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

South Carolina

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

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

Congressional districts in South Carolina

Choose a district to see the events tagged to it. A number after the district is how many events name it.

Kind of event
Decade

In South Carolina

2026

  1. Oct 8, 2026 County Polling places and drop boxes Reported

    ACLU says Clarendon County board's polling-site consolidations break state law

    Democracy Docket reported that in an October 8, 2026 letter to State Election Commission chairman Conway Belangia, ACLU of South Carolina lawyers said the Clarendon County Board of Voter Registration and Elections violated the law by closing voting sites, leaving eight precincts voting at four locations, and that about 10% of the county's voting-age population would have to vote outside their precinct. The ACLU's analysis says the changes affect over 61% of the county's Black voting population; the letter notes that under state law only the General Assembly sets precincts. Board chairman Edward Gamble described the changes as "moving locations only." In an October 8 reply to county Democratic chair and auditor Patricia Pringle, Belangia wrote that polling places may change for a variety of reasons and the county board would have the details.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  2. May 26, 2026 State Maps and lines Failed

    South Carolina Senate fails to advance a mid-decade congressional map

    NPR reported that on May 26, 2026 the state Senate did not advance a redistricting bill urged by President Trump that would have made all seven congressional districts lean Republican. A procedural vote to end debate failed when 12 Republicans joined 12 Democrats to block the 26 votes needed. Early voting for the June 9 primary had begun that day. The Senate Journal for May 26, 2026 records that on H. 5683 a motion under Rule 15B to close debate failed 20 to 24 at 1:28 p.m., and that the Senate then adopted a motion to continue the bill, 26 to 18.

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

2025

  1. Sep 17, 2025 State Courts and officials Decided by a court

    South Carolina Supreme Court holds partisan-map claim under the state constitution is a political question

    In League of Women Voters of South Carolina v. Alexander (Opinion No. 28301, heard June 24, 2025, filed September 17, 2025), the state Supreme Court, in its original jurisdiction, wrote: "We hold the League's partisan gerrymandering claim presents a nonjusticiable political question and dismiss the League's claims with prejudice."

    Related: Supreme Court decides Rucho v. Common Cause

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

  2. Sep 11, 2025 State Courts and officials Decided by a court

    South Carolina Supreme Court lifts order blocking release of voter data to the Justice Department

    WIS reported that on Thursday, September 11, 2025 the South Carolina Supreme Court overturned a circuit judge's temporary restraining order that had blocked the State Election Commission from handing over data on the state's 3.3 million registered voters, sought by the U.S. Department of Justice. A Calhoun County voter had sued, citing the state constitution's privacy guarantee.

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

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  3. September 2025 State Courts and officials Reported

    State Election Commission fires its executive director; ACLU sues over the closed meeting in 2026

    WRDW reported that the State Election Commission fired executive director Howard Knapp in September 2025 amid a State Law Enforcement Division investigation, and that the ACLU of South Carolina sued the commission in Richland County on September 17, 2026, alleging the closed meeting violated the state Freedom of Information Act. The report says the commission declined to comment on the suit.

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

2023

  1. Jan 6, 2023 Congressional district: SC-1 Courts and officials Struck down

    Three-judge court holds South Carolina's Congressional District 1 an unconstitutional racial classification

    A later order in the case states that the court "issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on January 6, 2023, which concluded that Congressional District No. 1 constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander in violation of the Equal Protection Clause," and enjoined elections in the district until a valid plan was approved. The Supreme Court reversed in part on May 23, 2024.

    Related: South Carolina adopts a new congressional map after the 2020 census · Supreme Court decides Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

2022

  1. May 13, 2022 State Laws and rules Enacted

    Governor signs Act 150 (S.108), creating early voting in South Carolina

    The legislature's bill page for S.108 records passage by the General Assembly on May 12, 2022 and signature by the Governor on May 13, 2022, as Act No. 150. The act adds Section 7-13-25 to the Code of Laws "so as to establish early voting in the State," and amends the witness requirement and the reasons allowed for absentee voting.

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

  2. January 2022 State Maps and lines Enacted

    South Carolina adopts a new congressional map after the 2020 census

    The Supreme Court's opinion states that the legislature voted to adopt the enacted plan and the Governor signed it into law in January 2022. The opinion says the plan raised District 1's projected Republican vote share by 1.36% to 54.39% and its black voting-age population from 16.56% to 16.72%.

    Congressional districts named: SC-1, SC-6

    Related: Three-judge court holds South Carolina's Congressional District 1 an unconstitutional racial classification · Supreme Court decides Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

2020

  1. Oct 5, 2020 State Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Supreme Court stays order that had blocked South Carolina's absentee ballot witness requirement

    On October 5, 2020, the Supreme Court granted in part South Carolina's application, staying the district court's September 18, 2020 preliminary injunction pending appeal, "except to the extent that any ballots cast before this stay issues and received within two days of this order may not be rejected for failing to comply with the witness requirement." Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch would have granted the application in full.

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

2019

  1. September 2019 County Polling places and drop boxes Reported

    Report counts 4 more polling places in Aiken County in 2018 than in 2012

    The Leadership Conference Education Fund, a civil rights coalition, reported in September 2019 that Aiken County had 69 Election Day polling places in the 2012 general election and 73 in 2018, a change of +4 (6%). The report lists the 2012 count as from a hand count of polling-place lists and the 2018 count as from a hand count of polling-place lists. The report covers counties once covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  2. September 2019 County Polling places and drop boxes Reported

    Report counts 3 more polling places in Anderson County in 2018 than in 2012

    The Leadership Conference Education Fund, a civil rights coalition, reported in September 2019 that Anderson County had 75 Election Day polling places in the 2012 general election and 78 in 2018, a change of +3 (4%). The report lists the 2012 count as from a hand count of polling-place lists and the 2018 count as from a hand count of polling-place lists. The report covers counties once covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  3. September 2019 County Polling places and drop boxes Reported

    Report counts 1 fewer polling place in Barnwell County in 2018 than in 2012

    The Leadership Conference Education Fund, a civil rights coalition, reported in September 2019 that Barnwell County had 10 Election Day polling places in the 2012 general election and 9 in 2018, a change of -1 (-10%). The report lists the 2012 count as from a hand count of polling-place lists and the 2018 count as from a hand count of polling-place lists. The report covers counties once covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  4. September 2019 County Polling places and drop boxes Reported

    Report counts 1 fewer polling place in Beaufort County in 2018 than in 2012

    The Leadership Conference Education Fund, a civil rights coalition, reported in September 2019 that Beaufort County had 58 Election Day polling places in the 2012 general election and 57 in 2018, a change of -1 (-2%). The report lists the 2012 count as from a hand count of polling-place lists and the 2018 count as from a hand count of polling-place lists. The report covers counties once covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  5. September 2019 County Polling places and drop boxes Reported

    Report counts 7 more polling places in Berkeley County in 2018 than in 2012

    The Leadership Conference Education Fund, a civil rights coalition, reported in September 2019 that Berkeley County had 48 Election Day polling places in the 2012 general election and 55 in 2018, a change of +7 (15%). The report lists the 2012 count as from a hand count of polling-place lists and the 2018 count as from a hand count of polling-place lists. The report covers counties once covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  6. September 2019 County Polling places and drop boxes Reported

    Report counts 10 fewer polling places in Charleston County in 2018 than in 2012

    The Leadership Conference Education Fund, a civil rights coalition, reported in September 2019 that Charleston County had 105 Election Day polling places in the 2012 general election and 95 in 2018, a change of -10 (-10%). The report lists the 2012 count as from a hand count of polling-place lists and the 2018 count as from a hand count of polling-place lists. The report covers counties once covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  7. September 2019 County Polling places and drop boxes Reported

    Report counts 1 more polling place in Chester County in 2018 than in 2012

    The Leadership Conference Education Fund, a civil rights coalition, reported in September 2019 that Chester County had 20 Election Day polling places in the 2012 general election and 21 in 2018, a change of +1 (5%). The report lists the 2012 count as from a hand count of polling-place lists and the 2018 count as from a hand count of polling-place lists. The report covers counties once covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  8. September 2019 County Polling places and drop boxes Reported

    Report counts 1 more polling place in Colleton County in 2018 than in 2012

    The Leadership Conference Education Fund, a civil rights coalition, reported in September 2019 that Colleton County had 31 Election Day polling places in the 2012 general election and 32 in 2018, a change of +1 (3%). The report lists the 2012 count as from a hand count of polling-place lists and the 2018 count as from a hand count of polling-place lists. The report covers counties once covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  9. September 2019 County Polling places and drop boxes Reported

    Report counts 3 fewer polling places in Dorchester County in 2018 than in 2012

    The Leadership Conference Education Fund, a civil rights coalition, reported in September 2019 that Dorchester County had 40 Election Day polling places in the 2012 general election and 37 in 2018, a change of -3 (-8%). The report lists the 2012 count as from a hand count of polling-place lists and the 2018 count as from a hand count of polling-place lists. The report covers counties once covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  10. September 2019 County Polling places and drop boxes Reported

    Report counts 1 more polling place in Edgefield County in 2018 than in 2012

    The Leadership Conference Education Fund, a civil rights coalition, reported in September 2019 that Edgefield County had 10 Election Day polling places in the 2012 general election and 11 in 2018, a change of +1 (10%). The report lists the 2012 count as from a hand count of polling-place lists and the 2018 count as from a hand count of polling-place lists. The report covers counties once covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  11. September 2019 County Polling places and drop boxes Reported

    Report counts 2 fewer polling places in Florence County in 2018 than in 2012

    The Leadership Conference Education Fund, a civil rights coalition, reported in September 2019 that Florence County had 61 Election Day polling places in the 2012 general election and 59 in 2018, a change of -2 (-3%). The report lists the 2012 count as from a hand count of polling-place lists and the 2018 count as from a hand count of polling-place lists. The report covers counties once covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  12. September 2019 County Polling places and drop boxes Reported

    Report counts 1 more polling place in Georgetown County in 2018 than in 2012

    The Leadership Conference Education Fund, a civil rights coalition, reported in September 2019 that Georgetown County had 31 Election Day polling places in the 2012 general election and 32 in 2018, a change of +1 (3%). The report lists the 2012 count as from a hand count of polling-place lists and the 2018 count as from a hand count of polling-place lists. The report covers counties once covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  13. September 2019 County Polling places and drop boxes Reported

    Report counts 5 more polling places in Greenwood County in 2018 than in 2012

    The Leadership Conference Education Fund, a civil rights coalition, reported in September 2019 that Greenwood County had 45 Election Day polling places in the 2012 general election and 50 in 2018, a change of +5 (11%). The report lists the 2012 count as from a hand count of polling-place lists and the 2018 count as from a hand count of polling-place lists. The report covers counties once covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  14. September 2019 County Polling places and drop boxes Reported

    Report counts 5 more polling places in Horry County in 2018 than in 2012

    The Leadership Conference Education Fund, a civil rights coalition, reported in September 2019 that Horry County had 117 Election Day polling places in the 2012 general election and 122 in 2018, a change of +5 (4%). The report lists the 2012 count as from a hand count of polling-place lists and the 2018 count as from a hand count of polling-place lists. The report covers counties once covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  15. September 2019 County Polling places and drop boxes Reported

