On Drawing Lines
By Marshal Trigg, Junior Counsel, USGI
With the 2026 midterm primaries already underway, the Supreme Court’s decision to issue an emergency stay of a New York trial court’s redistricting order may prove to be one of the most consequential election law rulings of the cycle. (As a reminder that we told you so, we did predict some eventful shadow docket rulings in our first edition of the year.)
The facts of the New York case are straightforward enough. A state trial judge ordered the redrawing of the 11th Congressional District, directing that its boundaries be configured to ensure certain minority voters could elect their preferred candidate. The order directed the state’s independent redistricting commission to produce a new map on an accelerated timeline, with primaries just months away. Congresswoman Malliotakis and others appealed and sought emergency stays with both of New York’s appellate courts. After neither acted, Malliotakis sought a stay from the Supreme Court who stepped in and said: not so fast.
Justice Alito filed a concurrence defending the stay, while Justice Sotomayor authored a dissent joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson. The Purcell principle figured significantly in the Justices’ dialogue. Named for Purcell v. Gonzalez, a 2006 Supreme Court decision, Purcell holds that federal courts should avoid risking voter confusion by changing voting rules on the eve of an election. Sotomayor’s dissent argued that recent applications of the doctrine counseled restraint four months away from a primary election. Alito turned the argument on its head, noting that the purpose of Purcell is to prevent disruptive uncertainty on the eve of an election, and therefore does not preclude the Court from “eliminat[ing] much of the uncertainty and confusion” a judicially mandated redraw would have caused, particularly one which “this Court would likely strike down if the cases reached [it] in time.”
The implications extend well beyond New York. Indeed, as NPR reported, requests for Supreme Court intervention on redistricting issues have become “a recurring theme this term, a trend that is likely to grow.” The stay might give pause to lower court judges tempted to issue sweeping redistricting remedies on compressed timelines—at least where those remedies could turn out to be constitutionally suspect. State appellate courts should also be mindful that the Supreme Court was willing to intervene to essentially stay a state trial court’s ruling after New York’s appellate courts failed to act. They cannot rely on avoiding Supreme Court review merely by sitting on stay requests to run out the clock.
So, what about the substantive legal dimensions? Justice Alito’s concurrence framed the trial court’s order not merely as procedurally disruptive, but as flatly unconstitutional. Not mincing words, he lambasted the trial court’s remedy as “unadorned racial discrimination.” This framing is significant, and critics of this Court have not missed it. UCLA law professor Rick Hasen, writing at the Election Law Blog, called the ruling’s implications “ominous,” warning that Alito’s language attacking race-conscious districting is “bad news” for Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act—a provision whose fate the Court is currently mulling over in Louisiana v. Callais. Whether or not one shares Hasen’s alarm, the doctrinal stakes raised in Alito’s concurrence are real.
The jury’s still out on the merits in New York. But the Court’s posture heading into 2026 is already coming into focus.
Alabama
Three people have been indicted for tampering with 20 absentee ballots in the Frisco City municipal election. The charges include unlawful use of absentee ballots and submitting false ballot applications.
Florida
Lawmakers in Tallahassee are expected to pass legislation similar to the federal SAVE Act. This legislation, among other things, would add documentary proof of citizenship requirement to vote in Florida elections.
Georgia
A PAC founded by Elon Musk was reprimanded by the State Election Board for sending pre-filled absentee ballots to voters ahead of the 2024 election.
Indiana
Last week, Governor Braun signed bipartisan legislation prohibiting ranked choice voting.
Maryland
A state compliance board found that the Talbot County Board of Elections violated Maryland’s Open Meetings Act nine times over a 16-month period. One violation involved an uneven partisan distribution of election judges at a meeting leading up to the 2024 election. Others involved missing minutes, maintaining incomplete records of closed sessions, and failure to disclose reasons for closed session meetings.
Michigan
Counties are divided over whether to offer early in-person voting in a special state Senate election for State Legislative District 35 that could determine control of the chamber. Only Democratic-leaning Saginaw County plans to provide early voting, while the two Republican-leaning counties in the district cite insufficient funding to do so.
New Jersey
A state legislative panel advanced legislation which would grant state courts broad authority to remedy discriminatory election practices, including modifying election rules, redrawing voting districts, expanding governing bodies, and rescheduling elections when the original date would have disproportionately hindered members of a protected class from voting. The bill now needs to be considered by the full Assembly.
The United States Postal Service has completed its investigation into the dumping of campaign mailers supporting Congressman Tom Kean Jr. during the 2024 election and referred the case to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for potential prosecution.
North Carolina
The Board of Elections has begun working on upgrading the state’s election systems. As part of this initiative, State Auditor Boliek has assembled a new commission tasked with supporting efforts to upgrade the elections infrastructure.
