Georgia's 3rd Congressional District
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 district view: events tagged to this congressional district, then events that apply across Georgia, then national events. An event is tagged to a district only when its source names that congressional district. See all of Georgia.
In Georgia's 3rd Congressional District
2023
-
Federal court finds 2021 Georgia maps violate Section 2 and bars their use
On October 26, 2023, in a 516-page opinion, a federal court declared that "SB 2EX violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act as to the following districts/areas: Enacted Congressional Districts 3, 6, 11, 13, and 14," and found violations in parts of the SB 1EX Senate and HB 1EX House plans. It permanently enjoined their use in any future election and gave the legislature until December 8, 2023 to enact remedial plans.
Congressional districts named: GA-3, GA-6, GA-11, GA-13, GA-14
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
Across Georgia
2026
-
Georgia Supreme Court hears the Fulton County Republican Party's appeal over two rejected election board nominees
Democracy Docket reported that on Wednesday, October 14, 2026 the Georgia Supreme Court heard oral argument in the Fulton County Republican Party's suit over the Fulton County Board of Commissioners' 5-2 vote to reject Republican nominees Jason Frazier and Julie Adams for the county Board of Registration and Elections. Commissioners' attorney Don Samuel argued that the board has discretion to accept or reject nominees; the party's lawyer, Justin Gunter, argued that no constitutional provision creates a right to such discretion. The report says Chief Justice Nels S.D. Peterson indicated he thought the commissioners had the better legal argument. A trial court had ordered the appointments and fined the board $10,000 a day; the Court of Appeals reversed that ruling.
- Democracy Docket, October 14, 2026 ↗ News report, Democracy Docket
Source last checked Oct 24, 2026
-
Federal judge dismisses Justice Department's second suit for Georgia's unredacted voter list
On September 30, 2026, U.S. District Judge Victoria M. Calvert granted in part the motions to dismiss filed by Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and an intervenor, denied the Justice Department's cross-motion to compel production of federal election records, and ordered that the case be dismissed. The order says neither the National Voter Registration Act nor the Help America Vote Act requires disclosure of sensitive voter information such as Social Security numbers. It records that the department's earlier suit in the Middle District of Georgia, filed December 18, 2025, was dismissed without prejudice on January 23, 2026 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the court there explaining the Northern District had jurisdiction. GPB and the Georgia Recorder reported the ruling.
- U.S. District Court, N.D. Ga.: United States v. Raffensperger, No. 1:26-cv-00485, Order (Doc. 146, September 30, 2026) ↗
- DOJ lawsuit seeking Georgia voters' unredacted data dismissed, again ↗ News report, GPB News (Georgia Recorder)
Source last checked Oct 21, 2026
-
Eleventh Circuit vacates ruling against Georgia maps and remands in light of Callais
On August 25, 2026, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court judgment that had permanently enjoined use of SB 2EX, SB 1EX and HB 1EX and remanded "for further proceedings consistent with Callais," writing that the Supreme Court's April 2026 decision changed the framework for vote-dilution claims.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
Georgia legislature declines to redraw congressional map in June 2026 special session
The Guardian reported that Georgia Republicans declined to redraw the state's congressional map in a special session that Governor Kemp called for the 2028 elections, after the Supreme Court's April 2026 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais. House Speaker Jon Burns said he wanted redistricting handled responsibly and transparently, with ample opportunity for public input.
- Georgia Republicans decline to redraw congressional map in defiance of Trump ↗ News report, The Guardian
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
Georgia enacts SB 3EX: new voting equipment committee, mandatory recounts, and a later date for the SB 189 ballot rule
In the June 2026 special session the General Assembly passed SB 3EX, which creates a committee to recommend specifications for a new voting system based on hand-marked paper ballots, provides mandatory recounts in certain statewide contests, and moves the effective date of Section 7 of SB 189 to January 1, 2028. The Current GA reported the governor signed it after the Legislature passed it on the last day of the session.