    Report counts 1 more polling place in Jasper County in 2018 than in 2012

    The Leadership Conference Education Fund, a civil rights coalition, reported in September 2019 that Jasper County had 13 Election Day polling places in the 2012 general election and 14 in 2018, a change of +1 (8%). The report lists the 2012 count as from a hand count of polling-place lists and the 2018 count as from a hand count of polling-place lists. The report covers counties once covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  16. September 2019 County Polling places and drop boxes Reported

    Report counts 1 fewer polling place in Kershaw County in 2018 than in 2012

    The Leadership Conference Education Fund, a civil rights coalition, reported in September 2019 that Kershaw County had 34 Election Day polling places in the 2012 general election and 33 in 2018, a change of -1 (-3%). The report lists the 2012 count as from a hand count of polling-place lists and the 2018 count as from a hand count of polling-place lists. The report covers counties once covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  17. September 2019 County Polling places and drop boxes Reported

    Report counts 7 more polling places in Lancaster County in 2018 than in 2012

    The Leadership Conference Education Fund, a civil rights coalition, reported in September 2019 that Lancaster County had 29 Election Day polling places in the 2012 general election and 36 in 2018, a change of +7 (24%). The report lists the 2012 count as from a hand count of polling-place lists and the 2018 count as from a hand count of polling-place lists. The report covers counties once covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  18. September 2019 County Polling places and drop boxes Reported

    Report counts 3 more polling places in Lexington County in 2018 than in 2012

    The Leadership Conference Education Fund, a civil rights coalition, reported in September 2019 that Lexington County had 91 Election Day polling places in the 2012 general election and 94 in 2018, a change of +3 (3%). The report lists the 2012 count as from a hand count of polling-place lists and the 2018 count as from a hand count of polling-place lists. The report covers counties once covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  19. September 2019 County Polling places and drop boxes Reported

    Report counts 1 more polling place in McCormick County in 2018 than in 2012

    The Leadership Conference Education Fund, a civil rights coalition, reported in September 2019 that McCormick County had 10 Election Day polling places in the 2012 general election and 11 in 2018, a change of +1 (10%). The report lists the 2012 count as from a hand count of polling-place lists and the 2018 count as from a hand count of polling-place lists. The report covers counties once covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  20. September 2019 County Polling places and drop boxes Reported

    Report counts 20 more polling places in Richland County in 2018 than in 2012

    The Leadership Conference Education Fund, a civil rights coalition, reported in September 2019 that Richland County had 122 Election Day polling places in the 2012 general election and 142 in 2018, a change of +20 (16%). The report lists the 2012 count as from a hand count of polling-place lists and the 2018 count as from a hand count of polling-place lists. The report covers counties once covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  21. September 2019 County Polling places and drop boxes Reported

    Report counts 3 more polling places in York County in 2018 than in 2012

    The Leadership Conference Education Fund, a civil rights coalition, reported in September 2019 that York County had 86 Election Day polling places in the 2012 general election and 89 in 2018, a change of +3 (3%). The report lists the 2012 count as from a hand count of polling-place lists and the 2018 count as from a hand count of polling-place lists. The report covers counties once covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

2012

  1. Oct 10, 2012 State Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Three-judge court grants preclearance of South Carolina photo ID law starting in 2013

    On October 10, 2012, a three-judge court in the District of Columbia wrote that it granted "pre-clearance for South Carolina to implement Act R54 for future elections beginning with any elections in 2013." The court concluded the law as interpreted by state officials did not have a discriminatory retrogressive effect and was not enacted for a discriminatory purpose.

    Related: South Carolina enacts Act R54, requiring photo ID to vote with a "reasonable impediment" exception · Supreme Court decides Shelby County v. Holder · Justice Department objects under Section 5 to the photo ID requirement in South Carolina Act R54

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

  2. 2012 State Courts and officials Upheld

    Three-judge court upholds South Carolina's 2011 congressional map in Backus v. South Carolina

    The Supreme Court's opinion in Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP states that the Justice Department precleared the 2011 congressional map and that a three-judge District Court upheld it against "racial-gerrymandering and intentional vote-dilution claims" in Backus v. South Carolina, 857 F. Supp. 2d 553, summarily affirmed, 568 U.S. 801 (2012).

    Related: South Carolina adopts a new congressional map after the 2020 census · Supreme Court decides Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

2011

  1. Dec 23, 2011 State Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to the photo ID requirement in South Carolina Act R54

    In a letter of December 23, 2011, the Justice Department wrote that it did not object to sections 1, 2, 3 and 6 of Act R54 (2011) but that, as to section 5, which would require voters to present one of five forms of photo identification to vote in person, "I cannot conclude that the state has sustained its burden under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Therefore, on behalf of the Attorney General, I must object to section 5 of Act R54." The letter cites the state's own data: 239,333 registered voters (8.9%) lacked DMV-issued photo ID, including 8.4% of white registered voters and 10.0% of non-white registered voters, and it says the submission did not include evidence of in-person voter impersonation that the new rule could deter.

    Related: South Carolina enacts Act R54, requiring photo ID to vote with a "reasonable impediment" exception · Three-judge court grants preclearance of South Carolina photo ID law starting in 2013

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  2. May 2011 State Laws and rules Enacted

    South Carolina enacts Act R54, requiring photo ID to vote with a "reasonable impediment" exception

    According to the three-judge court, the General Assembly passed Act R54 on May 11, 2011, and Governor Nikki Haley then signed it. The court described the law as adding passports, military IDs and a free photo voter registration card to accepted IDs, and as allowing voters with a non-photo registration card to vote after signing an affidavit stating the reason they had not obtained a photo ID.

    Related: Three-judge court grants preclearance of South Carolina photo ID law starting in 2013 · Justice Department objects under Section 5 to the photo ID requirement in South Carolina Act R54

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

2008

  1. Mar 21, 2008 County Maps and lines Settled

    Court enters consent decree on Georgetown County school board elections

    On March 14, 2008, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Georgetown County School District (D.S.C.) alleging violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, on the ground that the at-large methods of electing the board diluted African American voting strength. The court entered a consent decree on March 21, 2008.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

2004

  1. Nov 29, 2004 County Maps and lines Decided by a court

    Supreme Court denies review of ruling that Charleston County at-large council elections violated Section 2

    The Justice Department alleged in its complaint (D.S.C., listed as filed in 2001) that the at-large method of electing members of the Charleston County council violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. After trial the district court found the method violated Section 2, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed in a decision reported at 365 F.3d 341 (2004). The Department's page says certiorari was denied on November 29, 2004.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  2. Jun 25, 2004 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to numbered posts and majority vote for Richland-Lexington School District 5

    In a letter of June 25, 2004, the Justice Department stated that, on behalf of the Attorney General, it must object to the adoption of numbered posts and a majority-vote requirement for electing board members of Richland-Lexington School District No. 5 under Act 326 (2002). The letter reports that about 14 percent of the district's voting-age population was black.

    Counties: Richland County, Lexington County

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

  3. Feb 26, 2004 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to partisan elections for the Charleston County School Board

    In a letter listed as dated February 26, 2004, the Justice Department addressed Act R.88 (2003), which changed the method of electing the Charleston County School District board of trustees from nonpartisan to partisan elections. The letter states that, on behalf of the Attorney General, the writer was "compelled to object" to the Act, citing findings in United States v. Charleston County (D.S.C. March 6, 2003).

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

2003

  1. Sep 16, 2003 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in North (Orangeburg County): Annexations

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated September 16, 2003, to North (Orangeburg County). The list describes the change as "Annexations." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  2. Jun 16, 2003 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Cherokee County School District No. 1 (Cherokee County): Reduction in the size of the school board

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated June 16, 2003, to Cherokee County School District No. 1 (Cherokee County). The list describes the change as "Reduction in the size of the school board." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

2002

  1. Dec 9, 2002 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Clinton (Laurens County): Annexations designation to Ward 1

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated December 9, 2002, to Clinton (Laurens County). The list describes the change as "Annexations designation to Ward 1." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  2. Sep 3, 2002 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Union County School District (Union County): 2002 redistricting plan

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated September 3, 2002, to Union County School District (Union County). The list describes the change as "2002 redistricting plan." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  3. Jun 27, 2002 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Sumter County: 2001 redistricting plan

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated June 27, 2002, to Sumter County. The list describes the change as "2001 redistricting plan." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

2001

  1. Nov 2, 2001 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Greer (Greenville and Spartanburg Counties): 2001 redistricting plan

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated November 2, 2001, to Greer (Greenville and Spartanburg Counties). The list describes the change as "2001 redistricting plan." The list links the objection letter.

    Counties: Greenville County, Spartanburg County

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  2. Oct 12, 2001 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to the City of Charleston's 2001 council plan

    In a letter of October 12, 2001, the Justice Department stated that, on behalf of the Attorney General, it must object to the City of Charleston's 2001 redistricting plan. The letter says the plan would reduce the number of majority-minority council districts from six to five, and it questions combining existing District 2 with District 4 given projected growth on Daniel Island, in the Berkeley County portion of the city.

    Counties: Charleston County, Berkeley County

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

1998

  1. May 20, 1998 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to Horry County's 1997 council redistricting plan

    The Justice Department's letter, listed as dated May 20, 1998 (the letter text references April 9, 1998), states that, on behalf of the Attorney General, the writer must object to the 1997 redistricting plan for the Horry County council, and that the plan continues to be legally unenforceable until the objection is withdrawn or a judgment is obtained from the District of Columbia court.

    Related: Federal court finds two Horry County council districts violated Shaw v. Reno principles

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

1997

  1. Oct 31, 1997 County Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Federal court finds two Horry County council districts violated Shaw v. Reno principles

    A 1998 Justice Department letter states that on October 31, 1997 the federal district court (C.A. No. 4:97-0273-12, D.S.C.), based on stipulated liability by the county, found that Districts 7 and 9 of Horry County's existing redistricting plan violated the constitutional principles recognized in Shaw v. Reno, and ordered the county to adopt a remedial plan and submit it for Section 5 review.

    Related: Justice Department objects under Section 5 to Horry County's 1997 council redistricting plan · Supreme Court decides Shaw v. Reno

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

  2. Apr 1, 1997 State Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to South Carolina's 1997 state Senate plan

    In a letter of April 1, 1997, the Justice Department stated that, on behalf of the Attorney General, it must object to the 1997 redistricting plan for the South Carolina Senate, and also objected on the ground that the plan represented a clear violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The Senate asked for reconsideration; in a letter of May 14, 1997 the Department stated it no longer based the objection on Section 2 but declined to withdraw it as to proposed District 37.

