Missouri's 1st 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 Missouri, then national events. An event is tagged to a district only when its source names that congressional district. See all of Missouri.
In Missouri's 1st Congressional District
No events have been tagged to Missouri's 1st Congressional District yet. District events are added over time. The state and national events below also apply here.
Across Missouri
2026
-
Amendment 6 on the November 3, 2026 ballot: protections for initiative and referendum powers
The Missouri Secretary of State's page of ballot measures certified for the November 3, 2026 general election gives the official ballot title for Amendment 6, proposed by initiative petition: shall the Constitution be amended to "expand the initiative and referendum petition process by making it a fundamental right," allow courts to revise ballot summaries through lawsuits, prohibit the legislature from weakening initiative or referendum powers, bar the legislature from changing or repealing laws enacted through the initiative process without approval from at least 80% of both chambers, and "preserve existing majority vote and signature requirements." KMBC's explainer describes the same measure.
- Missouri Secretary of State, 2026 Ballot Measures: Official Ballot Title, Amendment 6 (certified for the November 3, 2026 general election) ↗
- Missouri ballot measures explained ahead of November vote ↗ News report, KMBC
Source last checked Oct 21, 2026
-
Proposition A on the November 3, 2026 ballot: voters decide whether H.B. 1 takes effect
Missouri voters will decide Proposition A, the referendum on H.B. 1. KMBC reports that a “yes” vote upholds H.B. 1 and the 2025 districts, and a “no” vote repeals it and keeps the 2022 map. The 2022 map is the one in use for the November 3 general election.
- What to know about Missouri Proposition A: The state's congressional districts ↗ News report, KMBC
- People Not Politicians v. Onder, No. 26A388 (U.S. Sept. 25, 2026) (per curiam) ↗
Source last checked Oct 23, 2026
-
Supreme Court stays Eighth Circuit order; Missouri's 2022 map stays in use for November 2026
In People Not Politicians v. Onder, decided September 25, 2026, the Supreme Court stayed the district court's September 21 and 22 injunctions and the Eighth Circuit's mandate, writing that “as a matter of state law, the 2022 map—not the 2025 map—must be used in the 2026 congressional election” and that the election “has now begun under the 2022 map.”
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
Eighth Circuit holds Missouri may not use a different map in the general election than in the primary
On September 21, 2026, the Eighth Circuit held that using the 2022 map in the November 2026 general election violates the Constitution, affirmed the temporary restraining order and remanded for a permanent injunction requiring the 2025 map, which had been used in the August 2026 primary. It directed a seven-day administrative stay to allow Supreme Court review.
Source last checked Oct 23, 2026
-
Supreme Court stays federal order requiring Missouri's 2025 map; state court holds the Secretary in contempt
On September 10, 2026, the Supreme Court granted a stay of the district court's September 8 order, without noted dissent, pending Eighth Circuit appeal and any certiorari petition. The Missouri Supreme Court entered a judgment of civil contempt against the Secretary of State the same day, and, per the Eighth Circuit, concluded he purged it by directing local election authorities to use the 2022 map.
- People Not Politicians v. Onder, No. 26A388 (U.S. Sept. 25, 2026) (per curiam) ↗
- Onder v. Missouri, No. 26-2797 (8th Cir. Sept. 21, 2026) ↗
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
Justice Kavanaugh denies Missouri's stay request; a federal court orders use of the 2025 map the same evening
On September 8, 2026, Justice Kavanaugh, as Circuit Justice, denied the Secretary of State's application to stay the Missouri Supreme Court's September 3 decision, leaving the 2022 map in place. That evening a federal district court in Missouri issued a temporary restraining order requiring use of the 2025 map for the general election.
- People Not Politicians v. Onder, No. 26A388 (U.S. Sept. 25, 2026) (per curiam) ↗
- Onder v. Missouri, No. 26-2797 (8th Cir. Sept. 21, 2026) ↗
Source last checked Oct 21, 2026
-
Missouri Supreme Court orders H.B. 1 referendum onto the ballot and bars use of the 2025 map until voters approve it
In von Glahn v. Hoskins, decided September 3, 2026, the Missouri Supreme Court held that article III, section 49 authorizes a referendum on “any act of the general assembly,” so the petition “was legal, sufficient, and timely.” It ordered the Secretary to place it on the November 2026 ballot and enjoined use of the H.B. 1 districts “unless and until HB 1 is approved by the voters.”
