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 · Utah

Utah

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 Utah, then national events that apply here. See the national timeline.

Congressional districts in Utah

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 Utah

2026

  1. Oct 23, 2026 State Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Federal judge dismisses the Justice Department's suit for Utah's full voter registration list

    On October 23, 2026, Judge David Barlow of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah granted the motions to dismiss filed by Lieutenant Governor Deidre Henderson, the NAACP and its Tri-State Conference of Idaho, Nevada, and Utah, and the League of Women Voters of Utah in United States v. Henderson (No. 2:26-cv-00166), and denied the Attorney General's motion to compel production of election records under the Civil Rights Act of 1960. The court held that Utah's statewide voter registration list does not fall within the scope of Title III of that Act and dismissed the complaint with prejudice, writing that leave to amend "would be futile." Judgment closing the case was entered the same day.

    Related: Justice Department sues Utah over its full voter registration list

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  2. Oct 23, 2026 County Courts and officials Reported

    Utah County clerk says ID notices were sent in error to some voters who did not need to send ID

    KSL reports that the Utah County Clerk's Office sent about 6,144 notices telling voters to include a copy of their ID with their mail ballot or it would be rejected, and that at least 71 went to people who had voted before, plus an unknown number of first-time voters already verified, according to County Clerk Aaron Davidson, who called it a clerical error. On Friday, October 23, 2026, the office issued a clarification: "Unfortunately, this notice was also sent to some voters who did not need to provide identification." KSL reports that Davidson said ballots will not be rejected for voters who have already verified their identity, and that the state elections office received a voter complaint on Monday.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  3. Oct 21, 2026 State Polling places and drop boxes Reported

    Justice Department tells Utah it will send election monitors on November 3

    The Deseret News reported that the Justice Department notified Lieutenant Governor Deidre Henderson on Wednesday, October 21, 2026 that it would send election monitors to some Utah jurisdictions for the November 3 election, and that Henderson said at least one is expected in Salt Lake County. KSL reported that the department's notice said monitors would go to "one or more jurisdictions" in Utah, and that Henderson said the monitors must follow state poll-watcher laws, will identify themselves to poll workers, will not approach voters or carry weapons, and may not interfere with the election. KSL reported that the lieutenant governor's office said the department sent observers to San Juan County in 2016, 2018, 2022 and 2024.

    Related: Justice Department tells Marion County it will send election monitors on November 3; Lake County also named

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

  4. Feb 26, 2026 State Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Justice Department sues Utah over its full voter registration list

    On February 26, 2026, the United States filed United States v. Henderson (D. Utah, No. 2:26-cv-166) against Lieutenant Governor Deidre Henderson, Utah's chief election officer, under Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960, which requires election officials to retain voter registration records and lets the Attorney General demand them in writing. The complaint says the action arises from the Attorney General's investigation into Utah's compliance with the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act. KUTV reported that Utah had refused to provide its full statewide voter registration list and that, in a September 14, 2026 interview, Henderson said she would not back down from the legal fight, arguing the federal government lacks the authority to obtain unredacted personal information about Utah voters.

    Related: Justice Department's voter roll lawsuits reach 29 states and the District of Columbia · Federal judge dismisses the Justice Department's suit for Utah's full voter registration list

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  5. Feb 23, 2026 State Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Federal three-judge panel declines to block Utah's court-ordered congressional map

    On February 23, 2026, in Powers Gardner v. Henderson (D. Utah, No. 2:26-cv-84), a three-judge district court convened by the Tenth Circuit (Circuit Judge Tymkovich and District Judges Shelby and Teeter) denied a preliminary injunction sought by Utah voters and elected officials, including Representatives Celeste Maloy and Burgess Owens, against use of the state district court's congressional map. The court wrote: "Because we conclude Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, and because the Purcell principle counsels this court not to enjoin a state's election laws in the period close to an election, we DENY Plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion." KSL reported that two judges cited the principle, writing that "an active primary is ongoing." The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case in July 2026 and the court dismissed it on July 8, 2026.