    Related: Federal court addresses South Carolina's 1995 state Senate plan in Smith v. Beasley

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

1996

  1. Mar 5, 1996 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Gaffney Board of Public Works (Cherokee County): Readoption of the at-large method of election

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated March 5, 1996, to Gaffney Board of Public Works (Cherokee County). The list describes the change as "Readoption of the at-large method of election." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  2. 1996 State Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Federal court addresses South Carolina's 1995 state Senate plan in Smith v. Beasley

    A 1997 Justice Department letter refers to the order in Smith v. Beasley, 946 F. Supp. 1174 (D.S.C. 1996), and to "constitutional infirmities" the court identified in the State Senate plan embodied in Act No. 49 (1995). The letter treated that plan, modified to address those problems, as the benchmark for its 1997 review.

    Related: Justice Department objects under Section 5 to South Carolina's 1997 state Senate plan

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

1995

  1. Nov 20, 1995 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Spartanburg County School District (Spartanburg County)

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated November 20, 1995, to Spartanburg County School District (Spartanburg County). The list describes the change as "Section 19.67 of the 1995-96 State Government Appropriations Act which defunded the school district." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  2. Feb 6, 1995 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Bennettsville (Marlboro County): 1994 redistricting plan

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated February 6, 1995, to Bennettsville (Marlboro County). The list describes the change as "1994 redistricting plan." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

1994

  1. Dec 13, 1994 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Spartanburg County School District (Spartanburg County)

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated December 13, 1994, to Spartanburg County School District (Spartanburg County). The list describes the change as "Act R.631 (1994)--replaces the previously elected county board of education with the appointed Education Oversight Committee." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  2. Oct 17, 1994 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in North Charleston (Berkeley, Charleston, and Dorchester Counties): Eight annexations

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated October 17, 1994, to North Charleston (Berkeley, Charleston, and Dorchester Counties). The list describes the change as "Eight annexations." The list adds the note "Withdrawn 8-20-96." The list links the objection letter.

    Counties: Berkeley County, Charleston County, Dorchester County

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  3. Oct 3, 1994 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Georgetown County School District (Georgetown County)

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated October 3, 1994, to Georgetown County School District (Georgetown County). The list describes the change as "Act R.376 (1994)--provides for the change from a partisan to a nonpartisan election system, including candidate qualifying procedures and filing fees, for the board of trustees." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  4. Aug 15, 1994 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Barnwell (Barnwell County): Majority vote requirement for mayor

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated August 15, 1994, to Barnwell (Barnwell County). The list describes the change as "Majority vote requirement for mayor." The list adds the note "Withdrawn 2-13-95." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  5. Jul 22, 1994 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Florence and Williamsburg Counties: Proposed county boundary change

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated July 22, 1994, to Florence and Williamsburg Counties. The list describes the change as "Proposed county boundary change." The list links the objection letter.

    Counties: Florence County, Williamsburg County

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  6. Jul 22, 1994 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Hemingway (Williamsburg County): Five residential annexations and a special annexation referendum

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated July 22, 1994, to Hemingway (Williamsburg County). The list describes the change as "Five residential annexations and a special annexation referendum." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  7. Jun 6, 1994 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Lee County and Lee County School District

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated June 6, 1994, to Lee County and Lee County School District. The list describes the change as "Special election schedule (including the candidate qualifying period, the selection of an April 19, 1994, special primary election date; May 3, 1994, special run-off election date; and a June 7, 1994, special general election date)." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  8. May 2, 1994 State Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to South Carolina's 1994 state House plan

    In a letter of May 2, 1994, the Justice Department addressed the 1994 redistricting plan for the 124-member South Carolina House of Representatives. The letter states that the plan "continues to be legally unenforceable" until the objection is withdrawn or a judgment is obtained from the District of Columbia court. The letter notes that the existing House plan had been adopted by the federal district court in May 1992.

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

1993

  1. Jul 6, 1993 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Johnston (Edgefield County): Redistricting plan

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated July 6, 1993, to Johnston (Edgefield County). The list describes the change as "Redistricting plan." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  2. Jun 1, 1993 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Batesburg-Leesville (Lexington and Saluda Counties): Majority vote requirement

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated June 1, 1993, to Batesburg-Leesville (Lexington and Saluda Counties). The list describes the change as "Majority vote requirement." The list links the objection letter.

    Counties: Lexington County, Saluda County

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  3. Feb 8, 1993 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Lee County: 1992 redistricting plan

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated February 8, 1993, to Lee County. The list describes the change as "1992 redistricting plan." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  4. Feb 8, 1993 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Lee County School District (Lee County): 1992 redistricting plan

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated February 8, 1993, to Lee County School District (Lee County). The list describes the change as "1992 redistricting plan." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  5. Jan 5, 1993 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Marion County: 1992 redistricting plan

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated January 5, 1993, to Marion County. The list describes the change as "1992 redistricting plan." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  6. Jan 5, 1993 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Marion County School District (Marion County): 1992 redistricting plan

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated January 5, 1993, to Marion County School District (Marion County). The list describes the change as "1992 redistricting plan." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

1992

  1. Nov 9, 1992 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Norway (Orangeburg County): Districting plan for the town council

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated November 9, 1992, to Norway (Orangeburg County). The list describes the change as "Districting plan for the town council." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  2. Aug 28, 1992 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Dorchester County: 1992 redistricting plan

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated August 28, 1992, to Dorchester County. The list describes the change as "1992 redistricting plan." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  3. Jul 21, 1992 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Orangeburg County: 1992 redistricting plan

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated July 21, 1992, to Orangeburg County. The list describes the change as "1992 redistricting plan." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  4. Jun 5, 1992 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Johnston (Edgefield County): 1992 redistricting plan

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated June 5, 1992, to Johnston (Edgefield County). The list describes the change as "1992 redistricting plan." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  5. Jan 17, 1992 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Rock Hill (York County): 1991 redistricting plan for city council districts

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated January 17, 1992, to Rock Hill (York County). The list describes the change as "1991 redistricting plan for city council districts." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

1990

  1. Aug 10, 1990 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in York (York County): Districting plan

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated August 10, 1990, to York (York County). The list describes the change as "Districting plan." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  2. May 7, 1990 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to the City of Chester's candidate filing fees

    In a letter listed as dated May 7, 1990, the Justice Department addressed candidate filing fees adopted by the City of Chester ($150 for city council and $250 for mayor, adopted in 1981). The letter states that, on behalf of the Attorney General, the writer must object to the fees, and that the city had provided no alternative means of securing a place on the ballot.

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

  3. May 3, 1990 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in North Charleston (Charleston, Berkeley, and Dorchester Counties): Districting plan

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated May 3, 1990, to North Charleston (Charleston, Berkeley, and Dorchester Counties). The list describes the change as "Districting plan." The list links the objection letter.

    Counties: Charleston County, Berkeley County, Dorchester County

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  4. Apr 23, 1990 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Anderson County School District

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated April 23, 1990, to Anderson County School District. The list describes the change as "Act R193 (1989)--method of election (three single-member districts and two multi-member districts) and districting plan." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  5. Feb 5, 1990 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Kershaw County: Method of filling school board vacancies and the advisory referendum procedures

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated February 5, 1990, to Kershaw County. The list describes the change as "Method of filling school board vacancies and the advisory referendum procedures." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  6. Feb 2, 1990 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Bennettsville (Marlboro County)

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated February 2, 1990, to Bennettsville (Marlboro County). The list describes the change as "Election schedule for implementing the change in method of electing the city council from at large to single-member districts." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

1989

  1. Jul 18, 1989 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Beaufort County: Method of staggering terms (county council)

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated July 18, 1989, to Beaufort County. The list describes the change as "Method of staggering terms (county council)." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  2. Jun 13, 1989 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Lancaster (Lancaster County)

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated June 13, 1989, to Lancaster (Lancaster County). The list describes the change as "Election method changes: increase in size of council from seven to nine members with six elected from single-member districts and three, including the mayor, elected at large, by plurality vote and staggered terms (Ordinance No. 88-40)." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

1988

  1. Sep 23, 1988 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Richland County: Provisions which require the resignation of full-time and part-time county employees running for office

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated September 23, 1988, to Richland County. The list describes the change as "Provisions which require the resignation of full-time and part-time county employees running for office." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  2. Jul 18, 1988 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in School District No. 4 (Dorchester County): Districting plan

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated July 18, 1988, to School District No. 4 (Dorchester County). The list describes the change as "Act No. R296 (1987)--districting plan." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  3. Jun 28, 1988 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Rock Hill (York County): Nineteen annexations

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated June 28, 1988, to Rock Hill (York County). The list describes the change as "Nineteen annexations." The list adds the note "Withdrawn 10-18-89 upon change in method of election." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

1987

  1. May 22, 1987 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Edgefield County School District (Edgefield County): Districting plan

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated May 22, 1987, to Edgefield County School District (Edgefield County). The list describes the change as "Districting plan." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

1986

  1. Dec 29, 1986 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Bamberg County: Special primary election

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated December 29, 1986, to Bamberg County. The list describes the change as "Special primary election." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  2. Dec 1, 1986 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Dorchester County School District No. 4 (Dorchester County): Appointed interim executive committee for the consolidated district

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated December 1, 1986, to Dorchester County School District No. 4 (Dorchester County). The list describes the change as "Act No. 536 (R632) (1986)--appointed interim executive committee for the consolidated district." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  3. Oct 14, 1986 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Consolidated School District of Aiken County (Aiken and Saluda Counties)

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated October 14, 1986, to Consolidated School District of Aiken County (Aiken and Saluda Counties). The list describes the change as "Implementation schedule for the election of school board members from nine single-member districts." The list links the objection letter.

    Counties: Aiken County, Saluda County

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  4. Oct 10, 1986 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Summerville (Dorchester County): Post-1980 annexations

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated October 10, 1986, to Summerville (Dorchester County). The list describes the change as "Post-1980 annexations; staggered terms." The list adds the note "Withdrawn 10-17-88--upon change in method of election." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  5. Apr 10, 1986 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Sumter (Sumter County): Increase from four to six councilmembers

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated April 10, 1986, to Sumter (Sumter County). The list describes the change as "Increase from four to six councilmembers; method of election; districting plan and annexations." The list adds the note "Objection to annexations Withdrawn 10-17-86 upon change in method of election." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  6. Feb 24, 1986 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Batesburg (Lexington and Saluda Counties): Majority vote requirement

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated February 24, 1986, to Batesburg (Lexington and Saluda Counties). The list describes the change as "Majority vote requirement." The list links the objection letter.

    Counties: Lexington County, Saluda County

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

1985

  1. Oct 21, 1985 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to 45 of 57 annexations to the City of Sumter

    In a letter of October 21, 1985, the Justice Department addressed 57 annexations to the City of Sumter, completed August 23, 1985. It interposed no objection to 12 of them but, as to the remaining 45, notes that "even though black citizens constitute almost 40 percent of the city's population, and although there have been several minority candidacies, no black has been elected to the city council in recent times," in the context of Sumter's at-large system with a majority vote requirement and staggered terms. It says the annexations "have decreased the city's minority population by approximately 4.98 percent" and that "what appears to be a pattern of annexation which seems calculated to take in only whites while excluding predominantly black areas has not been satisfactorily explained." It concludes "on behalf of the Attorney General, I must object to the 45 annexations listed above."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  2. Sep 3, 1985 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to Orangeburg County council districts

    The Justice Department's letter, listed in its index as dated September 3, 1985, concerns the reapportionment of Orangeburg County council districts under County Resolution 84-2-3 (1985). The letter states that the submitted plan "failed to give any meaningful recognition to the significant increase in the county's minority population" over the decade, and that, on behalf of the Attorney General, the writer must object to it.

