Voting
CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION’S
FOUNDATIONAL APPROACH
Since 1957, federal civil rights enforcement has protected the right to vote won through the struggle of Black Americans and other marginalized communities. The Civil Rights Division has enforced federal voting laws to dismantle discriminatory redistricting, protect language-minority and disabled voters, expand voter access, and ensure that eligible voters can cast ballots freely and have them counted.
CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION'S FOUNDATIONAL APPROACH
Voting is the engine of our democracy, with free and fair elections serving as the source of our government’s legitimacy. Voting rights are thus central to democratic order and the rule of law. As the Supreme Court said nearly 140 years ago, the right to vote is “a fundamental political right, because [it is] preservative of all rights.” Having and exercising the right to vote is a core ingredient of democratic inclusion.
Voting Rights Act: Ensuring Equal Access to the Ballot
Since its creation in 1957, the Civil Rights Division has worked to secure voting rights for all Americans. The Division enforces the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), one of our nation’s core civil rights statutes. The VRA was enacted to overcome persistent and often violent resistance to Black citizens’ efforts to register and vote in the southern states. Section 2 of the VRA, which applies nationwide, prohibits voting practices and procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language-minority group. Other provisions of the VRA require certain jurisdictions to provide bilingual election materials and assistance to voters with limited English proficiency. And the Americans with Disabilities Act likewise requires that individuals with disabilities be afforded a full and equal opportunity to vote in all elections.
For decades, the Division brought cases under the VRA to challenge redistricting plans and other voting procedures that denied racial and language-minority voters a fair chance to participate in the political process. Most of the Division’s VRA cases challenged discrimination at the local level—in cities, counties, and towns around the country. Thanks in part to the VRA, the electoral process truly is more open and inclusive today than it was in 1965. But despite significant improvements, discriminatory voting practices persist. In just the last 25 years, the Division brought VRA cases in nearly half the states, striking down practices that primarily impeded voters of color from having an equal opportunity to participate in the political life of their communities.
Making Voter Registration Simple, Accessible, and Fair
The Civil Rights Division also enforces the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), sometimes called the Motor Voter Act, which Congress enacted in 1993 to expand voter registration and participation in federal elections. The law requires states to offer voter registration through the mail, at driver’s license offices, and when people apply for public assistance or disability services. The NVRA also creates requirements for how states maintain voter registration lists for federal elections, including limitations on how and when names may be removed from the voter rolls. These provisions promote accurate voter registration lists and guard against the incorrect removal of eligible voters.
The Division also enforces some parts of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), including provisions requiring poll workers to provide a provisional ballot when a voter declares they are duly registered but their name does not appear in the poll book. Other provisions of HAVA require jurisdictions to provide at least one accessible voting machine at each polling place to permit voters with disabilities to vote independently.
Protecting the Voting Rights of Military and Overseas Citizens
The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) requires states to allow members of the military, their family members, and U.S. citizens residing overseas to register and vote absentee in elections for federal offices. When requested by a UOCAVA voter, states must send the voter an absentee ballot early enough for the voter to receive it, complete it, and send it back. When states have failed to make sure that ballots are sent to qualified UOCAVA-protected voters in a timely manner, the Civil Rights Division has successfully obtained court orders and consent decrees to ensure that qualified service members and overseas voters were able to cast their ballots and know that they were counted.
WHAT’S CHANGED SINCE
JANUARY 20, 2025?
Civil Rights Division political leadership has redirected voting enforcement from protecting the right to vote toward undermining it. Dismissing Voting Rights Act (VRA) cases, taking positions to weaken VRA protections, pressuring states to dismantle equal-opportunity districts, and demanding mass voter registration data have stripped back hard-won protections and threaten confidence in free and fair elections.
WHAT'S CHANGED SINCE JANUARY 20, 2025?
The Civil Rights Division’s work on voting rights has changed dramatically under the current Trump administration.
