National Courts and officials Blocked by a court

    Federal judge bars Homeland Security election field operations aimed at people believed to be citizens in nine states

    On October 21, 2026, Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted a preliminary injunction in California Nurses Association v. Mullin (No. 4:26-cv-10680), a suit by the California Nurses Association, National Nurses United, the City and County of San Francisco, the County of Santa Clara and the Voto Latino Foundation. The order says that in August 2026 the Department of Homeland Security started an "Unlawful Voter Initiative" that had Citizenship and Immigration Services build lists of people to investigate, and that an August 31 guidance told agents to prioritize field questioning about voter eligibility in California, Connecticut, Georgia, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin. The court enjoined the department from election-related field operations and interviews in those nine states that involve people it knows, suspects or should reasonably suspect are U.S. citizens, and from field operations there based wholly on records from its voter eligibility matching. The order runs until polls close on November 3, 2026, and was stayed until 5 p.m. on October 23, 2026.

    Related: Homeland Security appeals the injunction on its election field operations to the Ninth Circuit · Civil rights groups sue Homeland Security over its citizenship checks of naturalized voters · Judge refuses to pause the injunction on Homeland Security election field operations during the appeal

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  8. Oct 15, 2026 National Courts and officials Withdrawn

    Appeals in the Massachusetts Executive Order 14399 and Postal Service cases are voluntarily dismissed

    On October 15, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit entered judgment in Nos. 26-1987, 26-1988, 26-1989 and 26-1991, appeals in State of California v. United States Postal Service and League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump. Upon the appellants' unopposed motions, the court ordered "that these appeals be voluntarily dismissed" under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b)(2), with the mandate to issue forthwith. The judgment was entered on the district court docket on October 16, 2026.

    Related: Federal court in Massachusetts enjoins Postal Service implementation of Section 3 of Executive Order 14399 · First Circuit refuses to stay the Massachusetts preliminary injunction against parts of the Postal Service ballot-mail rule

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  9. Oct 9, 2026 National Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Federal court vacates Justice Department voter-roll policy in Common Cause v. Department of Justice

    On October 9, 2026, Judge Sparkle Sooknanan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, who challenged a Civil Rights Division policy of demanding state voter registration lists and urging removals. The opinion says "The Court therefore sets aside and vacates the challenged policy under the Administrative Procedure Act." The Justice Department argued it has statutory authority for the policy.

    Related: Justice Department sues Oregon and Maine for statewide voter registration lists · Justice Department's voter roll lawsuits reach 29 states and the District of Columbia

    Source last checked Oct 29, 2026

  10. October 2026 National Courts and officials Pending

    Democratic leaders and party committees sue to bar federal orders removing voters or holding back ballots

    The Associated Press reported on October 21, 2026 that Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Governors Association sued in federal court in Washington (the AP says the suit was filed Tuesday, October 20). The suit names President Trump, the Justice Department, Attorney General Todd Blanche, the Department of Homeland Security and Secretary Markwayne Mullin. It asks for an order barring the administration from removing legally registered voters from statewide voter lists or denying ballots to them, and a ruling that the administration illegally threatened state election officials with prosecution. It cites the Justice Department's suit over California mail ballots. The AP reports the case was assigned to Chief Judge James Boasberg and that the Justice Department said its actions are grounded in law.

    Related: Justice Department sues California over about 20,000 registrants it calls likely noncitizens · Democratic plaintiffs ask for fast-tracked discovery in their suit over federal pressure on election officials

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  11. Sep 25, 2026 National Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Supreme Court grants stay in Department of Homeland Security v. League of Women Voters, on voter citizenship checks

    On September 25, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a per curiam order on an application for stay, granted the government's request in a case about the modified SAVE program, which lets state and local agencies check the citizenship status of registered voters against Social Security Administration records. The Court said it was "likely to reverse the District Court's holding that the federal defendants violated the Social Security Act, the Privacy Act, and the APA." The order says that Executive Order 14248 directed the Department of Homeland Security to put new systems in place for that purpose.