- Appendix to Emergency Motion, People Not Politicians v. Onder, No. 26A388 (includes Mo. Supreme Court ruling of Sept. 3, 2026) ↗ News report, People Not Politicians (filing at the U.S. Supreme Court)
- von Glahn v. Hoskins, No. SC101805, opinion issued Sept. 3, 2026 ↗
Source last checked Oct 23, 2026
-
Secretary of State certifies the H.B. 1 referendum petition as insufficient
About an hour before the statutory 5:00 p.m. deadline on August 4, 2026, Secretary of State Denny Hoskins issued a certificate finding the petition “insufficient under the Missouri Constitution because the Missouri Constitution does not authorize a referendum on congressional redistricting plans passed by the General Assembly.” He directed that it not be placed on the November ballot. The Cole County circuit court upheld the certificate, and the Missouri Supreme Court reversed on September 3.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
Secretary of State announces federal SAVE database check flagged about 1,000 registrants
In June 2026 Secretary of State Denny Hoskins announced his office had used the federal SAVE database to identify about 1,000 registered voters it could not confirm are U.S. citizens, and later sent them letters, KCUR reported. At an April federal hearing, then the Secretary’s director of election integrity testified Missouri had already removed more than 300 people after reviewing records through SAVE and other databases.
- Missouri Secretary of State, release of June 22, 2026: Secretary of State Continues Election Integrity Efforts Despite Loss of Subpoena Authority ↗
- Missouri can keep using disputed federal voter database to review eligibility before election (Sept. 30, 2026) ↗ News report, KCUR
Source last checked Oct 21, 2026
-
Missouri Supreme Court upholds the 2025 congressional map against compactness challenges
In Healey v. State and Wise v. State, decided May 12, 2026, the Missouri Supreme Court held that “the 2025 Map was not drawn in a manner violative of article III, section 45” and affirmed the circuit court's judgment, limiting its review to “the legality – not the prudence or popularity – of the map.” The same day, in Maggard v. State, it held that filing the referendum petition did not automatically suspend H.B. 1.
- Healey v. State, Nos. SC 101570, SC 101572 (Mo. May 12, 2026) ↗
- Maggard v. State, No. SC 101581 (Mo. May 12, 2026) ↗
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
Missouri Supreme Court rules the General Assembly may redraw congressional districts mid-decade
In Luther v. Hoskins, decided March 24, 2026, the Missouri Supreme Court held H.B. 1 valid because article III, section 45 “obligates the General Assembly to redistrict when the United States census is certified to the governor but does not otherwise expressly limit the General Assembly's plenary power to legislate congressional districts.”
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
Missouri Supreme Court rules challengers to the photo ID law lacked standing
In Missouri State Conference of the NAACP v. State, decided March 24, 2026, the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the part of the circuit court's judgment finding that the NAACP, the League of Women Voters of Missouri and three individuals lacked standing to challenge H.B. 1878, and reversed the part that had decided the constitutional claims on the merits.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
Missouri Supreme Court rejects 2022 limits on voter registration drives
On March 24, 2026, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that parts of a 2022 elections law were “facially unconstitutional restrictions on core political speech” and left in place a lower court ruling permanently blocking them, St. Louis Public Radio reported. The provisions barred paying people to run registration drives and required anyone soliciting more than 10 registrations to register with the state.
- Supreme Court of Missouri en banc, State of Missouri v. League of Women Voters of Missouri, No. SC100997, opinion issued March 24, 2026 (copy posted by Democracy Docket) ↗
- Missouri Supreme Court throws out voter registration restrictions, keeps voter photo ID (Mar. 24, 2026) ↗ News report, St. Louis Public Radio
Source last checked Oct 23, 2026
2025
-
Organizers file referendum petition against H.B. 1 with more than 300,000 signatures
On September 29, 2025, referendum organizers submitted a petition form to the Secretary of State, who approved it for circulation. On December 9, 2025, they delivered 691 boxes purporting to hold more than 300,000 signatures. The question will be on the November 3, 2026 ballot as Proposition A.