Racial Discrimination Enforcement Has Been Gutted
Enforcement of statutes designed to eradicate racial discrimination in voting—traditionally the heart of the Division’s voting work—has been the hardest hit. In early 2025, the Division moved to dismiss most of its ongoing lawsuits, including cases enforcing Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. It has pressured states to dismantle voting districts that provide voters of color an equal opportunity to elect their candidates of choice. After decades of defending Section 2’s constitutionality, the Division urged the Supreme Court to adopt a heightened standard designed to make Section 2 challenges significantly harder to sustain—and the Court’s decision followed that path.
The Division has Reoriented its Mission around Alleged Voter Fraud
The Division says it is aggressively focused on preventing voter fraud and coordinating with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to identify alleged non-citizens on the voter rolls. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon issued a new mission statement to guide the Division’s voting rights work that centers politically-charged issues not grounded in the statutes the Division enforces, such as voting fraud, and makes no reference to racial discrimination in voting. The Division’s political leadership forced out the career chief of the Voting Section, replaced that leadership with a political appointee serving as acting chief, and later installed another acting chief who reportedly lacked federal election law experience.
The Division Has Sought Sweeping New Control Over Local Election Data
The Division has also pursued an alarming expansion of federal authority over local elections by demanding complete voter registration lists from all states and reportedly sharing the data it receives with DHS, including highly confidential information such as driver’s license and Social Security numbers. The Division has filed over 30 lawsuits against states and the District of Columbia to compel disclosure of the information. This approach is notable because voter fraud, particularly non-citizen voting, is exceedingly rare and would ordinarily be handled by criminal prosecutors outside of the Division.
Tracking the Changes
Voting Cases Shut Down Since January 20, 2025
Red Line does not include every Civil Rights Division case. Learn what Red Line tracks.
No Results Found
The posts you requested could not be found. Try changing your module settings or create some new posts.
Voting Cases Pursued Since January 20, 2025
Red Line does not include every Civil Rights Division case. Learn what Red Line tracks.
Equality State Policy Center v. Gray
25-cv-00117 (D. Wyo.)
On July 1, 2025, the Civil Rights Division filed a Statement of Interest in this private litigation challenging a Wyoming law on constitutional grounds that imposed new citizenship documentation requirements to vote. The Division’s Statement of Interest supported Wyoming’s documentation law. The court dismissed the case without ruling on the substantive issues.
United States v. Page (Orange County, CA)
25-cv-01370 (C.D. Cal.)
On June 25, 2025, the Civil Rights Division announced that it sued Orange County California Registrar of Voters under the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act to compel disclosure of records about alleged non-citizen registrations and removals, including unredacted voter registration applications and related correspondence, some of which contain highly confidential personally identifiable information (e.g., driver’s license or last four digits of Social Security numbers).
According to the lawsuit, the Division “received a complaint from the family member of a non-citizen in Orange County indicating that the non-citizen received an unsolicited mail-in ballot . . . despite lack of citizenship.” The Division asked for extensive records about canceled registrations that did not meet the citizenship requirement. The County agreed to share redacted data but refused to turn over Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers, preferred languages, and registrars’ signatures.
On November 21, 2025, the court stayed this litigation pending resolution of the Division’s lawsuit against California (United States v. Weber) which seeks the State’s complete statewide voter registration list, including Orange County.
This lawsuit is part of the Division’s election-related enforcement initiative, framed by the Trump Administration as an “election integrity” priority under the President’s March 25, 2025, Executive Order.
Milligan v. Allen
21-cv-01530 (N.D. Ala.)
In this long running private litigation challenging Alabama’s congressional redistricting plan as discriminatory against Black voters under the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution, the Civil Rights Division filed a Statement of Interest on June 20, 2025. In 2022, the district court found the drawn maps likely discriminated against Black voters, and the Supreme Court upheld that ruling in 2023. Despite this recent history of discrimination, the Division argued in its brief against imposition of “federal preclearance” for future redistricting under Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act.