- Georgia SB 3EX as passed (2026 special session) ↗
- Kemp signs elections bill, locking in QR code voting machines for November ↗ News report, The Current GA (Capitol Beat News Service)
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
2025
-
Eleventh Circuit vacates injunction against SB 202 gift ban near voting lines
On December 1, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit vacated a district court order that had enjoined the SB 202 gift ban within 25 feet of voters standing in line, and remanded because the district court had not carried out the facial-challenge analysis required by Moody v. NetChoice. The panel did not reach the merits of the First Amendment claim.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
Georgia Supreme Court invalidates four State Election Board rules
On June 10, 2025, the Georgia Supreme Court concluded that of five rules the individual plaintiffs had standing to challenge, only one (video surveillance of drop boxes after the polls close each day) survived; "the other four rules are invalid." It overruled a 1990 nondelegation precedent, held the organizational plaintiffs lacked standing, and remanded one issue about a county board member's standing.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
Attorney General directs Justice Department to dismiss its claims over SB 202
On March 31, 2025, the Justice Department announced that Attorney General Pamela Bondi directed the department to dismiss its claims in In Re Georgia Senate Bill 202. The department's announcement said Black voter turnout increased under SB 202.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
2024
-
State Election Board adopts rules ahead of the November 2024 election
The Georgia Supreme Court's opinion records that in August 2024 the State Election Board adopted several rules before the November 2024 general election. Eternal Vigilance Action, Inc. and others sued the state, asking for a declaration that the rules were unconstitutional and contrary to the Election Code.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
Georgia enacts HB 1207 on election staff citizenship, ballot proofing and poll watchers
The Georgia Senate Research Office records HB 1207 as signed May 6, 2024 (Act 599). It requires anyone employed or retained by a county election superintendent for election duties to be a U.S. citizen, requires local superintendents to proof ballots and share proofs with candidates, and clarifies the powers and access of poll watchers.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
Georgia enacts HB 974 on ballot security paper and risk-limiting audits
The Georgia Senate Research Office records HB 974 as signed May 6, 2024 (Act 589). It requires ballots on security paper with a visible watermark, a statewide system for posting scanned paper ballots, risk-limiting audits, and a pilot program for auditing ballot images with optical character recognition.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
Georgia enacts SB 189: voter challenges, State Election Board changes, and a ballot text rule
The Georgia Senate Research Office records SB 189 as signed May 6, 2024 (Act 697). It removes the Secretary of State from the State Election Board, adds conflict-of-interest provisions, revises provisions on challenging electors and residency, and requires the text portion of the ballot, not a QR code or similar coding, to be the official ballot. Section 7 was set to take effect July 1, 2026.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
2023
-
Federal judge approves Georgia's 2023 remedial maps
On December 28, 2023, U.S. District Judge Steve Jones approved the new congressional, State Senate and State House maps, finding that all three added majority-Black opportunity districts in the areas he had identified in October. GPB reported he rejected the plaintiffs' objection to the revised 7th Congressional District.
Congressional districts named: GA-7
- Federal judge approves Georgia's new congressional and legislative election maps ↗ News report, GPB News
- Order approving 2023 remedial plans, No. 1:21-cv-05337 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 28, 2023), Doc. 375 (CourtListener RECAP copy) ↗
Source last checked Oct 21, 2026
-
Georgia legislature enacts new congressional, Senate and House maps in a special session
Governor Brian Kemp signed SB 1EX (the Georgia Senate Redistricting Act of 2023), HB 1EX (the Georgia House of Representatives Redistricting Act of 2023) and SB 3EX (the Georgia Congressional Redistricting Act of 2023) into law on December 8, 2023, according to the Secretary of State's notice to the federal court. The special session had begun November 29 and adjourned December 7, and the court's October 26, 2023 order had given the state until December 8 to adopt remedial plans. Each act took effect on the Governor's signature.
- Governor of Georgia: 2023 Special Session Signed Legislation ↗
- Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc. v. Raffensperger, No. 1:21-cv-05337-SCJ, Doc. 333 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 26, 2023) ↗
- Notice of Adoption of Remedial Plans, Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity v. Raffensperger, No. 1:21-cv-05337 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 8, 2023), Doc. 351 (CourtListener RECAP copy) ↗
Source last checked Oct 21, 2026
2022
-
Federal court rules for state officials in Fair Fight Action v. Raffensperger
On September 30, 2022, in what the opinion says is believed to have been the longest voting rights bench trial in the history of the Northern District of Georgia, the court found "in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs on all remaining Counts" of the second amended complaint. Earlier claims had been dismissed as moot after the state's changes in HB 316 and HB 392.
- Fair Fight Action, Inc. v. Raffensperger, No. 1:18-cv-5391-SCJ, Doc. 916 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 30, 2022) ↗
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
Governor signs SB 441 allowing Georgia Bureau of Investigation staff to assist with election security
On April 27, 2022, Governor Kemp's office announced he had signed SB 441. The governor said the law would allow the state to engage Georgia Bureau of Investigation personnel to assist in ensuring elections are secure and fair, and that he had allocated $504,116 in fiscal year 2023 funds for the positions.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
2021
-
Georgia enacts 2021 congressional, State Senate and State House maps
A federal court opinion records that on December 30, 2021, Governor Kemp signed the redistricting plans passed after the 2020 census: SB 2EX for Congress, SB 1EX for the State Senate and HB 1EX for the State House. A lawsuit challenging them was filed the same day.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
Justice Department sues Georgia over SB 202 under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
On June 25, 2021, in United States v. State of Georgia, the Justice Department filed a complaint under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act challenging aspects of SB 202 "as intended to deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race or color." The department directed dismissal of its claims on March 31, 2025.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
Georgia enacts SB 202, the Election Integrity Act of 2021
The Georgia Senate Research Office records that SB 202 (Act 9) was signed March 25, 2021. It describes an omnibus revision of the election code that creates a voter crime hotline, a framework for oversight of local election officials, identification requirements for absentee ballot applications and ballots, limits on county drop boxes, a ban on giving food or drink to an elector within 150 feet of a polling place, and a longer advance voting period with an added Saturday.