    Related: President signs Executive Order 14248 on federal elections

    Source last checked Oct 29, 2026

  12. Sep 13, 2026 National Courts and officials Blocked by a court

    Federal court in Washington enjoins the Postal Service ballot mail rule

    On September 13, 2026, Judge Carl Nichols of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted preliminary injunctions against the Postal Service's final ballot-mail rule in three consolidated cases. The opinion says "no statute grants the Postal Service the power to issue key parts of the Rule" and that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the rule was ultra vires.

    Related: President signs Executive Order 14399 on citizenship verification and mail ballots · Postal Service issues final rule on ballot mail for federal elections · Federal court in Washington denies preliminary injunctions against Executive Order 14399

    Source last checked Oct 29, 2026

  13. Sep 10, 2026 National Courts and officials Blocked by a court

    First Circuit refuses to stay the Massachusetts preliminary injunction against parts of the Postal Service ballot-mail rule

    On September 4, 2026, Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts entered a memorandum and order granting the plaintiffs' motions for a preliminary injunction in League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump and the related states' case (Nos. 1:26-cv-11549 and 1:26-cv-13917), and the federal defendants and twelve intervening states appealed the same day. On September 10, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (Nos. 26-2029 to 26-2032) denied the motions for a stay. Its order says the district court concluded the final rule was likely unconstitutional and found it would be impossible for states to comply in the time left before November 3, and that the appellants "have failed to meet their burden for disturbing any aspect of the district court's preliminary injunction order." The Postal Service's request for an administrative stay was denied as moot.

    Related: Federal court in Massachusetts temporarily stays parts of the Postal Service ballot-mail rule for the 2026 election · Postal Service issues final rule on ballot mail for federal elections · Appeals in the Massachusetts Executive Order 14399 and Postal Service cases are voluntarily dismissed

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  14. Aug 27, 2026 National Courts and officials Blocked by a court

    Federal court in Massachusetts temporarily stays parts of the Postal Service ballot-mail rule for the 2026 election

    On August 27, 2026, Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted in part the plaintiffs' motions for a temporary restraining order in League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump (No. 1:26-cv-11549) and State of California v. United States Postal Service (No. 1:26-cv-13917). The court granted "an emergency fourteen-day stay" of listed sections of the final rule as to elections on or before November 3, 2026, including the sections making the ballot mail envelope standards and registration in the Postal Service Federal Ballot Mail Portal mandatory, and ordered that the Postal Service defendants "may take no further preparatory steps" to implement them for those elections. The motions for preliminary injunctions remained under advisement.

    Related: Postal Service issues final rule on ballot mail for federal elections · Federal court in Massachusetts finds the government violated its injunction by issuing the Postal Service ballot-mail rule · First Circuit refuses to stay the Massachusetts preliminary injunction against parts of the Postal Service ballot-mail rule

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  15. Aug 25, 2026 National Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Federal court in Massachusetts finds the government violated its injunction by issuing the Postal Service ballot-mail rule

    On August 25, 2026, Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled on an emergency motion to enforce the preliminary injunction in League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump (No. 1:26-cv-11549). The order says the Postal Service completed rulemaking on Friday evening, August 21, 2026, by sending a final rule implementing Section 3 of Executive Order 14399 to the Office of the Federal Register, although the injunction barred "initiating or completing rulemaking" for the November 3, 2026 election. The court "finds that Defendants violated the court's Preliminary Injunction but imposes no remedy other than identifying the violation."

    Related: Federal court in Massachusetts enjoins Postal Service implementation of Section 3 of Executive Order 14399 · Postal Service issues final rule on ballot mail for federal elections · Federal court in Massachusetts temporarily stays parts of the Postal Service ballot-mail rule for the 2026 election

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  16. Aug 24, 2026 National Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Supreme Court stays the Massachusetts injunction against parts of Executive Order 14399 in Trump v. California

    On August 24, 2026, in No. 26A124 (with No. 26A139), the Supreme Court granted the Government's application for a stay in a per curiam opinion. The Court wrote that "the Government is likely to prevail on the merits of its argument that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to enter the judgment," because the Order "imposes no obligations on the States" and the States had not shown an injury that gives them standing. The injunction entered in No. 1:26-cv-11581 (D. Mass.) is stayed pending appeal to the First Circuit and any petition for certiorari. The Court added that its ruling "does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful." Justices Sotomayor and Jackson filed dissents. The application in No. 26A139 was denied as moot.