United States v. Arizona
22-cv-01124 (D. Ariz.), 22-cv-00509 (D. Ariz.), No. 24-3188 (9th Cir.), No. 24-3459 (9th Cir.) and No. 24-4029 (9th Cir.)
On July 5, 2022, the Civil Rights Division announced that it had filed a complaint against the State of Arizona, alleging that Arizona House Bill 2492 violates Section 6 of the NVRA by requiring that applicants who use the uniform federal voter registration form must produce documentary proof of citizenship—such as a birth certificate or a passport—before they can vote in presidential elections or vote by mail in any federal election. The complaint also alleged that HB 2492, which required voters to disclose their birthplace when completing a voter registration form, violates Section 101 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (known as the “Materiality Provision”) by requiring election officials to reject voter registration forms based on errors or omissions that are not material to establishing a voter’s eligibility to cast a ballot. The United States’ case was consolidated with several other cases that raised similar claims. See Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes, 22-cv-00509 (D. Ariz.).
The United States prevailed on both counts in the district court, and in February 2025, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.
On June 10, 2025, after unsuccessfully seeking to exit from the case, the Division reversed course and filed a brief in the Ninth Circuit supporting the State’s petition for rehearing en banc, explaining that “[a]fter the change in Administration, the United States has reversed its position on this issue [whether HB 2492’s birthplace requirement violates the Materiality Provision] and now supports state defendants’ Petition for Rehearing En Banc with respect to the birthplace requirement.” In September 2025, the Ninth Circuit denied the State’s petition for rehearing en banc. The case continues with private litigants.
Letter to Wisconsin Election Commission
On June 4, 2025, the Civil Rights Division announced that it had sent a letter to the Wisconsin Elections Commission threatening its federal funding and contending that it fails to provide an administrative complaint process or hearing for Help America Vote Act complaints.
The letter is part of the Division’s election-related enforcement initiative, framed by the Trump Administration as an “election integrity” priority under the President’s March 25, 2025 Executive Order.
United States v. North Carolina
25-cv-00283 (E.D.N.C.)
On May 27, 2025, the Civil Rights Division announced that it sued North Carolina for violations of the Help America Vote Act. The Division alleged that the state previously used a form that failed to require voters to provide identifying information such as a driver’s license number or last four digits of a social security number and that the state has taken insufficient steps to update the voter registration lists with the missing information. This lawsuit stems from a longstanding dispute over voter registration for over 200,000 voters that involved multiple private lawsuits prior to and after the 2024 election.
On September 9, 2025, the Division and the State announced a settlement that was then ordered by the court. This lawsuit is part of the Division’s election-related enforcement initiative, framed by the Trump Administration as an “election integrity” priority under the President’s March 25, 2025 Executive Order.
Letter to the Arizona Secretary of State
On May 20, 2025, the Civil Rights Division sent a letter to the Arizona Secretary of State contending that its voter registration form failed to require voters to provide identifying information such as a driver’s license number or last four digits of a Social Security number consistent with the Help America Vote Act. The Arizona Secretary of State responded to the DOJ’s letter, contending Arizona is in compliance with federal law.
The letter is part of the Division’s election-related enforcement initiative, framed by the Trump Administration as an “election integrity” priority under the President’s March 25, 2025 Executive Order.
CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT
Born in Reconstruction. Federal civil rights accountability at its core.
EMPLOYMENT
Equal opportunity at work is essential to economic security, dignity, and full civic participation.
POLICING
The Constitution and federal law exist to protect people from abuses of power—including by those sworn to uphold it.
DISABILITY
Federal civil rights laws guarantee people with disabilities equal participation in community life.
VOTING
The right to vote is foundational to democracy and equal participation in civic life.
HOUSING & GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Where people live and access services shapes opportunity.
EDUCATION
Rooted in Brown v. Board of Education, federal civil rights laws guarantee equal access to education.
LGBTQI+
Protections for LGBTQI+ people in work, education, healthcare, and public life grounded in equality and dignity.
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTHCARE
Protecting access to reproductive healthcare by safeguarding patients, providers, and facilities.