- Georgia Senate Research Office: 2021 Legislation Passed (SB 202) ↗
- Georgia General Assembly: SB 202 as passed (2021) ↗
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
2020
-
Georgia Secretary of State recertifies the 2020 presidential results after the audit and a requested recount
On December 7, 2020, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger recertified the results of the November 3, 2020 presidential election. His office's release says the recertification followed "an audit-triggered hand recount and a formal recount requested by the Trump campaign," and that both "upheld the original outcome of the race." The same release notes that a federal judge in the Northern District of Georgia dismissed the lawsuit brought by attorney Sidney Powell that morning.
Source last checked Oct 21, 2026
-
Georgia announces results of its statewide risk-limiting audit of the 2020 presidential race, a full hand tally
On November 19, 2020, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger announced the results of the risk-limiting audit of Georgia's presidential contest. The release says that, because of the tight margin, the audit "was a full manual tally of all votes cast" and that it "upheld and reaffirmed the original outcome produced by the machine tally," with Joe Biden leading Donald Trump in the state. It also says the audit led some counties to find that they had not uploaded all memory cards, and that those counties uploaded them and recertified their results. The office's audit page reports that the highest error rate in any county recount was 0.73 percent.
- Historic First Statewide Audit of Paper Ballots Upholds Result of Presidential Race (Georgia Secretary of State, November 19, 2020) ↗
- 2020 General Election Risk-Limiting Audit (Georgia Secretary of State) ↗
Source last checked Oct 21, 2026
2019
-
Georgia enacts HB 316: new voting machines, notice before list maintenance removals, polling place change limit
A federal court opinion records that Governor Kemp signed HB 316 on April 2, 2019. Among other things it provided for more notice in voter-list maintenance, provided that a voter registration is not automatically rejected under the exact match policy, provided for implementing new voting machines, and barred a county from changing a polling place less than thirty days before a general primary or general election.
- Fair Fight Action, Inc. v. Raffensperger, No. 1:18-cv-5391-SCJ, Doc. 916 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 30, 2022) ↗
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
2011
-
Georgia Supreme Court upholds the 2006 Photo ID Act
On March 7, 2011, the Georgia Supreme Court upheld the 2006 Photo ID Act in a 6-1 decision. The Georgia Attorney General's office quoted the opinion as finding the requirement "a minimal, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory restriction which is warranted by the important regulatory interests of preventing voter fraud."
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
2009
-
Justice Department objects to Georgia voter registration verification program
On May 29, 2009, the Justice Department objected under Section 5 to Georgia's voter verification program for voter registration application data, including citizenship status, saying it could not conclude the state had met its burden. The letter described the program as matching applicant information against records of the state Department of Driver Services.