    Related: Federal court in Massachusetts declares parts of Executive Order 14399 void in a suit by states · President signs Executive Order 14399 on citizenship verification and mail ballots

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  17. Aug 17, 2026 National Courts and officials Pending

    Justice Department appeals the dismissal of its District of Columbia voter-list suit

    On August 17, 2026, the United States filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit from the August 6, 2026 memorandum opinion and order denying its motion to compel records in United States v. Evans (No. 1:25-cv-04403).

    Related: Federal judge dismisses the Justice Department's suit for the District of Columbia's voter registration list

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  18. Aug 11, 2026 National Courts and officials Blocked by a court

    Federal court in Massachusetts enjoins Postal Service implementation of Section 3 of Executive Order 14399

    On August 11, 2026, Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted a renewed motion for a preliminary injunction in League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump. As to elections on or before November 3, 2026, the court "ENJOINS the USPS's implementation of Section 3 of the EO."

    Related: President signs Executive Order 14399 on citizenship verification and mail ballots · Federal court in Massachusetts declares parts of Executive Order 14399 void in a suit by states · Postal Service issues final rule on ballot mail for federal elections · Federal court in Massachusetts finds the government violated its injunction by issuing the Postal Service ballot-mail rule · Appeals in the Massachusetts Executive Order 14399 and Postal Service cases are voluntarily dismissed

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

  19. Aug 6, 2026 National Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Federal judge dismisses the Justice Department's suit for the District of Columbia's voter registration list

    On August 6, 2026, Judge Randolph D. Moss of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the United States' motion to compel in United States v. Evans (No. 1:25-cv-04403), dismissed the case, and denied the defendants' and intervenors' motions to dismiss as moot, stating that the order was a final judgment. The order refers to a memorandum opinion filed the same day. The lead defendant is Monica H. Evans, executive director of the District of Columbia Board of Elections.

    Related: Justice Department's voter roll lawsuits reach 29 states and the District of Columbia

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  20. Jun 29, 2026 National Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Supreme Court decides Watson v. Republican National Committee

    On June 29, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "The federal election-day statutes do not prevent Mississippi from counting absentee ballots postmarked by election day but received up to five days thereafter; nothing in the federal election-day statutes requires ballots to be received by election day."

    Related: Supreme Court decides Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections

    Source last checked Oct 22, 2026

  21. Jun 25, 2026 National Courts and officials Blocked by a court

    Federal court in Massachusetts declares parts of Executive Order 14399 void in a suit by states

    On June 25, 2026, Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment to a group of states and the District of Columbia. The court ordered and declared that "Sections 2 and 3 of the EO are legally void as they are ultra vires and unconstitutionally violate the separation of powers, and that Section 5 of the EO is merely precatory," and enjoined agencies from implementing Sections 2 and 3 for the November 3, 2026 or any earlier federal election in the plaintiff states.

    Related: President signs Executive Order 14399 on citizenship verification and mail ballots · Federal court in Massachusetts enjoins Postal Service implementation of Section 3 of Executive Order 14399

    Source last checked Oct 29, 2026

  22. May 28, 2026 National Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Federal court in Washington denies preliminary injunctions against Executive Order 14399

    On May 28, 2026, Judge Carl Nichols of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied motions for preliminary injunctions in three consolidated cases against Executive Order 14399. On the postal-rulemaking provision the court wrote that, because the Postal Service had not yet issued a proposed rule, "Plaintiffs' claims are not ripe."

    Related: President signs Executive Order 14399 on citizenship verification and mail ballots · Federal court in Washington enjoins the Postal Service ballot mail rule

    Source last checked Oct 29, 2026

  23. May 18, 2026 National Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Supreme Court vacates the Eighth Circuit judgment in Turtle Mountain v. Howe and remands in light of Louisiana v. Callais

    On May 18, 2026, the Supreme Court granted the petition in No. 25-253, vacated the Eighth Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Louisiana v. Callais. Justice Jackson dissented, writing that the case "presents only the question of Section 2's private enforceability, which our decision in Louisiana v. Callais ... did not address," and that she would summarily reverse. The docket records the Court's judgment as issued on June 22, 2026.

