Arizona, like every other State, has adopted rules to promote the order and integrity of its elections. At issue here are two such provisions: an “out-of-precinct policy,” which does not count provisional ballots cast in person on Election Day outside of the voter’s designated precinct, and a “ballot-collection law,” known as H.B. 2023, which permits only certain persons (i.e., family and household members, caregivers, mail carriers, and elections officials) to handle another person’s completed early ballot. A majority of States require in-precinct voting, and about twenty States limit ballot collection.
2/20: Civil rights group contends plaintiffs lack standing by failing to meet basic standards for action under the Constitution and voting rights law.
7/27: The ACRU filed an amicus brief in support of a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the Pennsylvania redistricting case.
4/10: The ACRU filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Greater Birmingham Ministries v. Merrill, arguing that the appeals court should hold that Alabama’s voter-ID law is permitted by the federal Voting Rights Act.
3/7: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s map likely fails its own gerrymandering standards, because it skews so heavily democratic. The map submitted by the ACRU had more compact districts and fewer political subdivision splits.
2/20: The American Civil Rights Union has submitted a map to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which by all accounts is superior to all other submitted maps.
2/5: ACRU tells the Supreme Court that the district court undermined judicial credibility by imposing a last minute legislative map on North Carolina, using a series of highly novel factual findings and legal theories.
1/18: ACRU’s amicus brief argued that the district court’s demand for a redrawn legislative map was unreasonable.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals was wrong to strike [...]
A federal court in Wisconsin, in striking down a state [...]