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

  3. Jul 16, 1985 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to 52 annexations to the City of Spartanburg

    In a letter of July 16, 1985, the Justice Department addressed 105 annexations to the City of Spartanburg, completed May 17, 1985. It interposed no objection to 46 of them, found no determination necessary for others, and did not consider one that was not submitted, but as to 52 it states that "even though blacks constitute over 40 percent of the city's population, and although there have been many minority candidacies, only one black ever has been elected to the city council," which "appears in substantial part to be the result of a general pattern of racially polarized voting occurring in the context of Spartanburg's at-large election system with its staggered terms and majority vote requirement," and that the annexations "seem to exacerbate the difficulty that minorities have participating equally in the electoral process." It concludes "on behalf of the Attorney General, I must object to the 52 annexations listed above."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  4. Jun 28, 1985 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to the candidate qualifying period for the March 1983 Hampton County school trustee special election

    In a letter of June 28, 1985, the Justice Department addressed the procedures for the March 15, 1983 special election for school district trustees for Hampton County School Districts 1 and 2, received April 29, 1985. It recounts that Act No. 549 (April 9, 1982) abolished the county board of education and provided for election of the two local boards, that the Attorney General objected on August 23, 1982 and withdrew the objection on November 19, 1982, and that the county then called a special election. The letter states that the restriction on candidacies "adversely affected the opportunity of black voters to elect candidates of their choice," that the county had given no compelling justification for failing to provide a new candidate qualifying period, and "on behalf of the Attorney General, I must object to the holding of the special election under those conditions."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

1984

  1. Sep 11, 1984 State Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to South Carolina's Act R522 on assistance to voters

    In a letter of September 11, 1984, the Justice Department addressed Act No. R522 (1984), which amends section 7-13-770 of the 1976 South Carolina Code to bring the state into compliance with Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act, which allows a voter who needs assistance because of blindness, disability or inability to read or write to be given assistance by a person of the voter's choice other than the voter's employer or union agent. Under the Act, a voter could receive assistance from anyone chosen except that a manager selected by the chairman of the managers must accompany the voter and helper into the voting booth unless the helper is a family member. The letter states that the Department's view is that the provision "contravenes Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act" and "therefore, on behalf of the Attorney General, I must interpose an objection to Act No. R522 (1984)." A later letter in the same file, answering the state's request for reconsideration, said its analysis had "disclosed nothing which would warrant a change in our previous determination."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  2. Sep 10, 1984 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to the Newberry County Board of Education election and appointment acts

    In a letter of September 10, 1984, the Justice Department addressed Act No. R1400 (1966), which provides for a seven-member County Board of Education with three members appointed by the Governor and two elected from each of two double-member districts to four-year staggered terms, and Act No. R1008 (1972), which changed the method of election to four single-member or multi-member districts, with submissions received in 1972, 1983 and July 12, 1984. It notes that Newberry County was 31.6% black, that no black had ever been elected to the board, that the double-member districts in the 1968 districting plan were "severely malapportioned," and that the county had not provided the information requested in 1972. The letter concludes "on behalf of the Attorney General, I must object to the implementation of the provisions of Acts Nos. R1400 (1966) and R1008 (1972)."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  3. Aug 31, 1984 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department declines to withdraw its Barnwell staggered-terms objection and objects to a majority-vote requirement

    In a letter of August 31, 1984, the Justice Department answered the city's request to reconsider its March 26, 1984 objection to Act No. 960, R117 (1966), which provides four-year staggered terms, and reviewed the city's initial submission of a majority vote requirement for mayor and aldermen, received July 2, 1984. It found "no basis for altering the conclusions that led to the initial Attorney General's decision" and so declined to withdraw the objection. On the majority vote requirement, it noted the city was 37.7 percent black with racially polarized voting and that the only legally enforceable method of election was at large with a plurality vote and concurrent terms, and stated "Implementation of the majority vote requirement, coupled with the at-large method of election and in the context of racial bloc voting, increases the likelihood of 'head-to-head' contests ... thus diminishing the opportunity that would otherwise exist for blacks to utilize single-shot voting," concluding "on behalf of the Attorney General, I must object to the implementation of the majority vote requirement."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  4. Aug 10, 1984 State Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to the proposed special-election schedule for South Carolina's new Senate plan

    In a letter of August 10, 1984, the Justice Department addressed Senate Bill No. 1093, R626 (1984), which establishes a new Senate reapportionment plan and a proposed schedule for implementing it in special elections that year, received August 9, 1984. It says "The Attorney General does not interpose any objection to the voting changes to be occasioned by the senate reapportionment plan embodied in Senate Bill No. 1093," but, as to the schedule for implementing the plan, "although I am compelled to enter this objection, we are willing to assist the State in its efforts to devise an alternate schedule which meets the requirements of federal law." It suggested qualifying August 14 through 28, a first primary on October 9 and a second on October 16, with the general election on November 6, and said that about sixty days before the first primary was the minimum time for a racially fair primary election.

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  5. Jun 11, 1984 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to the at-large, residency-district council elections in Edgefield County under Act 1104

    In a letter of June 11, 1984, the Justice Department addressed Act No. 1104, R1357 (1966), which provides for a three-member county council elected at large from residency districts by plurality vote for two-year nonstaggered terms in Edgefield County, received April 11, 1984. It recalls its February 8, 1979 objection to implementing home rule in the context of the at-large election system, and states "Under these principles and in view of the considerations discussed above, I cannot conclude, as I must under the Voting Rights Act, that that burden has been sustained in this instance. Therefore, on behalf of the Attorney General, I must object to the implementation of the provisions of Act No. 1104 (1966)."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  6. Jun 11, 1984 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to staggered terms and a majority-vote requirement for the Elloree council

    In a letter of June 11, 1984, the Justice Department addressed an April 5, 1984 referendum election, four-year staggered terms for councilmembers, four-year terms for the mayor, and a majority vote requirement for councilmembers and water commissioners in the Town of Elloree, Orangeburg County, completed April 10, 1984. It interposed no objection to the referendum or the four-year term for mayor. It notes blacks were 34.43 percent of the town's population and that "in the context of the racial bloc voting patterns that seem to exist in Elloree, a change from concurrent elections by a simple plurality to staggered terms and a majority vote requirement adversely affect the ability of minorities to elect candidates of their choice," and states "on behalf of the Attorney General, I must object to the change to staggered terms for councilmembers and a majority vote requirement for election to the town council and water commission."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  7. Apr 27, 1984 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to further staggered terms for the Lancaster County school boards in Act R282

    In a letter of April 27, 1984, the Justice Department addressed Act No. R282 (1984) on the method of selecting the county board of education and electing members to the four area boards of trustees in Lancaster County, submitted February 27, 1984. It recalls objections to staggered terms of July 30, 1974 and August 26, 1983, so that "the use of staggered terms in trustee elections has been legally unenforceable throughout this period," and says "on behalf of the Attorney General, I must object to any further use of staggered terms as provided for in Act No. R282 (1984)." It asked the state to report within fifteen days what course Lancaster County planned to take.

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  8. Mar 26, 1984 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to four-year staggered terms for the Barnwell mayor and aldermen

    In a letter of March 26, 1984, the Justice Department addressed Act No. 960, R1117 (1966), which provides four-year staggered terms for the mayor and six aldermen of Barnwell, with an initial submission received August 11, 1983. It notes the city was 37.7 percent black, that aldermen are elected at large, and that "although black candidates have run for the position as alderman in seven of the last nine elections, none has ever been elected." It states "on behalf of the Attorney General, I must object to the implementation of Act No. 960." The letter also notes the city appeared to be implementing a majority-vote feature that had not been submitted for Section 5 preclearance.

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  9. Mar 26, 1984 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to four-year staggered terms for the Jefferson town council

    In a letter of March 26, 1984, the Justice Department addressed the increase in the length of terms for the mayor and councilmembers of the Town of Jefferson, Chesterfield County, from two to four years and the adoption of staggered terms for councilmembers, completed January 27, 1984. It notes that the one black candidate who had been elected to the council came third of eleven in 1976, fourth of seven in 1980 and third of eight in 1982, and that under staggered terms "only the candidates who place first or second will be elected; this likely would eliminate the black representation that has existed." The letter concludes "on behalf of the Attorney General, I must object to the implementation of Ordinance No. 8 (1983), which provides that councilmembers be elected to four-year, staggered terms."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  10. Mar 20, 1984 State Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to the 1984 State Senate primary schedule in Act R321

    In a letter of March 20, 1984, the Justice Department addressed Act R321, the schedule for the 1984 primary elections for the South Carolina Senate, submitted March 13, 1984. Under the resolution the state would begin implementing a reapportionment plan (Act 257), then the subject of a Section 5 declaratory judgment action, State of South Carolina v. United States (D.D.C. No. 83-3626); candidates would qualify under the proposed plan from March 16 through March 30, 1984, and the primary would move from June 12 to July 24, 1984. The letter states "on behalf of the Attorney General, I must interpose a Section 5 objection to the election schedule established by R321," adding that "we stand ready to review promptly a schedule for the conduct of elections as soon as a plan is precleared."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

1983

  1. Aug 26, 1983 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to staggered terms for the Lancaster County board of education and area trustees

    In a letter of August 26, 1983, the Justice Department addressed the method of electing members of the Lancaster County board of education and the area boards of trustees (Act No. R700 of 1976), along with Act Nos. R304 (1977), R767 (1978) and R528 (1982), received complete June 27, 1983. The Attorney General interposed no objection to Acts R304, R528 and R767, but states "I cannot conclude, as I must under the Voting Rights Act, that that burden has been sustained in this instance. Therefore, on behalf of the Attorney General, I must object to the use of staggered terms, which is provided for in Act No. R700 (1976)." It notes the Department had analyzed similar changes in 1974.

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  2. Jan 12, 1983 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to shrinking the Richland County Council

    In a letter of January 12, 1983, the Justice Department addressed a proposed change in the number of Richland County Council members from eleven to seven, scheduled for a referendum on January 18, 1983. The letter states that "on behalf of the Attorney General" the writer was interposing an objection to the proposed change.