    Related: Eighth Circuit holds private plaintiffs cannot use Section 1983 to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act · Supreme Court stays Eighth Circuit mandate in Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe · Supreme Court decides Louisiana v. Callais · Supreme Court vacates the Eighth Circuit judgment and remands in light of Louisiana v. Callais

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  24. Apr 29, 2026 National Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Supreme Court decides Louisiana v. Callais

    On April 29, 2026, after reargument on October 15, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court held: "Because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State's use of race in creating SB8, and that map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander."

    Related: Supreme Court decides Allen v. Milligan · Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1982 become law · Supreme Court decides Thornburg v. Gingles

    Source last checked Oct 22, 2026

  25. Feb 26, 2026 National Courts and officials Pending

    Justice Department's voter roll lawsuits reach 29 states and the District of Columbia

    On February 26, 2026, the Justice Department announced lawsuits against Utah, Oklahoma, Kentucky, West Virginia and New Jersey over their full voter registration lists. Court outcomes in the individual suits are not recorded in this entry. The release says this "brings the Justice Department's nationwide total to 29 states and the District of Columbia."

    Related: Justice Department sues Oregon and Maine for statewide voter registration lists · Federal court vacates Justice Department voter-roll policy in Common Cause v. Department of Justice · Federal judge dismisses the Justice Department's suit for Colorado's voter registration list · Federal judge dismisses the Justice Department's suit for Connecticut's voter registration list · Federal judge dismisses the Justice Department's suit for Arizona's voter registration list · Federal judge dismisses the Justice Department's suit for the District of Columbia's voter registration list

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  26. Jan 14, 2026 National Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Supreme Court decides Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections

    On January 14, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "As a candidate for office, Congressman Bost has standing to challenge the rules that govern the counting of votes in his election."

    Related: Supreme Court decides Watson v. Republican National Committee

    Source last checked Oct 22, 2026

2025

  1. Oct 31, 2025 National Courts and officials Blocked by a court

    Federal court permanently bars the Election Assistance Commission from implementing Section 2(a) of Executive Order 14248

    On October 31, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs and permanently enjoined the Election Assistance Commission, its commissioners and its executive director from implementing Section 2(a) of Executive Order 14248. The court wrote that "this Court holds that the President lacks the authority to direct such changes" to federal election procedures.

    Related: President signs Executive Order 14248 on federal elections · Federal court in Washington blocks parts of Executive Order 14248

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

  2. Sep 16, 2025 National Courts and officials Pending

    Justice Department sues Oregon and Maine for statewide voter registration lists

    On September 16, 2025, the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division announced lawsuits against Oregon and Maine and their secretaries of state, alleging violations of the National Voter Registration Act, the Help America Vote Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1960 by refusing to provide unredacted statewide voter registration lists and information on voter list maintenance. Court outcomes in the individual suits are not recorded in this entry.

    Related: Justice Department's voter roll lawsuits reach 29 states and the District of Columbia · Federal court vacates Justice Department voter-roll policy in Common Cause v. Department of Justice

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  3. Jul 24, 2025 National Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Supreme Court stays Eighth Circuit mandate in Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe

    On July 24, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court granted an application in No. 25A62, staying the issuance of the mandate of the Eighth Circuit in No. 23-3655 pending the filing and disposition of a petition for certiorari. Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch would have denied it. The applicants wrote that "private plaintiffs can no longer enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) in the Eighth Circuit" as a result of the decision below. Later steps in the case are not recorded in this entry.

    Related: Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1982 become law

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

  4. Jun 13, 2025 National Courts and officials Blocked by a court

    Federal court in Massachusetts blocks parts of Executive Order 14248 in a suit by 19 states

    On June 13, 2025, Judge Denise Casper of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted a preliminary injunction in a suit by attorneys general of nineteen states. The court enjoined implementation of Sections 2(a), 2(d), 3(d), 7(a) and 7(b) of Executive Order 14248, and said the injunction as to Sections 2(a), 2(d) and 3(d) applies as to all states.