- Justice Department objection letter to Georgia Attorney General, May 29, 2009 ↗
- Justice Department: Voting Determination Letters for Georgia (objection list) ↗
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
Eleventh Circuit rules for Georgia in Common Cause/Georgia v. Billups on photo ID
On January 14, 2009, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the dismissal of the NAACP and voters' complaint over Georgia's photo identification law and rendered judgment in favor of Georgia's election officials, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. It affirmed an award of attorney's fees tied to an earlier injunction against a statute that charged a fee for a voter identification card.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
2007
-
Georgia Supreme Court reverses ruling against the 2006 Photo ID Act on standing
In Perdue v. Lake, decided June 11, 2007, the Georgia Supreme Court reversed a trial court's determination that the 2006 Photo ID Act violated the state constitution. It held that the sole remaining plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the act.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
2006
-
Georgia repeals its 2005 photo ID law and enacts the 2006 Photo ID Act
In 2006, while an appeal was pending, the General Assembly repealed the 2005 statute and enacted a new one requiring voters to present photo identification to vote in person. The Eleventh Circuit's opinion records that the governor signed it, the Attorney General precleared it, and it took effect before the 2006 primary and general elections.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
2005
-
Georgia requires government-issued photo identification to vote in person
In 2005 the General Assembly amended Georgia's identification statute to require all registered voters to show government-issued photo identification to vote in person. The requirement was to take effect July 1, 2005, subject to preclearance under Section 5. Organizations and voters sued in September 2005.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
2003
-
Supreme Court decides Georgia v. Ashcroft on the 2001 State Senate plan
In Georgia v. Ashcroft, decided June 26, 2003, the Supreme Court held that the District of Columbia court had failed to consider all the relevant factors in deciding whether Georgia's State Senate plan led to retrogression in Black voters' effective exercise of the electoral franchise under Section 5. It rejected Georgia's argument that a plan should be precleared if it satisfied Section 2.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
1997
-
Supreme Court decides Abrams v. Johnson on the court-drawn Georgia congressional plan
In Abrams v. Johnson, decided June 19, 1997, the Supreme Court held that the redistricting plan drawn by the district court for Georgia's congressional delegation, with one majority-Black district, was not unconstitutional. The legislature had been unable to agree on a new plan after Miller v. Johnson, so the court drew its own, which was used in the 1996 elections.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
1994
-
Justice Department objects to Georgia voter-removal procedure based on not voting
On October 24, 1994, the Justice Department precleared most changes in Georgia Act No. 1207 (1994), which implemented the National Voter Registration Act, but objected to the procedures for removing registered voters, including sending a confirmation notice to anyone who had not voted or had other contact with election officials for three years. The letter cited the federal statute's rule that removal procedures "shall not result in the removal of the name of any person from the official list of voters registered to vote in an election for Federal office by reason of the person's failure to vote."
- Justice Department objection letter to Georgia Senior Assistant Attorney General, October 24, 1994 ↗
- Justice Department: Voting Determination Letters for Georgia (objection list) ↗
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
1992
-
Justice Department objects to Georgia 1992 remedial redistricting plans
On March 20, 1992, the Justice Department objected to the 1992 House, Senate and congressional plans to the extent each incorporated the configurations for the areas the letter discussed. On March 29, 1992, it did not object to the Senate plan (Act No. 673) but objected again to the House plan (Act No. 672) over the Muscogee-Chattahoochee Counties area.
- Justice Department objection letter to Georgia Department of Law, March 20, 1992 ↗
- Justice Department objection letter to Georgia Department of Law, March 29, 1992 ↗
- Justice Department: Voting Determination Letters for Georgia (objection list) ↗
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
Justice Department objects to Georgia 1991 House, Senate and congressional plans
On January 21, 1992, the Justice Department objected under Section 5 to several areas of each of Georgia's 1991 House, Senate and congressional plans, which included an increase from ten to eleven congressional seats. The same letter did not object to the change of the House from multimember to 180 single-member districts.
- Justice Department letter to Georgia Department of Law on the 1991 plans ↗
- Justice Department objection letter to Georgia Department of Law, March 20, 1992 (describes the January 21 objection) ↗
- Justice Department: Voting Determination Letters for Georgia (objection list) ↗
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
1982
-
Justice Department objects to Georgia Senate, House and congressional redistricting plans
On February 11, 1982, the Justice Department objected under Section 5 to Georgia's 1981 Senate, House and congressional redistricting acts (Acts 4, 3 and 5). The department's list notes that a declaratory judgment was denied as to the congressional plan (Act No. 5) in Busbee v. Smith, 549 F. Supp. 494 (D.D.C. 1982), affirmed 459 U.S. 1166 (1983).
- Justice Department: Voting Determination Letters for Georgia (objection list) ↗
- Justice Department objection letter to Georgia Attorney General, February 11, 1982 ↗
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
1973
-
Supreme Court decides Georgia v. United States on the 1972 House reapportionment
In Georgia v. United States, decided May 7, 1973, the Supreme Court held that Georgia's 1972 reapportionment changes were "standards, practices, or procedures with respect to voting" within Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and that the Attorney General had properly placed on Georgia the burden of proving the plan had no racially discriminatory purpose or effect. The Court affirmed the three-judge court's ruling and held that future elections under that plan would be enjoined until a plan cleared Section 5 review.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
1972
-
Justice Department objects to Georgia House and Senate redistricting plans
On March 3, 1972, the Attorney General objected under Section 5 to Georgia's legislative redistricting enactments. The Supreme Court later described the objection to the 1971 House plan as resting on the combination of multimember districts, majority runoff elections and numbered posts, and recorded that the Attorney General rejected the legislature's superseding 1972 House plan on March 24, 1972.
- Georgia v. United States, 411 U.S. 526 (1973) ↗
- Justice Department: Voting Determination Letters for Georgia (objection list) ↗
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
1968
-
Justice Department objects to Georgia registration literacy test and related election rules
The Justice Department's list of Georgia determination letters records Section 5 objections on June 19, July 11 and August 30, 1968, to Georgia acts and rules on assistance to illiterates, literacy tests and poll officials' qualifications. The August 30, 1968 entry is described as 'Literacy test for registration.' The letter of that date responds to the state's submission of State Election Board rules adopted July 17, 1968.