    Related: Utah Supreme Court dismisses the Legislature's redistricting appeal, leaving the court-ordered map in place

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  6. Feb 20, 2026 State Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Utah Supreme Court dismisses the Legislature's redistricting appeal, leaving the court-ordered map in place

    KUER reported that on February 20, 2026 a three-justice panel of the Utah Supreme Court dismissed the Legislature's appeal of the August 2025 ruling, writing that the way lawmakers appealed was "improper and we lack jurisdiction." The justices did not decide whether the district court's ruling was right, and dismissed the request to keep using the 2021 map as moot.

    Related: Judge Gibson rejects the Legislature's Map C and orders the plaintiffs' Map 1 for 2026 · Federal three-judge panel declines to block Utah's court-ordered congressional map · Utah district court certifies its Proposition 4 rulings as final under Rule 54(b)

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  7. Jan 6, 2026 State Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Utah district court certifies its Proposition 4 rulings as final under Rule 54(b)

    On January 6, 2026, Third District Judge Dianna Gibson certified as final, under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), her August 25, 2025 order and her September 6, 2025 amended ruling and order concerning H.B. 2004 (the 2021 congressional map) and Proposition 4, and entered judgment for the League of Women Voters of Utah and the other plaintiffs. The order says remedial proceedings on Count V and other pending claims "remain ongoing."

    Related: District court rules Proposition 4 was unconstitutionally repealed and enjoins the 2021 congressional map · Judge Gibson rejects the Legislature's Map C and orders the plaintiffs' Map 1 for 2026 · Utah Supreme Court dismisses the Legislature's redistricting appeal, leaving the court-ordered map in place

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

2025

  1. Nov 10, 2025 Congressional district: UT-1 Maps and lines Decided by a court

    Judge Gibson rejects the Legislature's Map C and orders the plaintiffs' Map 1 for 2026

    In a ruling and order dated November 10, 2025 in League of Women Voters of Utah v. Utah State Legislature (Third District Court, No. 220901712), Judge Dianna Gibson found that the Legislature's remedial congressional map, "Map C" enacted in S.B. 1012, "does not comply with Utah law," that it was "drawn with partisan political data on display," and that it was "drawn with the purpose to favor Republicans." She granted a preliminary injunction against enforcing S.B. 1011 and S.B. 1012 and adopted the plaintiffs' "Map 1" for Utah's congressional elections. KUER reported that Map 1 creates a district centered on Salt Lake County.

    Related: Utah Supreme Court denies the Legislature's emergency petition over the remedial process · Utah Supreme Court dismisses the Legislature's redistricting appeal, leaving the court-ordered map in place · Utah district court certifies its Proposition 4 rulings as final under Rule 54(b)

    Source last checked Oct 22, 2026

  2. Sep 15, 2025 State Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Utah Supreme Court denies the Legislature's emergency petition over the remedial process

    On September 15, 2025 the Utah Supreme Court wrote, "we deny the petition for extraordinary relief" filed by the Legislature, which had challenged the district court's denial of a stay of its injunction against the 2021 congressional map during the remedial process. The court said the Lieutenant Governor had indicated a new map must be in place by November 10, 2025.

    Related: District court rules Proposition 4 was unconstitutionally repealed and enjoins the 2021 congressional map · Judge Gibson rejects the Legislature's Map C and orders the plaintiffs' Map 1 for 2026

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

  3. Aug 25, 2025 State Courts and officials Struck down

    District court rules Proposition 4 was unconstitutionally repealed and enjoins the 2021 congressional map

    The Utah Supreme Court wrote that in late August 2025 the district court ruled (the opinion elsewhere refers to the court's "August 25 order") that Proposition 4 was "a constitutionally protected exercise of Utahns' right to reform their government," that it had been unconstitutionally repealed and replaced by Senate Bill 200, and enjoined the congressional map in place since 2021 because it violated the redistricting reforms Utahns enacted.

    Related: Utah Supreme Court holds voter-passed government-reform initiatives are protected from unfettered legislative repeal · Legislature adopts a congressional map that divides Salt Lake County among four districts · Utah Supreme Court denies the Legislature's emergency petition over the remedial process · Utah district court certifies its Proposition 4 rulings as final under Rule 54(b)

    Source last checked Oct 22, 2026

  4. Apr 24, 2025 County Polling places and drop boxes Settled

    San Juan County settlement on Navajo voting access extended through 2028

    The ACLU of Utah announced on April 24, 2025 an extension of its settlement with San Juan County, set to expire after the November 2024 election, so that it remains in effect through the 2028 election cycle. The parties filed a Second Revised Settlement Agreement with the federal court on April 22, 2025 (D. Utah, No. 2:16-cv-154, Doc. 222-1); it provides that the county will "continue through the 2028 general election to open three primary and general election day Language Assistance Locations and polling places," and addresses in-person voting and Navajo-language assistance. The court docket records an order from Judge Jill N. Parrish regarding the agreement on June 16, 2025.