    Related: President signs Executive Order 14248 on federal elections · Federal court in Washington blocks parts of Executive Order 14248

    Source last checked Oct 29, 2026

  5. May 14, 2025 National Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Eighth Circuit holds private plaintiffs cannot use Section 1983 to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

    On May 14, 2025, a divided Eighth Circuit panel in Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe, No. 23-3655, wrote that "private plaintiffs" cannot "maintain a private right of action for alleged violations of § 2 through 42 U.S.C. § 1983." It vacated the North Dakota district court's judgment and remanded with instructions that the case be dismissed for want of a cause of action. Chief Judge Colloton dissented, writing that he would affirm the district court's judgment. The panel relied on its 2023 decision in Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment, which held that Section 2 has no implied private right of action.

    Related: Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1982 become law · Supreme Court stays Eighth Circuit mandate in Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe · Eighth Circuit holds private plaintiffs cannot enforce Section 2 in the circuit and vacates the map ruling

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

  6. Apr 24, 2025 National Courts and officials Blocked by a court

    Federal court in Washington blocks parts of Executive Order 14248

    On April 24, 2025, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted preliminary injunctions in three consolidated cases. The court enjoined the Election Assistance Commission from implementing Section 2(a) of Executive Order 14248 (documentary proof of citizenship on the federal voter registration form) and enjoined certain agencies from implementing Section 2(d). It denied the motions as to Sections 2(b), 7(a) and 7(b).

    Related: President signs Executive Order 14248 on federal elections · Federal court permanently bars the Election Assistance Commission from implementing Section 2(a) of Executive Order 14248

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

2024

  1. May 23, 2024 National Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Supreme Court decides Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP

    On May 23, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "The District Court's finding that race predominated in the design of District 1 in the Enacted Plan was clearly erroneous" in a challenge to South Carolina's congressional map.

    Source last checked Oct 22, 2026

  2. Mar 4, 2024 National Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Supreme Court decides Trump v. Anderson

    On March 4, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, the Colorado Supreme Court erred in ordering former President Trump excluded from Colorado's 2024 Presidential primary ballot."

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

2023

  1. Jun 27, 2023 National Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Supreme Court decides Moore v. Harper

    On June 27, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "The Elections Clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review." The case arose from a challenge to North Carolina's congressional map.

    Source last checked Oct 29, 2026

  2. Jun 8, 2023 National Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Supreme Court decides Allen v. Milligan

    On June 8, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's finding that voters had shown a reasonable likelihood of success in claiming that the congressional map Alabama adopted for its 2022 elections (HB1) violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The lower court had preliminarily barred Alabama from using that map.

    Related: Voting Rights Act of 1965 signed into law · Supreme Court decides Louisiana v. Callais

    Source last checked Oct 29, 2026

2021

  1. Jul 1, 2021 National Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Supreme Court decides Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee

    On July 1, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Arizona's out-of-precinct policy and HB 2023 do not violate § 2 of the VRA, and HB 2023 was not enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose." The case concerned rules on counting ballots cast in the wrong precinct and on who may collect early ballots.

    Related: Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1982 become law

    Source last checked Oct 29, 2026

2020

  1. Dec 11, 2020 National Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Supreme Court denies Texas's motion to file a suit over other states' 2020 election procedures

    On December 11, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered in Texas v. Pennsylvania: "The State of Texas's motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections."

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

2019

  1. Jun 27, 2019 National Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Supreme Court decides Department of Commerce v. New York, on a census citizenship question

    On June 27, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a challenge to the Commerce Secretary's decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. The syllabus says "The Enumeration Clause permits Congress, and by extension the Secretary, to inquire about citizenship on the census questionnaire," and the judgment was "affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded."

    Source last checked Oct 29, 2026

  2. Jun 27, 2019 National Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Supreme Court decides Rucho v. Common Cause

    On June 27, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court decided cases from North Carolina and Maryland in which voters challenged congressional maps as partisan. The Court held that such claims present "political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts."