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

1982

  1. Dec 27, 1982 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a majority-vote requirement in contested elections in Lancaster

    In a letter of December 27, 1982, the Justice Department addressed Lancaster Ordinance No. 1-74 (filing fees and staggered terms), Ordinance No. 76-15 (a Municipal Election Commission, candidate qualification procedures and a majority vote requirement in judicially contested elections) and Ordinance No. 82-14, completed October 25, 1982. The Attorney General did not object to the changes "except for the use of a majority vote requirement in contested elections." It recalls the September 19, 1978 objection to majority vote requirements in Lancaster elections and says "the bases for the objection ... would appear to be applicable," concluding "on behalf of the Attorney General I must object to the majority vote provision described in Ordinance No. 76-15."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  2. Aug 30, 1982 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to Williamsburg County council and school board districts

    In a letter listed as dated August 30, 1982, the Justice Department addressed the redistricting of county council and school board districts in Williamsburg County, completed June 29, 1982. It found "a noticeable dilution or fragmentation of the minority vote," noting that under the existing plan four of seven districts had black majorities and that under the proposed plan the black electorate "likely will have a realistic opportunity" for success in only three of seven districts "even though they represent over 62 percent of the county's population," and that the districts were "strangely irregular-shaped." It concludes "I must on behalf of the Attorney General, interpose an objection to the redistricting plan for county council and school board districts, pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  3. Aug 23, 1982 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to ending the Hampton County board of education; objection later withdrawn

    In a letter of August 23, 1982, the Justice Department addressed Act No. R398 (1982), which abolishes the county board of education and superintendent of education and changes the method of selecting the boards of education for Districts 1 and 2 from appointive to elective in Hampton County, received June 22, 1982. It found that the change for the District 1 and 2 boards had neither the purpose nor effect of discriminating, but said the county board "has been particularly responsive to the interests and needs of the black community" in a county that is 52 percent black, and concluded "on behalf of the Attorney General, I must object to Act No. R398 (1982)." A later letter in the same file, pursuant to the reconsideration guidelines, stated that the objection to the changes affecting voting in Act No. R398 "is hereby withdrawn."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  4. Aug 16, 1982 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to Marion County council districts; objection later withdrawn

    In a letter of August 16, 1982, the Justice Department addressed Act No. R345 (1982), redistricting the councilmanic districts of Marion County, received June 16, 1982. It states "Under these circumstances, I am unable to conclude ... Accordingly, on behalf of the Attorney General, I must interpose an objection to the submitted redistricting." After the county asked for reconsideration, a later letter in the same file, citing the comments of the black councilmembers who supported the plan and the view that racial bloc voting did not exist to the extent the Department thought likely, found "the concerns which led to the objection sufficiently allayed to warrant a change of that determination" and stated "the objection is withdrawn."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  5. Aug 2, 1982 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to Columbia council districts for lack of information; objection withdrawn December 17, 1982

    In a letter of August 2, 1982, the Justice Department addressed the redistricting of the City of Columbia, Richland County, with supplemental information received June 3, 1982. It says it had asked on May 10, 1982 for information, including on the alternate plans the council considered, that it considered necessary, that the city had declined to forward it, and that "we have not been presented with information sufficient to enable us to conclude that the plan meets the statutory standards." The plan was objected to, with the letter noting the Attorney General would reconsider on receipt of the missing information. In a letter of December 17, 1982, after reviewing new information, the Department wrote that "the objection interposed to the districting of councilmanic districts is hereby withdrawn."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

1981

  1. Nov 18, 1981 State Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to South Carolina's 1981 House reapportionment, Act R249

    In a letter listed in its index as dated November 18, 1981, the Justice Department addressed Act No. R249 (1981), the reapportionment of the South Carolina House of Representatives, received September 19, 1981. The plan had 124 single-member districts, "the overwhelming majority of which are unobjectionable," but the letter found noticeable dilution or fragmentation of the minority vote in districts in Florence, Richland, Lee, Allendale-Bamberg-Barnwell and Jasper-Beaufort counties, and states "I must, on behalf of the Attorney General, interpose an objection to Act No. R249 pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965." A later letter, on the state's request for reconsideration, withdrew the objection only as to the Allendale, Bamberg and Barnwell counties area and declined to withdraw it as to the other parts of the plan.

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

1979

  1. Sep 26, 1979 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a one-year extension of terms of Chester County council members elected at large

    In a letter listed as dated September 26, 1979, the Justice Department addressed Act R293 of 1979, received August 27, 1979, which provides for county council elections by December 1, 1979 or at the 1980 general election. It recalls that on October 28, 1977 the Attorney General objected to the change from single-member districts to at-large elections in Chester County, an objection enforced in United States v. County Council of Chester County (D.S.C.), and that the state then enacted a single-member-district plan precleared August 21, 1979. Because the county council decided not to hold elections in 1979, the Act extended the terms of members elected at large by about a year. The letter states "on behalf of the Attorney General, I must object to the operation of Act R293 (1979) insofar as it extends the terms of office by one additional year of those elected under the at-large system."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  2. Sep 4, 1979 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to transferring school-tax authority to the Colleton County Council

    In a letter of September 4, 1979, the Justice Department addressed Act R82 (1979), which devolved the authority to levy taxes for school purposes from the county legislative delegation to the Colleton County Council, completed July 6, 1979. The letter recalls that Act 780 (1966) and the at-large council-supervisor system were objected to on February 6, 1978, an objection enforced by a three-judge federal court that on March 7, 1979 enjoined future elections under that system and ordered a referendum. It says the proposed transfer "is to a governmental system which has not been precleared under Section 5" and that it is "away from the county legislative delegation, a group which may be more responsive to the concerns of blacks than the current county council elected at-large." A later letter in the same file records that, after an October 23, 1979 referendum produced at-large elections, the Attorney General declined to withdraw the objection.

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  3. Feb 8, 1979 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to at-large elections for the Edgefield County council under Home Rule

    In a letter of February 8, 1979, the Justice Department addressed Edgefield County's implementation of the South Carolina Home Rule Act, completed December 10, 1978. It notes blacks were 32 percent of the population and that council members would be elected at large from residency districts. It says there had been substantial support for a referendum among black voters, that black citizens had petitioned for one in May 1976 and the request was denied and pending before the state supreme court, and that "the promise of public participation in the selection of the form of government and method of election under home rule has simply not been realized in Edgefield County." The letter states "I must interpose an objection to the implementation of the requirements of the South Carolina Home Rule Act in the context of the at-large election system existing in Edgefield County," and that it would reconsider if the county adopted a system such as single-member districts.

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

1978

  1. Dec 12, 1978 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a majority-vote requirement in non-partisan Rock Hill council elections

    In a letter of December 12, 1978, the Justice Department addressed the change in the number and method of election of Rock Hill city council members, from partisan elections to non-partisan elections with a majority vote requirement, and a special city election held on May 25, 1978, completed October 10, 1978. It interposed no objection to the change in number and method of electing the council or to the special election, but stated that, as to the change to non-partisan general elections with a majority vote requirement, "we are unable to conclude, as we must under the Voting Rights Act, that this change will not have a racially discriminatory effect on black voters in the City of Rock Hill."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  2. Oct 2, 1978 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to staggered terms for the St. George town council

    In a letter of October 2, 1978, the Justice Department addressed the change to staggered terms for members of the Town Council of St. George, Dorchester County, completed August 2, 1978. It notes the effect would be to reduce the council positions available in each election from six to three, and that "although blacks constitute about 35 percent of the population of St. George, we have been informed that no blacks have been elected to the city council, and that white voters are generally reluctant to vote for black candidates." The letter concludes "on behalf of the Attorney General, I must interpose an objection to the use of staggered terms by the Town of St. George."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  3. Sep 19, 1978 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to the majority-vote requirement and run-off for the City of Lancaster

    In a letter of September 19, 1978, the Justice Department addressed Ordinances 76-16 and 77-27, the majority vote requirement and run-off election procedures for the City of Lancaster, completed July 21, 1978. It states that blacks "constitute a substantial proportion of the population of the City of Lancaster, that the city council is elected at-large, and that bloc voting along racial lines appears to exist," and "on behalf of the Attorney General, I must interpose an objection to the majority vote requirement contained in Ordinances 76-16 and 77-27." It also asked the city to report within ten days what steps it would take to remedy the use of the majority vote requirement in the December 1976 election, which it said was a violation of Section 5.

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  4. Sep 19, 1978 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to the majority-vote run-off in Nichols

    In a letter of September 19, 1978, the Justice Department addressed an ordinance of January 9, 1978 for the Town of Nichols, completed July 21, 1978. Except as explained, the Attorney General interposed no objection. On Section 6, the majority vote run-off method of election, the letter states that blacks "constitute a substantial proportion of the population of the Town of Nichols, that the Town Council is elected at-large, and that racial bloc voting may exist," and "on behalf of the Attorney General, I must interpose an objection to the majority vote requirement contained in Section 6 of the Ordinance of January 9, 1978."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  5. Jul 5, 1978 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to the majority-vote run-off in Marion

    In a letter of July 5, 1978, the Justice Department addressed the Ordinance for Nonpartisan Election Procedures adopted by the City of Marion, completed May 6, 1978. Except as explained, the Attorney General interposed no objection. On Section 4, the majority vote run-off method of election, it states that blacks "constitute a substantial proportion of the population of the City of Marion, that the city council is elected at-large, and that racial bloc voting exists," and "on behalf of the Attorney General, I must interpose an objection to the majority vote requirement contained in Section 4 of the Ordinance for Nonpartisan Election Procedures."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  6. Jun 30, 1978 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to the majority-vote run-off in Mullins

    In a letter of June 30, 1978, the Justice Department addressed an ordinance of September 29, 1977 for the City of Mullins, completed May 2, 1978. Except as explained, the Attorney General interposed no objection. On Section 6 of the ordinance, the majority vote run-off method of election, the letter states that "blacks constitute a substantial proportion of the population of the City of Mullins, that the city council is elected at-large, and that racial bloc voting may exist," that the city "had advanced no compelling reason for its use," and "on behalf of the Attorney General, I must interpose an objection to the majority vote requirement contained in Section 6 of the Ordinance of September 29, 1977."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  7. Feb 6, 1978 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to Colleton County's council-supervisor form of government and at-large elections

    In a letter of February 6, 1978, the Justice Department addressed Act 780 (1966) and the adoption of the council-supervisor form of government and an at-large electoral system for Colleton County, completed December 8, 1977. It did not object to Act 780, which enlarged the board of commissioners. The combined effect of Act R863 (1976) and the November 1976 referenda was to move from election by district to a six-member county council plus a supervisor elected by the whole county, with a majority vote required for nomination. The letter says blacks were 47% of the population of 27,707, that fairly drawn single-member districts could be expected to yield one or more black-majority districts, and concludes "I must interpose an objection to the council-supervisor form of government and the at-large electoral system for Colleton County."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

1977

  1. Nov 25, 1977 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to at-large election of two members of the Allendale County Board of Education

    In a letter of November 25, 1977, the Justice Department addressed South Carolina Act R329 (1977), which creates an elected seven-member Board of Education for Allendale County, completed September 29, 1977. Five members would be elected from five districts and two at large, with a majority vote required for nomination. The letter states that black persons were 60.1% of the population and 55.7% of the voting age population, that "black candidates have been unable to win primary or general elections for offices elected at large," and "I must interpose an objection to Act R329 (1977)." It adds that records indicated Act No. 112 of 1965 and Act No. 1064 of 1974, which abolished the elected county school boards and the elective office of school superintendent for Allendale County, had not been submitted for Section 5 review.