- Appendix to Emergency Motion, People Not Politicians v. Onder, No. 26A388 (includes Mo. Supreme Court ruling of Sept. 3, 2026) ↗
- What to know about Missouri Proposition A: The state’s congressional districts ↗ News report, KMBC
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
Governor signs H.B. 1, a new congressional map passed in an extraordinary session
In an extraordinary session called by Governor Mike Kehoe, the General Assembly passed H.B. 1, which repealed the 2022 map and enacted new boundaries; the session adjourned on September 12, 2025. The bill passed 21 to 11 in the Senate and 90 to 65 in the House. Governor Kehoe signed it on September 28, 2025. It had no emergency clause, so it could take effect only 90 days after the session adjourned, according to the Eighth Circuit's September 21, 2026 opinion.
Source last checked Oct 23, 2026
2024
-
Missouri voters approve Amendment 7: citizenship wording and a ban on ranked-choice voting
On November 5, 2024, Missouri voters approved Amendment 7 by roughly two to one, according to KCUR. It prohibits ranked-choice and approval voting, with St. Louis's existing approval voting continuing because it predates the ban, and changes the constitution to say “only” U.S. citizens may vote rather than “all” U.S. citizens.
- Missouri Secretary of State, General Election, November 5, 2024 results (Constitutional Amendment 7: 1,966,852 yes, 68.4%; 906,851 no, 31.6%) ↗
- Missouri passes Amendment 7 to ban ranked choice and non-citizen voting (Nov. 5, 2024) ↗ News report, KCUR
Source last checked Oct 21, 2026
2022
-
Governor signs H.B. 1878: photo ID or provisional ballot, in-person no-excuse absentee voting, drop box ban
In June 2022 Governor Mike Parson signed H.B. 1878. As described by KY3, it requires photo ID to vote, lets voters cast a no-excuse absentee ballot in person at the local election authority starting two weeks before an election, prohibits ballot drop boxes for absentee ballots, and makes paper the official ballot. The Missouri Supreme Court later described the ID provision: voters without a compliant photo ID may cast only a provisional ballot.
- Missouri Gov. Parson signs election law; changes to voter ID and other provisions (July 1, 2022) ↗ News report, KY3
- Missouri State Conference of the NAACP v. State, No. SC 100965 (Mo. Mar. 24, 2026) ↗
- Mo. Gov. Parson signs bill requiring voter ID, repealing use of mail-in ballots (June 29, 2022) ↗ News report, KFVS12
Source last checked Oct 21, 2026
-
Missouri enacts its 2022 congressional map (H.B. 2909)
After the 2020 Census apportioned Missouri eight seats, the General Assembly passed H.B. 2909, which became law on the governor's signature and set the congressional districts used in the 2022 and 2024 primary and general elections.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
2020
-
Missouri voters pass Amendment 3, replacing the 2018 Clean Missouri state legislative redistricting system
On November 3, 2020, Missouri voters passed Amendment 3, which ended the state legislative redistricting system voters had backed in 2018. Under it, bipartisan commissions or appellate judges draw state legislative maps, with compactness moved up the list of criteria. St. Louis Public Radio reported it passing with 51% with 98% of votes counted.
- Missouri Secretary of State, November 3, 2020 General Election results (Constitutional Amendment 3: 1,489,503 yes, 51.0%; 1,430,358 no, 49.0%; all 3,692 precincts) ↗
- Missourians Scrap Clean Missouri Redistricting Plan, Pass Amendment 3 (Nov. 4, 2020) ↗ News report, St. Louis Public Radio
Source last checked Oct 21, 2026
-
Missouri Supreme Court rules on the photo ID statute's affidavit option
In Priorities USA v. State of Missouri, decided January 14, 2020, the Missouri Supreme Court held that the affidavit requirement of sections 115.427.2(1) and 115.427.3 is “misleading and contradictory” and affirmed the circuit court's injunction against requiring the affidavit and against materials saying photo identification is required to vote.