    Source last checked Oct 29, 2026

2018

  1. Jun 18, 2018 National Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Supreme Court decides Gill v. Whitford

    On June 18, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed a challenge to Wisconsin's state legislative map as a partisan one. The Court held that "The plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate Article III standing."

    Related: Supreme Court decides Rucho v. Common Cause

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

  2. Jun 11, 2018 National Courts and officials Upheld

    Supreme Court decides Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute

    On June 11, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "The process that Ohio uses to remove voters on change-of-residence grounds does not violate the Failure-to-Vote Clause or any other part of the NVRA."

    Related: National Voter Registration Act of 1993 becomes law · Help America Vote Act of 2002 becomes law

    Source last checked Oct 22, 2026

  3. Jan 3, 2018 National Courts and officials Enacted

    President terminates the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity

    Executive Order 13820, dated January 3, 2018 and published January 8, 2018, revoked Executive Order 13799 and states that "the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity is accordingly terminated."

    Related: President establishes the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity

    Source last checked Oct 29, 2026

2017

  1. May 22, 2017 National Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Supreme Court decides Cooper v. Harris

    On May 22, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed North Carolina's congressional Districts 1 and 12. The syllabus says the lower court "did not err in concluding that race furnished the predominant rationale for District 1's redesign and that the State's interest in complying with the VRA could not justify that consideration of race."

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

  2. May 11, 2017 National Courts and officials Enacted

    President establishes the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity

    Executive Order 13799, dated May 11, 2017 and published May 16, 2017, established the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, chaired by the Vice President, to "study the registration and voting processes used in Federal elections."

    Related: President terminates the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity

    Source last checked Oct 29, 2026

2016

  1. Apr 4, 2016 National Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Supreme Court decides Evenwel v. Abbott

    On April 4, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "a State or locality may draw its legislative districts based on total population," according to its syllabus.

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

2013

  1. Jun 25, 2013 National Courts and officials Struck down

    Supreme Court decides Shelby County v. Holder

    On June 25, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional and that its formula can no longer be used as a basis for requiring places to get federal approval ("preclearance") before changing voting procedures.

    Related: Voting Rights Act of 1965 signed into law · Supreme Court decides Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. One v. Holder · Voting Rights Act reauthorized and amended in 2006 · Supreme Court decides South Carolina v. Katzenbach

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

  2. Jun 17, 2013 National Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Supreme Court decides Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona

    On June 17, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Arizona's evidence-of-citizenship requirement, as applied to Federal Form applicants, is pre-empted by the NVRA's mandate that States 'accept and use' the Federal Form."

    Related: National Voter Registration Act of 1993 becomes law

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

  3. Mar 28, 2013 National Courts and officials Enacted

    President establishes the Presidential Commission on Election Administration

    Executive Order 13639, dated March 28, 2013 and published April 3, 2013, established the Presidential Commission on Election Administration. The order says the commission "shall identify best practices and otherwise make recommendations to promote the efficient administration of elections."

    Source last checked Oct 29, 2026

2009

  1. Jun 22, 2009 National Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Supreme Court decides Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. One v. Holder

    On June 22, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Voting Rights Act "must be interpreted to permit all political subdivisions, including the district, to seek to bail out from the preclearance requirements," and so did not decide the constitutional question. The syllabus also says the Act "now raises serious constitutional concerns."

    Related: Voting Rights Act reauthorized and amended in 2006 · Supreme Court decides Shelby County v. Holder

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

  2. Mar 9, 2009 National Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Supreme Court decides Bartlett v. Strickland

    On March 9, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a North Carolina ruling. A three-Justice opinion concluded that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act "does not require state officials to draw election-district lines to allow a racial minority that would make up less than 50 percent of the voting-age population in the redrawn district to join with crossover voters to elect the minority's candidate of choice."

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

2008

  1. Apr 28, 2008 National Courts and officials Upheld

    Supreme Court decides Crawford v. Marion County Election Board

    On April 28, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the ruling upholding Indiana's photo identification law (SEA 483). Justice Stevens, joined by two other Justices, concluded that "the evidence in the record does not support a facial attack on SEA 483's validity."