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  2. Oct 28, 1977 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to at-large elections with residency districts for the Chester County council and school board

    In a letter of October 28, 1977, the Justice Department addressed Act No. 823 (1966), Act No. 826 (1966), Act No. 1341 (1968) and July 1976 county council resolutions on elections for the Chester County Council and Board of School Trustees, completed August 29, 1977. Act 823 changed the county board from five single-member districts to at-large election with one- or two-member residency districts. The letter notes that no black had been elected to the county council though blacks were approximately 39% of the county's population, and states "I must, on behalf of the Attorney General, interpose an objection to that system as set forth in Sections 1 and 2 of Act No. 823 (1966)," with the same objection to the county council election method in the July 1976 resolutions, and "I must, on behalf of the Attorney General interpose an objection to Act No. 826 of 1966" as to the school board.

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  3. Aug 31, 1977 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to the at-large feature of the Bamberg County School Board election system

    In a letter of August 31, 1977, the Justice Department addressed a change in referendum date and in the method of filling vacancies on the Bamberg County School Board, received August 24, 1977. It interposed no objection to the change in referendum date or to the change from appointive to elective filling of vacancies. On the plan for seven school board members, one from each of the seven councilmanic districts, it states that "blacks comprise 42 percent of the registered voters, at least half of the voting age population," and "the injection of an at-large feature, against the background of racial bloc voting that appears to exist in the county, significantly reduces the opportunity for minority voters to select the candidates of their choice. Therefore, I must on behalf of the Attorney General interpose an objection to the at-large feature of the electoral system."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  4. Jun 14, 1977 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to the council election system under Charleston County's Home Rule implementation

    In a letter of June 14, 1977, the Justice Department addressed Charleston County's implementation of the South Carolina Home Rule Act, completed April 15, 1977. It notes that black persons were 31% of the county's population and that, under the proposed ordinance, council members would be elected through a combined use of multi-member residency districts and at-large elections. It observes that two of the nine current council members are black but cites the county's "constant resistance, since 1975, to conducting a referendum which could have ... resulted in the utilization of single member districts," a form of government favored by a majority of the county's black residents, and states "I cannot conclude, as I must under the Voting Rights Act, that that burden has been sustained in this instance," objecting to the election system.

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  5. Jun 3, 1977 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a majority-vote requirement for the Hollywood town council

    In a letter of June 3, 1977, the Justice Department addressed the change to a majority vote requirement for election to the town council of Hollywood, Charleston County, received April 11, 1977. It says that "blacks constitute a substantial proportion of the population of the Town of Hollywood and that pursuant to the present form of government all of the town officials are elected at-large," that the town "has advanced no compelling reason for its use," and "on behalf of the Attorney General, I must interpose an objection to the implementation of the majority vote requirement for the election of town council members."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  6. Mar 22, 1977 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a majority-vote requirement in Pageland

    In a letter of March 22, 1977 to the mayor of Pageland, the Justice Department addressed the change to a majority vote requirement under Section 47-94 of the Home Rule Act, completed January 21, 1977, and an earlier December 1975 change to a plurality vote requirement. It interposed no objection to the 1975 plurality change. It notes that "blacks constitute over 23 percent of the population of the Town of Pageland but ... no black has ever been elected to the town's governing body, despite black candidacies," and states "I must interpose an objection to the implementation of the majority vote requirement for the election of mayor and council members."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

1976

  1. Dec 13, 1976 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a majority-vote requirement in Calhoun Falls

    In a letter of December 13, 1976 to the mayor of Calhoun Falls, the Justice Department addressed the town's change to a majority vote requirement under the Home Rule Act, completed October 18, 1976. It says that "blacks constitute a substantial proportion of the population" and that all councilmen will be elected at large, notes that the one black candidate in 1975 "received the large majority of his votes from the voting box where most of the black voters cast their ballots," and states "I must interpose an objection to the implementation of the majority vote requirement for the election of councilmen."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  2. Dec 3, 1976 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to at-large election of the Sumter County Commission

    In a letter of December 3, 1976, the Justice Department addressed Act No. 371 of 1967 and Sumter County's implementation of the Home Rule Act, completed October 4, 1976. It did not object to the change in form of government but states "although blacks represent a substantial proportion of the population of Sumter County, only one black has ever been elected to the Sumter County Commission," that bloc voting along racial lines likely exists, and that "I must, on behalf of the Attorney General, interpose an objection to the at-large election provisions of Act No. 371 and of the resolution and ordinance implementing the South Carolina Home Rule Act."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  3. Nov 26, 1976 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a majority-vote requirement and staggered terms for the Bishopville council

    In a letter of November 26, 1976, the Justice Department addressed Bishopville's implementation of the Home Rule Act (Act 283), originally received May 3, 1976 and completed September 27, 1976. The six-member council had been elected at large by plurality vote to nonstaggered terms; the town decided that a majority of votes would be required and that terms would be staggered. The Attorney General had not objected to the Home Rule Act itself, but the letter says changes adopted under it are subject to Section 5, and that "the effect of the objection by the Attorney General is to render the changes legally unenforceable."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  4. Nov 15, 1976 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a majority-vote requirement in Cameron

    In a letter of November 15, 1976 to the Cameron city attorney, the Justice Department addressed the town's implementation of Act 283 of 1975 (the Home Rule Act), received September 16, 1976. It notes that the Act mandates a majority vote requirement for municipalities that elect their governing body on a non-partisan basis, that "blacks constitute 43.49 percent of the population of Cameron" and that "no black has ever been elected to town office." It concludes "I must, therefore, on behalf of the Attorney General interpose an objection to the implementation of a majority vote requirement in the context of at-large elections of the Town of Cameron."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  5. Nov 12, 1976 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to the Horry County council form of government in Act R546

    In a letter of November 12, 1976, the Justice Department addressed South Carolina Act R546 (1976), which provides for a change in the form of government for Horry County, originally received March 16, 1976 and completed September 13, 1976. Under the Act the county will have a nine-member council, a chairman elected separately and eight members, all elected at large for two-year terms, with a majority vote required in primary elections under state law. The letter closes by stating that "the effect of the objection by the Attorney General is to render the change in question legally unenforceable" and that the county may seek a declaratory judgment in the District Court for the District of Columbia on the implementation of Act R546.

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  6. Oct 1, 1976 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to at-large elections with residency districts for the Sumter School District No. 2 trustees

    In a letter of October 1, 1976, the Justice Department addressed four acts concerning the trustees of Sumter School District No. 2 (R1020 of 1974, R54 of 1975, R646 of 1976 and R681 of 1976), completed August 2, 1976. It interposed no objection to R1020, R646 or R54, but for R681, "changing the method of election to an at-large system with residency requirements and one appointive position," it states "we are unable to conclude, as we must under the Voting Rights Act, that the 1976 change in form of election of the Board of Trustees of Sumter School District No. 2 will not have a discriminatory effect. Therefore, I must, on behalf of the Attorney General, interpose an objection under Section 5."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  7. Sep 13, 1976 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a majority-vote requirement in Seneca

    In a letter of September 13, 1976, the Justice Department addressed the change to a majority vote requirement and implementation of the Home Rule Act for the City of Seneca, received July 15, 1976. It states "blacks constitute a substantial portion of the population of the City of Seneca and ... bloc voting along racial lines may exist," that a majority vote requirement in the context of at-large elections "may have the potential for abridging minority voting rights," and that "I must interpose an objection to the implementation of majority vote requirement for election of the Mayor and Councilmen of the City of Seneca."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  8. Jul 30, 1976 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to the Bamberg County Council redistricting plan

    In a letter of July 30, 1976, the Justice Department addressed Act R626, redistricting the Bamberg County Council, completed May 31, 1976. It notes the plan "provides a black population majority in four of the seven councilmanic districts (Districts 3, 4, 5 and 6) but a black majority in voting age population in only two districts (Districts 5 and 6)," so that, "against the background of racial bloc voting that appears to exist in this county, ... while blacks comprise at least half of the voting age population and more than half of the county's total population, they will have the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice in only two out of seven councilmanic districts." It concludes "I must on behalf of the Attorney General interpose an objection to Act R626 as it applies to the redistricting of the Bamberg County Council."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

1975

  1. Sep 8, 1975 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to appointing rather than electing the Clarendon County supervisor

    In a letter of September 8, 1975, the Justice Department addressed R1537, which abolishes the office of tax collector and changes the method of selecting the County Supervisor from elected to appointed, received July 9, 1975. It did not object to abolishing the tax collector's office. On the supervisor, it says that "different members of the community have different opinions regarding the change," that the conflict could not be resolved within the 60-day period, and that "I must interpose an objection to the change of appointing rather than electing the County Commissioner," while promising to continue to review the matter.

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  2. Feb 18, 1975 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to three of four redistricting plans for the City of Charleston

    In a letter of February 18, 1975, the Justice Department addressed four plans for redistricting the City of Charleston, received December 19, 1974. It states "we are unable to conclude that the implementation of either plan #1, plan #2 or plan #3 will not have a racially discriminatory effect since, under recent judicial decisions, we believe that the at-large feature of all three of these plans has the potential of unnecessarily diluting the black voting strength in the City of Charleston." It notes the city was approximately 44% black and that plan #1 would give black voters the opportunity to elect 2 of 12 council members, and concludes "I must, on behalf of the Attorney General, interpose an objection to plans #1, #2 and #3." It did not object to plan #4, which provided for 12 single-member districts, five with substantial black majorities, and said it would reconsider its September 1974 annexation objection once a single-member plan was approved by the court in pending litigation.

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

1974

  1. Nov 12, 1974 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to at-large election of the new York County Council

    In a letter of November 12, 1974 to a state senator, the Justice Department addressed the change in the form of government for York County and the establishment of the York County Council, completed September 17, 1974. The Attorney General did not object to the change in the form of government but stated that the new council "would consist of four members each of whom would be elected by vote of the county at-large with one of the four council members required to be a resident of each of the existing school board districts," that blacks are "a substantial minority of the population in York County but have little chance of electing a candidate of their choice under an at-large system of elections," and that "I must, therefore, on behalf of the Attorney General interpose an objection to the at-large election feature of the submission."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  2. Oct 1, 1974 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to staggered, numbered-post county commissioner elections in Lancaster County

    In a letter of October 1, 1974, the Justice Department addressed 1972 Act No. 1023 and 1974 Act Nos. 1010 and 1011, completed August 2, 1974. It noted that the County Attorney had ruled 1974 R1011 legally unenforceable and not implemented, so no determination was made on it, and interposed no objection to the other provisions except specific features. It states the Attorney General was "unable to conclude that the county-wide election of the commissioners on a staggered basis, by majority vote, to residency or numbered posts does not adversely affect minority voting rights," and "on behalf of the Attorney General I must interpose an objection to the aforementioned features of 1972 Act No. 1023 and 1974 Act No. 1010." The letter adds that the 1972 elections for four county commissioners and one replacement, held under unenforceable procedures, must be invalidated and new elections conducted.