- Justice Department: Voting Determination Letters for Georgia (objection list) ↗
- Justice Department objection letter to Georgia Attorney General, August 30, 1968 ↗
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
Nationwide
2026
-
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.
Source last checked Oct 24, 2026
-
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.
Source last checked Oct 24, 2026
-
Justice Department begins notifying counties it wants to monitor on Election Day 2026
NPR reported on October 21, 2026 that the Justice Department began notifying counties it wants to monitor on Election Day starting Tuesday, October 20. NPR confirmed notices to Adams County, Colorado; seven counties in Texas; King County, Washington; Miami-Dade County, Florida; and Hennepin and Ramsey counties in Minnesota. NPR reports that state officials were at first not notified at the same time as counties, and that a department spokesperson said it prioritizes places with competitive elections and would monitor Adams County because it is covered by Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act. Colorado's Secretary of State's office told NPR it was considering how to respond, since state rules require observers to have its permission unless a court orders otherwise.
- The Justice Department begins notifying counties where it wants to monitor elections ↗ News report, NPR
Source last checked Oct 22, 2026
-
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.
Source last checked Oct 24, 2026
-
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.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
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.
- Democrats sue to block Trump administration from usurping states' authority to administer elections (AP, Oct. 21, 2026) ↗ News report, Associated Press (via WKMG)
- "Democratic-Aligned Groups Sue Over Federal Crackdown on Voting" (quoting The New York Times) ↗ News report, Election Law Blog
- Docket, DSCC v. Trump, No. 1:26-cv-03674 (D.D.C., filed October 20, 2026) ↗
Source last checked Oct 24, 2026
-
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.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
Civil rights and labor groups sue over possible federal immigration agents near polling places
On September 18, 2026, a coalition of nine civil rights and union groups sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to prevent the deployment of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to polling locations in November. States Newsroom reported it as the second such suit that month. The groups argue the policy violates the federal law that bars "armed men" at election sites and the Voting Rights Act's bar on intimidation. A Justice Department spokesperson said: "The DOJ has never said it would send federal law enforcement to polling locations." A Homeland Security spokesperson said ICE was not planning operations that targeted polling locations. No ruling is recorded here.
- U.S. District Court, D.D.C.: NAACP v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 1:26-cv-03263, Complaint (Doc. 1, filed September 18, 2026; CourtListener copy) ↗
- A second lawsuit challenges plans to put ICE agents near polling places (September 21, 2026) ↗ News report, Government Executive (States Newsroom)
Source last checked Oct 21, 2026
-
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.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
Census Bureau proposes residence criteria for the 2030 census that would exclude some noncitizens from the apportionment count
On September 10, 2026 the Census Bureau, an agency of the Department of Commerce, published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (91 FR 57524, Docket No. 260903-0005, RIN 0607-AA75) that would add two new parts to the Code of Federal Regulations: residence criteria for the decennial census, and standards and restrictions for demographic questions on the census questionnaire. On residence, the notice states that "the Census Bureau proposes to include lawful permanent residents within the apportionment base, while excluding from the apportionment base illegal aliens and aliens whose legal status is less durable and indefinite in length than lawful permanent resident status," and says it is considering using administrative records to determine legal status. The comment period, first set to end October 13, 2026, was extended to November 2, 2026 by a notice published October 5, 2026. Al Jazeera and CNBC reported on the proposal, and CNBC reported that opponents expect litigation.
- Decennial Census of the Population of Americans; Proposed Residence Criteria and Proposed Regulations for Demographic Questions, 91 Fed. Reg. 57524 (Sept. 10, 2026) (GovInfo) ↗
- Same proposed rule, extension of comment period, 91 Fed. Reg. 63207 (Oct. 5, 2026) (GovInfo) ↗
- Trump administration proposes excluding certain immigrants from US census (September 10, 2026) ↗ News report, Al Jazeera
- CNBC report on the proposed 2030 census rule (October 13, 2026) ↗ News report, CNBC
Source last checked Oct 22, 2026
-
Latino and voting groups and the City of Denver sue over armed immigration agents at polling places
On September 10, 2026, the League of United Latin American Citizens, Common Cause, Common Cause Education Fund, UnidosUS and the City and County of Denver, Colorado filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:26-cv-03157) against the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and their leaders. The complaint alleges that the Homeland Security Secretary's statements of September 1, 2026 set a policy of authorizing armed Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to go to polling places, which the plaintiffs say violates 18 U.S.C. § 592, the law that bars federal officials from keeping "any troops or armed men at any place where a general or special election is held" except to repel armed enemies of the United States. No ruling is recorded in this entry.