    Related: San Juan County settles a suit over mail-only voting, agreeing to polling places and Navajo-language help

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  5. Mar 26, 2025 State Laws and rules Enacted

    Governor signs HB 300, ending automatic mail ballots for all voters starting in 2029

    The Utah Legislature's record for H.B. 300 (2025), "Amendments to Election Law," shows it passed the House on February 25, 2025, was amended and passed by the Senate on March 6, 2025, with the House concurring that day, and was signed by the Governor on March 26, 2025. The bill's summary says that, beginning in 2029, "a voter will not receive a ballot by mail unless the voter requests to receive a ballot by mail," that a request lasts eight years unless the voter takes certain action, and that a mail voter with a Utah driver license or state identification card must put the last four digits of its number on the return envelope, with the last four digits of a Social Security number as an alternative and signature comparison permitted until 2029. The Salt Lake Tribune reported on March 26, 2025 that Governor Spencer Cox signed the bill and that it ends Utah's universal vote-by-mail system.

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

2024

  1. Oct 24, 2024 State Courts and officials Struck down

    Utah Supreme Court explains its ruling voiding Amendment D, a proposal to let the Legislature repeal initiatives

    On October 24, 2024, in League of Women Voters of Utah v. Utah State Legislature, 2024 UT 40 (No. 20240965), the Utah Supreme Court issued its opinion affirming the district court's order that kept Amendment D off the 2024 ballot, writing that the constitution requires that "constitutional amendments be submitted to voters in the way mandated by our constitution." The opinion describes the ballot title, which said Amendment D would "strengthen the initiative process by . . . [c]larifying the voters and legislative bodies' ability to amend laws," and says the Legislature proposed the amendment in an emergency special session after the court's July 11, 2024 decision in League of Women Voters I. The Salt Lake Tribune reported that the opinion was unanimous and that the court had announced its ruling in September.

    Related: Utah Supreme Court holds voter-passed government-reform initiatives are protected from unfettered legislative repeal

    Source last checked Oct 22, 2026

  2. Jul 11, 2024 State Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Utah Supreme Court holds voter-passed government-reform initiatives are protected from unfettered legislative repeal

    In League of Women Voters of Utah v. Utah State Legislature, decided July 11, 2024, the Utah Supreme Court wrote: "we hold that when Utahns exercise their right to reform the government through a citizen initiative, their exercise of these rights is protected from government infringement," meaning such initiatives are "constitutionally protected from unfettered legislative amendment, repeal, or replacement." The ruling concerned the Legislature's repeal and replacement of Proposition 4.

    Related: Utah voters approve Proposition 4, creating an independent redistricting commission and neutral map standards · Legislature passes Senate Bill 200, repealing and replacing Proposition 4 · Utah Supreme Court explains its ruling voiding Amendment D, a proposal to let the Legislature repeal initiatives

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

2021

  1. Dec 8, 2021 County Laws and rules In effect

    Federal determination requires election materials for the Hispanic language group in Salt Lake County, Utah

    The Director of the Census Bureau's notice, published in the Federal Register on December 8, 2021 (86 FR 69611), lists Salt Lake County, Utah, as covered by Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act for this language minority group: Hispanic. The notice says covered jurisdictions have a legal obligation to provide the minority language assistance that Section 203 prescribes; its table is titled bilingual election materials for voting rights.

    Related: Federal determination requires election materials for the Hispanic language group in Salt Lake County, Utah

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  2. Dec 8, 2021 County Laws and rules In effect

    Federal determination requires election materials for 2 language groups in San Juan County, Utah

    The Director of the Census Bureau's notice, published in the Federal Register on December 8, 2021 (86 FR 69611), lists San Juan County, Utah, as covered by Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act for these language minority groups: Navajo; Ute. The notice says covered jurisdictions have a legal obligation to provide the minority language assistance that Section 203 prescribes; its table is titled bilingual election materials for voting rights.