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  3. Sep 24, 1974 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to the election methods in the Charleston County charter

    In a letter of September 24, 1974, the Justice Department addressed the Charter Commission Report for Charleston County, submitted under Section 5 and completed July 26, 1974, ahead of a November referendum. It did not object except as noted. It states that the proposed charter council members "would be elected through the combined use of multi-member districts, at-large elections, a majority vote requirement, residency requirements and numbered posts," that in light of a cognizable racial minority and a history of voting along racial lines such methods have been held to have an impermissible dilutive effect, and that "I must on behalf of the Attorney General interpose an objection to the implementation of the above-mentioned methods of election as contained in Sections 5.01, 5.04.01, 12.02 and 12.03 of the submitted charter."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  4. Sep 20, 1974 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department adds an objection under Section 5 to the at-large feature of the Bamberg County government bill

    In a letter of September 20, 1974, the Justice Department returned to R-1445, the Bamberg County government bill. It recalls its September 3 objection to the residency and staggered-term features and says members of the county delegation had questioned whether at-large voting gives black voters a realistic opportunity to elect candidates of their choice, citing a 1972 municipal election in Denmark where white candidates withdrew so that a "single-shot" effort by black voters was ineffective. Because those claims could not be resolved within the 60 days allowed, the letter states: "I must interpose an objection to the at-large feature of the new system of government in addition to those objections previously registered in my letter of September 3, 1974."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  5. Sep 20, 1974 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to seven of 25 annexations to the City of Charleston

    In a letter of September 20, 1974 to Charleston's corporation counsel, the Justice Department addressed 25 annexations to the City of Charleston, submitted July 22, 1974. It interposed no objection to 18 of them, including unpopulated areas, but found the remaining seven "of major importance," citing City of Richmond v. United States and City of Petersburg v. United States on annexations where a city elects at large. The letter says the net addition of 3,456 white people "appears to have had a substantial impact on voting in Charleston when viewed in combination with the close city elections in 1971 and with the readily apparent pattern of racial bloc voting," and states: "we cannot conclude that the major annexations taken together have not had a dilutive effect on voting in Charleston. Accordingly, I must on behalf of the Attorney General interpose an objection to the submitted annexation numbers 1, 4, 8, 9, 11, 18 and 25." It adds the Attorney General would reconsider if the city elected its councilmen from single-member districts.

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  6. Sep 3, 1974 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to residency requirements and staggered terms in a Bamberg County government bill

    In a letter of September 3, 1974, the Justice Department addressed R-1445, a bill changing the county government of Bamberg County, received July 22, 1974. It notes that the plan provides for an at-large voting system used in conjunction with staggered terms and residency requirements and states: "on behalf of the Attorney General, I must interpose an objection to the implementation of the change insofar as it requires residency requirements and staggered terms in conjunction with the election of candidates at-large."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  7. Sep 3, 1974 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to staggered terms for the Bishopville council

    In a letter of September 3, 1974, the Justice Department addressed Act 1227, staggering the terms of the Bishopville council, and Act 1240, staggering the terms of the Board of Fire Control of the Duncan Chapel Fire District, both in Lee County. For Bishopville, which it describes as 49% black, the letter says the at-large system together with staggered terms "would have the effect of limiting the potential for black voters to elect a candidate of their choice," and that "I must, therefore, on behalf of the Attorney General, interpose an objection to the implementation of Act 1227." It interposed no objection to Act 1240 because the fire district's population is approximately 95% white.

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  8. Aug 7, 1974 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to at-large elections with staggered terms for the Calhoun County school board

    In a letter of August 7, 1974, the Justice Department addressed Act R1151 (1974), which consolidated Calhoun County School Districts 1 and 2 and provided for a seven-member board of trustees elected at large, received June 3, 1974. It states "our investigation reflects that there are significant concentrations of black citizens in parts of Calhoun County and that the requirement that all candidates must be voted on County-wide and staggering the terms would result in the dilution and minimization of the voting strength of black citizens," and that "I must on behalf of the Attorney General interpose an objection to the use of an at-large voting system and staggered terms for electing members to the Board of Trustees for the Calhoun County School District."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  9. Jul 30, 1974 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to staggered terms and a new selection system for Lancaster County school boards

    In a letter of July 30, 1974, the Justice Department addressed 1967 Acts Nos. 519 and 523, 1968 Act No. 1594, 1972 Act No. 1622 and 1973 Act No. 325, completed May 30, 1974. It interposed no objection to the Acts "with the exception of the specific features enumerated below." It states "I must interpose an objection to the staggering of a district's trustees' terms of office, so long as district trustees are elected by all voters of the district at large," and that the Attorney General was also unable to conclude that the new system for selecting the Lancaster County Board of Education, under which seven persons, three from numbered posts and four named by district boards of trustees, replaced a system of nine appointees representing geographic areas, does not adversely affect minority voting rights. The letter adds that the elections of the current trustees and board of education members were conducted under legally unenforceable procedures and must be invalidated and new elections conducted.

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  10. May 24, 1974 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a residency requirement for Walterboro council elections

    In a letter of May 24, 1974 to the Walterboro city manager, the Justice Department addressed an ordinance dated March 19, 1974 amending the city code to establish a residency requirement for councilmanic elections, and the adoption of a council-manager form of government. It states that the residency requirement for four of six council seats, "in the context of a majority requirement for the primary election, the recent invalidation of the prohibition against single-shot voting in Stephenson v. West ... and at-large elections reduces the potential voting strength of racial minorities," and that "I must, therefore, on behalf of the Attorney General, interpose an objection to the implementation of the submitted residency requirement." The Attorney General did not object to the change to a council-manager form of government.

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  11. May 6, 1974 County Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to two annexations to McClellanville

    In a letter of May 6, 1974, the Justice Department addressed two annexations to the Town of McClellanville, submitted under Section 5 and completed March 7, 1974. It says the information "clearly shows that the Town of McClellanville serves as a voting district for the purposes of town elections," that there is "an area of concentrated black population immediately contiguous to the town," not included in the submission, and that residents of that area reported town officials had made clear that a request for annexation would be rejected because it would alter the racial composition of the town. The letter states: "I must, on behalf of the Attorney General ... interpose an objection to the expansion of the McClellanville boundaries, and the accordant enlargement of the town voting district, through implementation of the submitted annexations."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  12. Apr 22, 1974 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to at-large election of the Dorchester County Council

    In a letter of April 22, 1974, the Justice Department addressed Act R913 (1974), which provided that candidates for the Dorchester County Council be elected in an at-large election system. It notes that "blacks constitute over 35% of the population (1970 Census) in Dorchester County" and that "no black has ever been elected to the county council in modern times and there is a history of racial bloc voting." It concludes: "on behalf of the Attorney General, I must interpose an objection to the implementation of the at-large election system embodied in Act R913."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  13. Feb 14, 1974 State Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to South Carolina's House reapportionment act

    In a letter of February 14, 1974, the Justice Department addressed the Act to Reapportion the House of Representatives, approved by the Governor on October 26, 1973. It states "On behalf of the Attorney General I must, therefore, interpose an objection to the implementation of this Act," and that the objection "is based upon two aspects of this plan - the submergence of significant concentrations of Negro voters into large majority-white multi-member districts and the magnification of this dilution of Negro voting strength by the numbered post and majority vote requirement." It adds that "the legal effect of the objection of the Attorney General is to render unenforceable this reapportionment plan."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

1973

  1. Nov 13, 1973 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to abolishing the elected Clarendon County school superintendent

    In a letter of November 13, 1973, the Justice Department addressed Act R530, which abolished the elective office of County Superintendent of Education in Clarendon County and devolved its powers and duties on the seven members of the County Board of Education, all of whom would be appointed by the Governor. The letter says comments from black residents indicated a perception that abolishing the office "in conjunction with a potential black majority electorate shows a discriminatory purpose or effect," and that some black residents disagreed. It concludes that the state had not carried its burden and that the Department "must therefore interpose an objection to the implementation of Act R530 on behalf of the Acting Attorney General."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  2. Aug 17, 1973 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a majority-vote and residency requirement in Darlington

    In a letter of August 17, 1973 to the mayor of Darlington, the Justice Department addressed a change from a plurality to a majority system of elections for mayor and aldermen and residency requirements for aldermanic positions. It states that "where there is increasing participation in the political process by the black community as in Darlington, a majority and residency requirement have the practical effect of eliminating the potential for minority voters to elect candidates of their choice through the use of single-shot voting," and that "the Attorney General must interpose an objection to the implementation of the submitted provisions."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  3. Jul 20, 1973 State Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to South Carolina's Senate plan in Act No. 1205 after a court-ordered reconsideration

    In a letter of July 20, 1973, the Justice Department addressed Act No. 1205, which reapportioned the South Carolina Senate and was submitted May 9, 1972. On June 30, 1972 it had said no objection would be interposed because it was "constrained to defer" to a three-judge court's May 23, 1972 decision; a federal court in Harper v. Richardson later remanded the matter, and on July 19, 1973 ordered the Attorney General to consider the plan without regard to that decision. The letter states "I am unable to conclude that Act No. 1205 does not have the effect of abridging voting rights on account of race. Therefore, on behalf of the Attorney General, I must interpose an objection to the implementation of the election procedure set forth in that statute." The Department's index notes that the objection was ruled untimely in Morris v. Gressette, 432 U.S. 491 (1977).

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

1972

  1. Nov 13, 1972 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a referendum procedure for creating a Saluda County school district

    In a letter of November 13, 1972, the Justice Department addressed Act No. 1244, which proposed a referendum and, on a favorable vote, the establishment of Hollywood School District No. 4 in Saluda County. The letter states that "the result of the referendum procedure is to limit voting on a school question to a small overwhelmingly white electorate where a county is in the process of desegregating its educational facilities," and that "I must, therefore, interpose an objection to the referendum procedure in Act No. 1244 on behalf of the Attorney General."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  2. Aug 25, 1972 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to numbered seats for Aiken County commissioners

    In a letter of August 25, 1972, the Justice Department addressed Act R1152, submitted under Section 5, which provided that all candidates for county commissioner qualify for numbered seats. It states "I must, on behalf of the Attorney General, enter an objection to the numbered seat provisions (Sections 3 and 4) of Act R1152" and that the Department did "not, however, object to the other provisions of the statute." The letter refers to its June 30, 1972 objection to numbered seats in all multi-member bodies in the state.

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  3. Jun 30, 1972 State Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to South Carolina's numbered-post requirement for multi-member offices

    In a letter of June 30, 1972, the Justice Department addressed Acts 1204 and 1205. Act 1205 provided a new Senate reapportionment plan and extended the numbered-post requirement to all multi-member districts in the House; Act 1204 provided for numbered posts in all multi-member bodies. The letter enters no objection to the implementation of Plan A of Act 1205, deferring to a three-judge court that had approved it on May 23, 1972, but states: "For the above reasons, we must enter an objection on behalf of the Attorney General to the implementation of Act 1204 and Section 3 of Act 1205." It says the Department was "unable to conclude that the racially dilutive effect some courts have described would not be occasioned by the numbered seat requirement."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  4. Mar 6, 1972 State Maps and lines Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to South Carolina's Senate redistricting plans under Act No. 932

    In a letter of March 6, 1972, the Justice Department addressed the redistricting plans for the South Carolina Senate under Act No. 932 (Plan A and Plan B), submitted by the Attorney General of South Carolina and received on November 22, 1971. It states "we are unable to conclude, as we must under the Voting Rights Act, that either proposed Plan A or Plan B will not have the effect of abridging the right of black citizens of South Carolina to vote on account of race or color," and that "I must on behalf of the Attorney General interpose an objection to changes submitted by these reapportionment plans." The letter cites Whitcomb v. Chavis on the potential effect of multi-member districts.