- Complaint, League of United Latin American Citizens v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 1:26-cv-03157 (D.D.C. filed Sept. 10, 2026) (CourtListener RECAP copy) ↗
- Docket, No. 1:26-cv-03157 (D.D.C.) (CourtListener) ↗
Source last checked Oct 21, 2026
-
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.
- League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump, 1st Cir. Nos. 26-2029 to 26-2032, order of court entered September 10, 2026 (D. Mass. Doc. 296) ↗
- Docket, League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump, No. 1:26-cv-11549 (D. Mass.), entries 285 to 287 (September 4, 2026) ↗
Source last checked Oct 24, 2026
-
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.
Source last checked Oct 24, 2026
-
Postal Service issues final rule on ballot mail for federal elections
The Postal Service's final rule "Ballot Mail for Federal Elections" was published August 26, 2026 and states that it is effective August 21, 2026. It says it responds to Executive Order 14399 and received "more than 200,000 responses" during the comment period. The rule says that, because of injunctions in two Massachusetts cases, the Postal Service "will not take actions to implement the rule specifically for the 2026 election" unless the government obtains relief from them. On September 13, 2026, a federal court in Washington granted preliminary injunctions against the rule.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
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."
Source last checked Oct 24, 2026
-
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.
Source last checked Oct 21, 2026
-
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).
- Notice of appeal, United States v. Evans (D.D.C. Aug. 17, 2026) ↗
- CourtListener docket, United States v. Evans ↗
Source last checked Oct 24, 2026
-
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."
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
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.
- Order, United States v. Evans (D.D.C. Aug. 6, 2026) ↗
- CourtListener docket, United States v. Evans ↗
Source last checked Oct 24, 2026
-
House passes bill with a photo-ID voting requirement; Senate cloture vote fails, 53-47, on September 30, 2026
On July 22, 2026, the House passed H.R. 7008, the Stop Insider Trading Act, by 232 to 198 (Roll no. 280). Section 3 of the House-passed text is titled "Requiring voters to provide photo identification." On September 30, 2026, the Senate voted 53 to 47 on cloture on the motion to proceed, and the bill record says cloture was "not invoked" (Record Vote 253).
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
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."
Source last checked Oct 22, 2026
-
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.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
Postal Service proposes a rule on ballot mail for federal elections
On June 2, 2026, the Postal Service published a proposed rule, "Ballot Mail for Federal Elections," to amend its Domestic Mail Manual on the transmission of mail-in or absentee ballots for federal elections. The final rule says the comment period closed on July 2, 2026.
- Ballot Mail for Federal Elections (proposed rule), 91 Fed. Reg. 32915 (GovInfo) ↗
- Ballot Mail for Federal Elections (final rule), 91 Fed. Reg. 54966 (GovInfo) ↗
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
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."
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
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.
Source last checked Oct 21, 2026
-
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."
Source last checked Oct 22, 2026
-
President signs Executive Order 14399 on citizenship verification and mail ballots
Executive Order 14399, "Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections," is dated March 31, 2026 and was published in the Federal Register on April 3, 2026. Section 2 directs the Department of Homeland Security to compile and transmit to each state a "State Citizenship List." Section 3 directs the Postmaster General to begin a rulemaking on mail-in and absentee ballots within 60 days. Courts later enjoined parts of the Postal Service rule that followed.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
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."
Source last checked Oct 24, 2026
-
House passes SAVE America Act text as an amendment to S. 1383, 218-213
On February 11, 2026, the House passed S. 1383 with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, by 218 to 213 (Roll no. 69). The House-passed text is titled the "SAVE America Act." On March 17, 2026, the Senate agreed 51 to 48 to a motion to proceed to the House message on S. 1383 (Record Vote 57). On March 21, 2026, a cloture vote on a related motion was "not invoked" by 41 to 49 (Record Vote 61). The bill record lists no final Senate vote, and it did not become law.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
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."
Source last checked Oct 22, 2026
2025
-
Postal Service adds a Domestic Mail Manual section defining postmarks
On November 24, 2025, the Postal Service published a final rule adding section 608.11, "Postmarks and Postal Possession," to the Domestic Mail Manual, effective December 24, 2025. It says the new language "does not change any existing postal operations or postmarking practices" and is intended to improve public understanding of postmarks and the date of mailing.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
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.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
Justice Department announces it will monitor polling sites in six California and New Jersey counties
On October 24, 2025, the Justice Department announced that it would monitor polling sites ahead of the November 4, 2025 general election in six jurisdictions: Passaic County, New Jersey, and Kern, Riverside, Fresno, Orange and Los Angeles counties, California. The release says the Civil Rights Division would deploy personnel who would coordinate with U.S. Attorney's Offices.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
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.