    Related: Federal determination requires election materials for 2 language groups in San Juan County, Utah · Federal determination requires election materials for the American Indian (Navajo) language group in San Juan County, Utah · Federal determination requires election materials for 2 language groups in San Juan County, Utah

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  3. November 2021 State Maps and lines Enacted

    Legislature adopts a congressional map that divides Salt Lake County among four districts

    The Utah Supreme Court described the Legislative Redistricting Committee as releasing its congressional map on November 5, 2021, with a figure showing Salt Lake County "divided in four pieces," according to the plaintiffs' allegations. In 2025 the court referred to "the Congressional Map that has been in place in Utah since 2021."

    Related: District court rules Proposition 4 was unconstitutionally repealed and enjoins the 2021 congressional map

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

2020

  1. 2020 State Maps and lines Enacted

    Legislature passes Senate Bill 200, repealing and replacing Proposition 4

    The Utah Supreme Court wrote that during the 2020 General Session the Legislature passed Senate Bill 200, which repealed the voter-enacted initiative and replaced it with a new law. The plaintiffs in the later suit alleged that S.B. 200 removed "the ban on partisan gerrymandering" for maps the Legislature creates and weakened the independent commission's role.

    Related: Utah voters approve Proposition 4, creating an independent redistricting commission and neutral map standards · Utah Supreme Court holds voter-passed government-reform initiatives are protected from unfettered legislative repeal

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

2019

  1. Jul 16, 2019 County Courts and officials Upheld

    Tenth Circuit affirms rulings on San Juan County's commission and school board districts

    On July 16, 2019 the Tenth Circuit wrote that it affirmed the district court's rulings in Navajo Nation v. San Juan County, including the order granting summary judgment to the Navajo Nation on its claim that the county created commission District 3 "based on race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause," the order requiring a remedial redistricting plan, and special elections in November 2018. The court held the case "doesn't implicate the 1984 consent decree."

    Related: Federal court rules San Juan County's consent decree did not require its District 3 boundaries

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

2018

  1. Feb 21, 2018 County Polling places and drop boxes Settled

    San Juan County settles a suit over mail-only voting, agreeing to polling places and Navajo-language help

    The ACLU of Utah announced on February 21, 2018 a settlement in Navajo Nation Human Rights Commission v. San Juan County (D. Utah, No. 2:16-cv-154), filed in 2016 over the county's switch to vote-by-mail with in-person voting in one place. A later court filing recites that the Settlement Agreement "was executed on the 18th day of February, 2018, and subsequently approved by the Court," that it was effective through the 2020 general election, and that a Revised Settlement Agreement was executed on April 2, 2021 and approved by the court. The county agreed beginning in 2018 to provide in-person assistance, including in Navajo, during the 28 days before every election and to maintain three Election Day polling places on the Navajo reservation.

    Related: San Juan County settlement on Navajo voting access extended through 2028

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  2. 2018 State Maps and lines Enacted

    Utah voters approve Proposition 4, creating an independent redistricting commission and neutral map standards

    The Utah Supreme Court wrote that Utah voters passed Proposition 4, also called "Better Boundaries," during the 2018 election. The court described it as an initiative that sought to reform redistricting by prohibiting what the court called "partisan gerrymandering" and by establishing the Utah Independent Redistricting Commission.

    Related: Legislature passes Senate Bill 200, repealing and replacing Proposition 4 · Utah Supreme Court holds voter-passed government-reform initiatives are protected from unfettered legislative repeal

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

2016

  1. Dec 5, 2016 County Laws and rules Enacted

    Federal determination requires election materials for 2 language groups in San Juan County, Utah

    The Director of the Census Bureau's notice, published in the Federal Register on December 5, 2016 (81 FR 87532), lists San Juan County, Utah, as covered by Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act for these language minority groups: American Indian (Navajo); American Indian (Ute). The notice says covered jurisdictions have a legal obligation to provide the minority language assistance that Section 203 prescribes; its table is titled bilingual election materials for voting rights. The county also appears in the 2021 notice.