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

Nationwide

2026

  1. Oct 26, 2026 National Courts and officials Pending

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

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

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

    Source last checked Oct 27, 2026

  2. Oct 23, 2026 National Courts and officials Pending

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

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

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

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

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

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

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

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

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  4. Oct 20, 2026 National Polling places and drop boxes Reported

    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.

    Related: Justice Department tells Marion County it will send election monitors on November 3; Lake County also named · Justice Department plans election monitors in Bibb, Chatham, Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton and Gwinnett counties · Washington County Election Commission votes to keep Justice Department monitors out of polling places

    Source last checked Oct 22, 2026

  5. Oct 15, 2026 National Courts and officials Withdrawn

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

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

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

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

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

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

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

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

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

  7. October 2026 National Courts and officials Pending

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

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

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

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

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

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

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

    Related: President signs Executive Order 14248 on federal elections

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

  9. Sep 18, 2026 National Polling places and drop boxes Pending

    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.

    Related: Latino and voting groups and the City of Denver sue over armed immigration agents at polling places · Arlington County sues to keep armed federal agents away from its polling places

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

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

    Federal court in Washington enjoins the Postal Service ballot mail rule

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

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

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

  11. Sep 10, 2026 National Maps and lines Proposed

    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.

    Source last checked Oct 22, 2026

  12. Sep 10, 2026 National Polling places and drop boxes Pending

    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.

    Related: Civil rights and labor groups sue over possible federal immigration agents near polling places

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

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

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

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

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

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

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

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

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

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

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  15. Aug 26, 2026 National Laws and rules Blocked by a court

    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.

    Related: President signs Executive Order 14399 on citizenship verification and mail ballots · Postal Service proposes a rule on ballot mail for federal elections · Federal court in Washington enjoins the Postal Service ballot mail rule · Federal court in Massachusetts finds the government violated its injunction by issuing the Postal Service ballot-mail rule · Federal court in Massachusetts temporarily stays parts of the Postal Service ballot-mail rule for the 2026 election · First Circuit refuses to stay the Massachusetts preliminary injunction against parts of the Postal Service ballot-mail rule

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

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

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

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

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

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

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

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

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

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

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  18. Aug 17, 2026 National Courts and officials Pending

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

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

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

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

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

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

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

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

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

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

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

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

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

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  21. Jul 22, 2026 National Laws and rules Failed

    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).

    Related: House passes SAVE America Act text as an amendment to S. 1383, 218-213

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

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

    Supreme Court decides Watson v. Republican National Committee

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

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

    Source last checked Oct 22, 2026

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

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

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

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

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

  24. Jun 2, 2026 National Laws and rules Proposed

    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.

    Related: President signs Executive Order 14399 on citizenship verification and mail ballots · Postal Service issues final rule on ballot mail for federal elections

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

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

    Federal court in Washington denies preliminary injunctions against Executive Order 14399

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

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

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

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

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

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

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

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

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

    Supreme Court decides Louisiana v. Callais

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

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

    Source last checked Oct 22, 2026

  28. Mar 31, 2026 National Laws and rules In effect

    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.

    Related: Postal Service issues final rule on ballot mail for federal elections · Federal court in Washington denies preliminary injunctions against Executive Order 14399 · Federal court in Washington enjoins the Postal Service ballot mail rule · Federal court in Massachusetts declares parts of Executive Order 14399 void in a suit by states · Federal court in Massachusetts enjoins Postal Service implementation of Section 3 of Executive Order 14399

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

  29. Feb 26, 2026 National Courts and officials Pending

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

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

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

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  30. Feb 11, 2026 National Laws and rules Failed

    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.

    Related: House passes SAVE Act, 220-208; Senate does not act · House passes bill with a photo-ID voting requirement; Senate cloture vote fails, 53-47, on September 30, 2026

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

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

    Supreme Court decides Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections

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

    Related: Supreme Court decides Watson v. Republican National Committee

    Source last checked Oct 22, 2026

2025

  1. Nov 24, 2025 National Laws and rules In effect

    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

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

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

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

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

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

  3. Oct 24, 2025 National Polling places and drop boxes In effect

    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

  4. Sep 16, 2025 National Courts and officials Pending

    Justice Department sues Oregon and Maine for statewide voter registration lists

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

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

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

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

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

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

    Related: Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1982 become law

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

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

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

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

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

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

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

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

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

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

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

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

    Federal court in Washington blocks parts of Executive Order 14248

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

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

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

  9. Apr 10, 2025 National Laws and rules Failed

    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.

    Related: House passes SAVE America Act text as an amendment to S. 1383, 218-213

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

  10. Mar 25, 2025 National Laws and rules In effect

    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.

    Related: Federal court in Washington blocks parts of Executive Order 14248 · Federal court permanently bars the Election Assistance Commission from implementing Section 2(a) of Executive Order 14248 · Supreme Court grants stay in Department of Homeland Security v. League of Women Voters, on voter citizenship checks · Federal court in Massachusetts blocks parts of Executive Order 14248 in a suit by 19 states

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

2024

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

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

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

    Source last checked Oct 22, 2026

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

    Supreme Court decides Trump v. Anderson

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

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

2023

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

    Supreme Court decides Moore v. Harper

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

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

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

    Supreme Court decides Allen v. Milligan

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

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

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

2022

  1. Dec 29, 2022 National Laws and rules Enacted

    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

  2. Jan 19, 2022 National Laws and rules Failed

    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.

    Related: Senate vote to begin debate on the Freedom to Vote Act fails, 49-51 · House passes John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act; Senate cloture vote on November 3, 2021 is 50-49 and fails

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

2021

  1. Oct 20, 2021 National Laws and rules Failed

    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.

    Related: For the People Act of 2021 passes the House; Senate committee discharge vote is 50-49 and the bill stalls · Senate cloture on the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act fails, 49-51

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

  2. Aug 24, 2021 National Laws and rules Failed

    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.

    Related: House passes Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2019; no Senate vote follows · Senate cloture on the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act fails, 49-51

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

  3. Aug 12, 2021 National Maps and lines Settled

    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.

    Source last checked Oct 22, 2026

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

    Supreme Court decides Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee

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

    Related: Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1982 become law

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

  5. Apr 26, 2021 National Maps and lines Settled

    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

  6. Mar 3, 2021 National Laws and rules Failed

    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.

    Related: House passes For the People Act of 2019; no Senate vote follows · Senate vote to begin debate on the Freedom to Vote Act fails, 49-51

    Source last checked Oct 22, 2026

  7. Feb 10, 2021 National Polling places and drop boxes In effect

    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.

    Related: Help America Vote Act of 2002 becomes law

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

2020

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

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

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

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

2019

  1. Dec 6, 2019 National Laws and rules Failed

    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.

    Related: House passes John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act; Senate cloture vote on November 3, 2021 is 50-49 and fails · Supreme Court decides Shelby County v. Holder

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

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

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

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

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

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

    Supreme Court decides Rucho v. Common Cause

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

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

  4. Mar 8, 2019 National Laws and rules Failed

    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.

    Related: For the People Act of 2021 passes the House; Senate committee discharge vote is 50-49 and the bill stalls

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

2018

  1. Sep 12, 2018 National Laws and rules In effect

    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

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

    Supreme Court decides Gill v. Whitford

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

    Related: Supreme Court decides Rucho v. Common Cause

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

  3. Jun 11, 2018 National Courts and officials Upheld

    Supreme Court decides Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute

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

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

    Source last checked Oct 22, 2026

  4. Jan 3, 2018 National Courts and officials Enacted

    President terminates the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity

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

    Related: President establishes the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

2017

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

    Supreme Court decides Cooper v. Harris

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

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

  2. May 11, 2017 National Courts and officials Enacted

    President establishes the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity

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

    Related: President terminates the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

  3. Jan 6, 2017 National Polling places and drop boxes In effect

    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

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

    Supreme Court decides Evenwel v. Abbott

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

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

2013

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

    Supreme Court decides Shelby County v. Holder

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

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

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

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

    Supreme Court decides Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona

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

    Related: National Voter Registration Act of 1993 becomes law

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

  3. Mar 28, 2013 National Courts and officials Enacted

    President establishes the Presidential Commission on Election Administration

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

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

2009

  1. Oct 28, 2009 National Laws and rules Enacted

    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.

    Related: Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act becomes law

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

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

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

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

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

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

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

    Supreme Court decides Bartlett v. Strickland

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

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

2008

  1. Apr 28, 2008 National Courts and officials Upheld

    Supreme Court decides Crawford v. Marion County Election Board

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

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

2006

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

    Supreme Court decides Purcell v. Gonzalez

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

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

  2. Jul 27, 2006 National Laws and rules Enacted

    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).

    Related: Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1982 become law · Supreme Court decides Shelby County v. Holder

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

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

    Supreme Court decides LULAC v. Perry

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

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

2002

  1. Oct 29, 2002 National Laws and rules Enacted

    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

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

    Supreme Court decides Bush v. Gore

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

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

1993

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

    Supreme Court decides Shaw v. Reno

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

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

  2. May 20, 1993 National Laws and rules Enacted

    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."

    Related: Supreme Court decides Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona · Supreme Court decides Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

1986

  1. Aug 28, 1986 National Laws and rules Enacted

    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.

    Related: Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act becomes law

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

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

    Supreme Court decides Thornburg v. Gingles

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

    Related: Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1982 become law

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

1984

  1. Sep 28, 1984 National Polling places and drop boxes Enacted

    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

  1. Jun 29, 1982 National Laws and rules Enacted

    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.

    Related: Voting Rights Act reauthorized and amended in 2006 · Supreme Court decides Thornburg v. Gingles · Supreme Court decides City of Mobile v. Bolden · Supreme Court decides Louisiana v. Callais

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

1980

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

    Supreme Court decides City of Mobile v. Bolden

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

    Related: Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1982 become law

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

1975

  1. Aug 6, 1975 National Laws and rules Enacted

    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

  1. Jul 1, 1971 National Laws and rules Enacted

    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."

    Related: Supreme Court decides Oregon v. Mitchell

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

1970

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

    Supreme Court decides Oregon v. Mitchell

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

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

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

  2. Jun 22, 1970 National Laws and rules Enacted

    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.

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

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

1969

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

    Supreme Court decides Allen v. State Board of Elections

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

    Related: Voting Rights Act of 1965 signed into law

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

1967

  1. Dec 14, 1967 National Maps and lines Enacted

    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

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

    Supreme Court decides Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections

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

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

  2. Mar 7, 1966 National Courts and officials Upheld

    Supreme Court decides South Carolina v. Katzenbach

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

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

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

1965

  1. Aug 6, 1965 National Laws and rules Enacted

    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.

    Related: Supreme Court decides Shelby County v. Holder · Supreme Court decides Allen v. Milligan

    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.