Source last checked Oct 24, 2026
-
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.
- Docket 25A62, Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe (U.S. Supreme Court) ↗
- Application for stay, No. 25A62 (U.S. Supreme Court docket) ↗
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
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.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
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.
Source last checked Oct 23, 2026
-
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).
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
House passes SAVE Act, 220-208; Senate does not act
On April 10, 2025, the House passed H.R. 22, the SAVE Act, by 220 to 208 (Roll no. 102). The bill was received in the Senate the same day; the bill record lists no later action, and it did not become law.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
President signs Executive Order 14248 on federal elections
Executive Order 14248, "Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections," is dated March 25, 2025 and was published in the Federal Register on March 28, 2025. Section 2 is titled "Enforcing the Citizenship Requirement for Federal Elections," Section 4 "Improving the Election Assistance Commission," and Section 7 "Compliance with Federal Law Setting the National Election Day." Courts later enjoined parts of it.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
2024
-
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
-
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
-
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 20, 2026
-
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.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
2022
-
Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 becomes law
Division P of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (Public Law 117-328, signed December 29, 2022) may be cited as the "Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022." Title I may be cited as the "Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022."
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
Senate cloture on the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act fails, 49-51
On January 19, 2022, the Senate voted 49 to 51 on cloture on the motion to concur in the House amendment to H.R. 5746, the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, and cloture was "not invoked" (Record Vote 9). The bill record also lists a motion by Senator Schumer to appeal the ruling of the chair as "not agreed to," on the question "Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgement of the Senate," by 52 to 48 (Record Vote 10). The bill did not become law.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
2021
-
Senate vote to begin debate on the Freedom to Vote Act fails, 49-51
On October 20, 2021, the Senate voted 49 to 51 on cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 2747, the Freedom to Vote Act. The bill record says cloture was "not invoked" (Record Vote 420). The bill did not become law.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
House passes John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act; Senate cloture vote on November 3, 2021 is 50-49 and fails
On August 24, 2021, the House passed H.R. 4, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021, by 219 to 212 (Roll no. 260). On November 3, 2021, a Senate vote on cloture on the motion to proceed to the companion bill, S. 4, was 50 to 49 and cloture was "not invoked" (Record Vote 459). Neither bill became law.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
Census Bureau releases 2020 redistricting data for states
On August 12, 2021, the Census Bureau released the 2020 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, which it described as delivering data for states to begin redistricting. On September 16, 2021, it released the same data in an easier-to-use format on data.census.gov and delivered a toolkit to states.
- Census Bureau press release CB21-CN.55, August 12, 2021 ↗
- Census Bureau press release CB21-CN.63, September 16, 2021 ↗
Source last checked Oct 22, 2026
-
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.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
Census Bureau announces 2020 Census apportionment results
On April 26, 2021, the Census Bureau announced that the 2020 Census resident population of the United States on April 1, 2020 was 331,449,281, and that Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo delivered the population counts used for apportionment of the U.S. House to the President.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
For the People Act of 2021 passes the House; Senate committee discharge vote is 50-49 and the bill stalls
On March 3, 2021, the House passed H.R. 1, the For the People Act of 2021, by 220 to 210 (Roll no. 62). On June 22, 2021, the Senate voted 50 to 50 (Roll call 246) on cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 2093, the For the People Act of 2021, which required 3/5 of the Senate; the Senate roll call records the result as "Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected." On August 11, 2021, the Senate voted 50 to 49 to discharge its Rules and Administration Committee from the companion bill, S. 1 (Roll call 358). The bill records list no Senate vote on passage, and neither bill became law.
- H.R. 1 (117th Congress) bill status, GovInfo ↗
- S. 1 (117th Congress) bill status, GovInfo ↗
- U.S. Senate Roll Call Vote 117th Congress, 1st Session, Vote 246 (June 22, 2021) ↗
Source last checked Oct 22, 2026
-
Election Assistance Commission adopts Voluntary Voting System Guidelines 2.0
The Election Assistance Commission says that on February 10, 2021 its commissioners unanimously adopted version 2.0 of the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines, the specifications against which voting systems are tested. The EAC says it stopped using versions 1.0 and 1.1 to certify voting systems as of November 16, 2023, and that previously certified systems are not decertified by that change.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
2020
-
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
-
House passes Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2019; no Senate vote follows
On December 6, 2019, the House passed H.R. 4, the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2019, by 228 to 187 (Roll no. 654). It was received in the Senate on December 9, 2019 and referred to the Judiciary Committee; the bill record lists no Senate vote, and it did not become law.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
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 20, 2026
-
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 20, 2026
-
House passes For the People Act of 2019; no Senate vote follows
On March 8, 2019, the House passed H.R. 1, the For the People Act of 2019, by 234 to 193 (Roll no. 118). The bill was received in the Senate on March 12, 2019 and placed on the Senate calendar; the bill record lists no Senate vote on passage, and it did not become law.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
2018
-
President signs Executive Order 13848 on foreign interference in U.S. elections
Executive Order 13848, dated September 12, 2018, imposes sanctions authority in the event of foreign interference in a U.S. election. The order says "there has been no evidence of a foreign power altering the outcome or vote tabulation in any United States election" and declares a national emergency over the threat of interference.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
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."