    Related: Federal determination requires election materials for 2 language groups in San Juan County, Utah · Federal determination requires election materials for the American Indian (Navajo) language group in San Juan County, Utah · Federal determination requires election materials for 2 language groups in San Juan County, Utah

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  2. Feb 19, 2016 County Courts and officials Decided by a court

    Federal court rules San Juan County's consent decree did not require its District 3 boundaries

    In a memorandum decision of February 19, 2016, in Navajo Nation v. San Juan County (filed 2012), Judge Robert Shelby wrote that the county's position that it had to keep the decades-old District Three boundaries to comply with the 1980s consent decree "is unsupported by the language of the Consent Decree and Settlement and Order," in a case about whether District 3 was drawn on the basis of race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

    Related: San Juan County settles a Justice Department suit over at-large county commission elections · Tenth Circuit affirms rulings on San Juan County's commission and school board districts

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

2011

  1. Oct 13, 2011 County Laws and rules Enacted

    Federal determination requires election materials for the Hispanic language group in Salt Lake County, Utah

    The Director of the Census Bureau's notice, published in the Federal Register on October 13, 2011 (76 FR 63602), lists Salt Lake County, Utah, as covered by Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act for this language minority group: Hispanic. The notice says covered jurisdictions have a legal obligation to provide the minority language assistance that Section 203 prescribes; its table is titled bilingual election materials for voting rights. The county's name does not appear in the county listings of the 2016 notice (81 FR 87532).

    Related: Federal determination requires election materials for the Hispanic language group in Salt Lake County, Utah

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  2. Oct 13, 2011 County Laws and rules Enacted

    Federal determination requires election materials for the American Indian (Navajo) language group in San Juan County, Utah

    The Director of the Census Bureau's notice, published in the Federal Register on October 13, 2011 (76 FR 63602), lists San Juan County, Utah, as covered by Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act for this language minority group: American Indian (Navajo). The notice says covered jurisdictions have a legal obligation to provide the minority language assistance that Section 203 prescribes; its table is titled bilingual election materials for voting rights. The county also appears in the 2016 notice.

    Related: Federal determination requires election materials for 2 language groups in San Juan County, Utah · Federal determination requires election materials for 2 language groups in San Juan County, Utah · Federal determination requires election materials for 2 language groups in San Juan County, Utah

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

2002

  1. Jul 26, 2002 County Laws and rules Enacted

    Federal determination requires election materials for 2 language groups in San Juan County, Utah

    The Director of the Census Bureau's notice, published in the Federal Register on July 26, 2002 (67 FR 48871), lists San Juan County, Utah, as covered by Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act for these language minority groups: American Indian (Navajo); American Indian (Ute). The notice says covered jurisdictions have a legal obligation to provide the minority language assistance that Section 203 prescribes; its table is titled bilingual election materials for voting rights. The county also appears in the 2011 notice.

    Related: Federal determination requires election materials for the American Indian (Navajo) language group in San Juan County, Utah · Federal determination requires election materials for 2 language groups in San Juan County, Utah · Federal determination requires election materials for 2 language groups in San Juan County, Utah

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

1984

  1. 1984 County Courts and officials Settled

    San Juan County settles a Justice Department suit over at-large county commission elections

    The Tenth Circuit recounted that in 1983 the United States sued San Juan County, alleging that its at-large commission elections denied Native American residents an equal opportunity to participate and elect candidates of their choice under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The county entered a consent decree and settlement order in 1984, which acknowledged that the at-large system failed to comply fully with Section 2 and provided for single-member districts. The Navajo Nation was not a party.

    Related: Federal court rules San Juan County's consent decree did not require its District 3 boundaries · Tenth Circuit affirms rulings on San Juan County's commission and school board districts

    Source last checked Oct 23, 2026

Nationwide

2026

  1. 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

  2. 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.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  3. 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

    Source last checked Oct 22, 2026

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

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

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

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

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

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

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

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

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

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

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  17. Aug 17, 2026 National Courts and officials Pending

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

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

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

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

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

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

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

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

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

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

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

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

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

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  20. 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

  21. 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

  22. 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

  23. 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

  24. 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

  25. 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

  26. 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

  27. 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

  28. 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

  29. 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

  30. 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.