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

2006

  1. Oct 20, 2006 National Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Supreme Court decides Purcell v. Gonzalez

    On October 20, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated a Ninth Circuit order that had blocked Arizona's new voter identification requirements before the November election. The Court said that vacating the order "shall of necessity allow the election to proceed without an injunction suspending the requirements" and expressed "no opinion on the correct disposition of the appeals."

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

  2. Jun 28, 2006 National Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Supreme Court decides LULAC v. Perry

    On June 28, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court decided challenges to Texas's 2003 congressional redistricting. The Court's syllabus says "Texas' redrawing of District 23's lines amounts to vote dilution violative of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965."

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

2000

  1. Dec 12, 2000 National Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Supreme Court decides Bush v. Gore

    On December 12, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, reversed the Florida Supreme Court's order for manual recounts. The Court's syllabus says "any recount seeking to meet 3 U.S.C. § 5's December 12 'safe-harbor' date would be unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause."

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

1993

  1. Jun 28, 1993 National Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Supreme Court decides Shaw v. Reno

    On June 28, 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court held that voters stated a claim under the Equal Protection Clause by alleging that a reapportionment plan was "so irrational on its face that it can be understood only as an effort to segregate voters into separate districts on the basis of race," without sufficient justification.

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

1986

  1. Jun 30, 1986 National Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Supreme Court decides Thornburg v. Gingles

    On June 30, 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court decided its first case under the 1982 version of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The syllabus says minority voters who contend that a multimember form of districting violates Section 2 "must prove that the use of a multimember electoral structure operates to minimize or cancel out their ability to elect their preferred candidates."

    Related: Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1982 become law

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

1980

  1. Apr 22, 1980 National Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Supreme Court decides City of Mobile v. Bolden

    On April 22, 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a lower-court ruling against Mobile, Alabama's at-large election system. Four Justices concluded that "Racially discriminatory motivation is a necessary ingredient of a Fifteenth Amendment violation." Congress amended Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in 1982.

    Related: Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1982 become law

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

1970

  1. Dec 21, 1970 National Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Supreme Court decides Oregon v. Mitchell

    On December 21, 1970, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the 1970 Voting Rights Act Amendments. The Court's syllabus says the 18-year-old minimum-age requirement is valid for national elections but not valid for state and local elections, and that the literacy test provision is valid.

    Related: Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970 become law · 26th Amendment ratified: voting age of 18

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

1969

  1. Mar 3, 1969 National Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Supreme Court decides Allen v. State Board of Elections

    On March 3, 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Private litigants may invoke the jurisdiction of the district courts to obtain relief under § 5" of the Voting Rights Act, according to the Court's syllabus.

    Related: Voting Rights Act of 1965 signed into law

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

1966

  1. Mar 24, 1966 National Courts and officials Struck down

    Supreme Court decides Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections

    On March 24, 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "a State's conditioning of the right to vote on the payment of a fee or tax violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." The case concerned Virginia's poll tax.

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

  2. Mar 7, 1966 National Courts and officials Upheld

    Supreme Court decides South Carolina v. Katzenbach

    On March 7, 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court decided South Carolina's challenge to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Court held that "the sections of the Act properly before this Court are a valid effectuation of the Fifteenth Amendment."

    Related: Voting Rights Act of 1965 signed into law · Supreme Court decides Shelby County v. Holder

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

How this timeline is built

Every entry rests on at least one source that was opened and read, and that source states the date and the fact. Courts, legislatures, election offices, the Justice Department, the Census Bureau, the Federal Register and Congress.gov come first. A news report is used only when no official page states the fact, and it is labeled with the outlet's name. Encyclopedias are not used as sources. History starts in 1965 with the Voting Rights Act. County names come from the Census Bureau's 2024 Gazetteer. Congressional district numbers are those in use for the 2026 election; an event is tagged to a district only when its source names that congressional district.

When a later event changes an earlier one, such as a law later struck down, both entries are listed and point to each other. This page does not predict outcomes or say which party a change helps. U.S. House maps for 2026 · Back to the 2026 voting center.