Source last checked Oct 23, 2026
-
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."
- Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, 584 U.S. 756 (2018), U.S. Reports, Volume 584 (Supreme Court) ↗
- Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, No. 16-980 (U.S. June 11, 2018), syllabus and opinions (Cornell Legal Information Institute copy) ↗
Source last checked Oct 22, 2026
-
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."
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
2017
-
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
-
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."
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
Homeland Security designates election infrastructure as critical infrastructure
On January 6, 2017, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said he had determined "that election infrastructure in this country should be designated as a subsector of the existing Government Facilities critical infrastructure sector." The statement defines election infrastructure as including "storage facilities, polling places, and centralized vote tabulations locations" and voter registration databases and voting machines.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
2016
-
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
-
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.
Source last checked Oct 23, 2026
-
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."
Source last checked Oct 23, 2026
-
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 20, 2026
2009
-
Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act becomes law
Section 575 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84, dated October 28, 2009) may be cited as the "Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act." It adds a requirement that states transmit a validly requested absentee ballot to an absent uniformed services voter or overseas voter not later than 45 days before a federal election, when the request is received at least 45 days before it.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
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."
Source last checked Oct 23, 2026
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
Voting Rights Act reauthorized and amended in 2006
Public Law 109-246, dated July 27, 2006, may be cited as the "Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006." Among other changes it amended Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and replaced the references to the 1982 amendments in Section 4(a).
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
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
2002
-
Help America Vote Act of 2002 becomes law
Public Law 107-252, dated October 29, 2002, is titled, in part, "To establish a program to provide funds to States to replace punch card voting systems, to establish the Election Assistance Commission" to assist in the administration of federal elections, and "to establish minimum election administration standards for States and units of local government with responsibility for the administration of Federal elections."
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
2000
-
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
-
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
-
National Voter Registration Act of 1993 becomes law
Public Law 103-31, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, is dated May 20, 1993. The law states its purpose as "to establish procedures that will increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office."
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
1986
-
Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act becomes law
Public Law 99-410, dated August 28, 1986, may be cited as the "Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act." Its subject is voting in federal elections by members of the uniformed services and by citizens living overseas.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
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."
Source last checked Oct 23, 2026
1984
-
Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act becomes law
Public Law 98-435, dated September 28, 1984, is titled "To improve access for handicapped and elderly individuals to registration facilities and polling places for Federal elections."
Source last checked Oct 22, 2026
1982
-
Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1982 become law
Public Law 97-205, dated June 29, 1982, rewrote Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to bar any practice "imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color." It also provided that a section 4 provision expires "at the end of the twenty-five-year period following the effective date" of the 1982 amendments.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
1980
-
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.
Source last checked Oct 23, 2026
1975
-
Voting Rights Act extended in 1975, with language-minority protections
Public Law 94-73, dated August 6, 1975, is titled "To amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to extend certain provisions for an additional seven years, to make permanent the ban against certain prerequisites to voting, and for other purposes." It also provides that no voting qualification may be imposed "to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote because he is a member of a language minority group."
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
1971
-
26th Amendment ratified: voting age of 18
The National Archives lists the 26th Amendment as passed by Congress on March 23, 1971, and ratified on July 1, 1971. It reads: "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age."
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
1970
-
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.
Source last checked Oct 23, 2026
-
Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970 become law
Public Law 91-285, dated June 22, 1970, is titled "To extend the Voting Rights Act of 1965 with respect to the discriminatory use of tests, and for other purposes." It may be cited as the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
1969
-
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.
Source last checked Oct 23, 2026
1967
-
Congress requires single-member congressional districts (Public Law 90-196)
Public Law 90-196, approved December 14, 1967, provides that in each state entitled to more than one Representative "there shall be established by law a number of districts equal to the number of Representatives to which such State is so entitled," with "no district to elect more than one Representative."
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
1966
-
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
-
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."
Source last checked Oct 23, 2026
1965
-
Voting Rights Act of 1965 signed into law
President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law on August 6, 1965. The National Archives says the act outlawed the discriminatory voting practices adopted in many southern states after the Civil War.
Source last checked Oct 20, 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.