Source last checked Oct 24, 2026
2016
-
Missouri voters approve Amendment 6, letting the Legislature require voters to show identification, including photo ID
On November 8, 2016, Missouri voters adopted Amendment 6, now Article VIII, Section 11 of the Missouri Constitution, which provides that "A person seeking to vote in person in public elections may be required by general law to identify himself or herself and verify his or her qualifications as a citizen of the United States of America and a resident of the state of Missouri by providing election officials with a form of identification, which may include valid government-issued photo identification." The Revisor of Statutes lists it as effective December 8, 2016. The News Tribune's election-night tally, with nearly all precincts reporting, showed Yes 1,699,639 (63 percent) and No 994,769 (37 percent); that figure is unofficial.
- Missouri Revisor of Statutes: Constitution, Article VIII, Section 11 (adopted Nov. 8, 2016) ↗
- Jefferson City News Tribune, "Missouri amendment and ballot initiative results," Nov. 9, 2016 ↗ News report, Jefferson City News Tribune
Source last checked Oct 21, 2026
-
Missouri legislature passes a new photo ID statute, effective 2017
In 2016 the Missouri legislature passed section 115.427, effective in 2017. It set three ways to identify: a listed photo ID; a listed non-photo ID with a signed affidavit; or a provisional ballot that counts if the voter returns with photo ID or the signature matches the one on file.
Source last checked Oct 24, 2026
2012
-
Missouri Supreme Court upholds the 2011 congressional map after trial
In Pearson v. Koster, decided May 25, 2012, the Missouri Supreme Court held that the trial court did not err in its reading of the constitutional compactness standard, which “does not require absolute precision,” and that the plaintiffs did not prevail on their claim that the judgment was against the weight of the evidence. Judgments for the State were affirmed.
Source last checked Oct 24, 2026
-
Missouri Supreme Court reinstates challenges to the 2011 congressional map
In Pearson v. Koster, decided January 17, 2012, the Missouri Supreme Court reversed circuit court judgments that had dismissed two suits claiming the districts were not “as compact ... as may be,” and remanded the cases, saying the pleadings raised “issues of fact” about House districts 3 and 5.
Congressional districts named: MO-3, MO-5
Source last checked Oct 24, 2026
2011
-
Missouri Legislature overrides veto and adopts H.B. 193 congressional map for eight districts
After the 2010 Census Missouri lost a seat and had to draw eight districts. Both houses approved a map in H.B. 193 in April 2011, Governor Jay Nixon vetoed it, and the General Assembly voted to override the veto and adopted the map on May 4, 2011.
Source last checked Oct 24, 2026
2008
-
Eighth Circuit rules in the United States' voter-list suit against Missouri
In United States v. Missouri, decided July 29, 2008, the Eighth Circuit reviewed the Justice Department's claim that Missouri violated the National Voter Registration Act. The district court had found Missouri made a reasonable effort at list maintenance; the Eighth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for reconsideration.
Source last checked Oct 24, 2026
2006
-
Missouri Supreme Court strikes down the 2006 photo ID requirement for voting
In Weinschenk v. State, decided October 16, 2006, the Missouri Supreme Court said it “agrees that SB 1014’s Photo-ID Requirement violates Missouri’s equal protection clause” and the state constitutional right to vote, finding it “not narrowly tailored” to preventing voter fraud.
Source last checked Oct 24, 2026
Nationwide
2026
-
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.
- Complaint, OCA-Asian Pacific American Advocates v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 3:26-cv-12617 (N.D. Cal., filed Oct. 28, 2026) (plaintiffs' file-stamped copy) ↗ News report, ACLU
- Voting and Civil Rights Groups File Lawsuit to Stop Unlawful Federal Intimidation of Naturalized Citizen Voters (October 28, 2026) ↗ News report, ACLU of Northern California
Source last checked Oct 28, 2026
-
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.
Source last checked Oct 27, 2026
-
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.
- U.S. District Court, D.D.C.: DSCC v. Trump, No. 1:26-cv-03674-JEB, docket (TRO motion entered October 26, 2026; opposition and reply October 27 and 28) ↗
- Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 19 (filed October 26, 2026; court filing copy on CourtListener) ↗ News report, CourtListener (RECAP)
- Joint Scheduling Notice, ECF No. 20 (October 27, 2026; court filing copy on CourtListener) ↗ News report, CourtListener (RECAP)
Source last checked Oct 28, 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.