After a technical issue delayed the opening of Halifax County’s Littleton precinct on Election Day, the state board of elections voted unanimously to extend voting by one hour. All ballots cast after 7:30 pm are treated as provisional ballots under state and federal law.
Texas
The state had an eventful day in its closely watched primary. There was considerable voter confusion in Dallas County resulting from changes to how the local political parties administered the primary process. In short, the Dallas County Republican Party initiated a change that returned to a precinct-based voting system for election day instead of the normal countywide vote centers that were also used during early voting in the primary. Some voters, unaware of the changes, appeared at their usual vote center and were told they needed to vote at their assigned precinct. This also led to litigation which is discussed below in Court Watch.
Virginia
Early voting for Virginia’s April 21 redistricting referendum is scheduled to begin March 6 across the state. A Tazewell County circuit court had previously halted the county’s officials from preparing or administering the election as part of litigation challenging the legality of the referendum legislation. But the Virginia Supreme Court has since stayed that order, allowing election preparations and early voting to proceed.
Wisconsin
A new bill introduced in the legislature would automatically register residents to vote when they interact with state Department of Transportation agencies.
DOJ Voter Roll Cases
The United States Department of Justice has filed five new lawsuits against states (UT, NJ, KY, OK, WV) that have refused to provide their voter rolls to the Department. These new suits come just a day after the DOJ appealed rulings preventing the data transfer in Oregon, Michigan, and California. In total, the DOJ has filed suit against 29 states and the District of Columbia.
Alaska
Repeal Now v. Alaska Div. of Elections, 3AN-26-04988СІ (Alaska Super. Ct., 3d Jud. Dist.)
On February 17, an activist group filed a lawsuit challenging the wording of a ballot measure which would repeal open primaries and ranked choice voting elections. A similar measure was narrowly defeated in the 2024 election.
Arizona
Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes, No. 2:22-cv-00509 (D. Ariz.)
On February 19, the RNC, Arizona legislature, and State of Arizona each filed writs of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court asking the Court to overturn the Ninth Circuit’s decision which partially voided Arizona’s documentary proof of citizen requirements.
United States v. Fontes, No. 2:26-cv-00066 (D. Ariz.)
On February 27, Secretary of State Fontes moved to dismiss the DOJ’s lawsuit seeking access to Arizona’s unredacted voter registration file.
Mussi v. Fontes, No. 2:24-cv-01310 (D. Ariz.)
On March 2, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments from a group of Arizona Republican voters appealing the dismissal of their lawsuit against Secretary Fontes over alleged failures to remove ineligible voters from the state’s registration rolls. The plaintiffs claim that Arizona’s failure to remove as many as 1.2 million outdated registrations violates the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and could dilute lawful votes.
California
Doe v. Shasta County Board of Supervisors, No. 26CV-0209919 (Cal. Super. Ct., Shasta Cnty.)
On February 26, a state court granted a temporary restraining order preventing county officials from placing a citizen-led county-level voter ID initiative on the June 2 ballot that critics say conflicts with California election law. The court granted the order after a petition from a local resident argued that moving forward with the measure could impose unnecessary costs if the initiative were later invalidated.
Georgia
Pitts v. United States, 1:26-CV-00809-JPB (N.D. Ga.)
On February 25, a federal court ordered the U.S. government and Fulton County to go into mediation regarding the 2020 election documents seized by the FBI. The ruling requires the parties to conduct mediation by March 18.
Black Voters Matter Fund v. Raffensperger, No. 1:26-mi-99999 (N.D. Ga.)
On February 27, an activist organization and two union groups filed suit in federal court against Secretary of State Raffensperger after the Secretary removed nearly a half million inactive voters from the voter rolls. The suit regards the Secretary’s refusal to hand over records related to the list maintenance efforts undertaken by his office.
Michigan
Public Interest Legal Foundation v. Benson, No. 1:21-cv-00929 (W.D. Mich.)
On March 2, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to Michigan’s voter-roll maintenance practices, leaving in place lower-court rulings that dismissed a lawsuit brought by the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF). The suit alleged the state violated the NVRA by failing to adequately remove deceased voters from its rolls.
Mississippi
Watson v. Republican Nat’l Comm.,No. 1:24-cv-00025 (S.D. Miss.)
Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on March 23. Plaintiffs in this case are requesting the Court to affirm a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down a state law which permits mail ballots postmarked by Election Day to be accepted up to five days after the election.
Last month, Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections (RITE) submitted an amicus brief in this case jointly with Honest Elections Project, the Center for Election Confidence, and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in support of plaintiffs.
New Jersey
Republican Nat’l Comm. v. N.J. Div. of Elections, No. MER-L-001499-25 (N.J. Super. Ct., Mercer Cnty.)
On February 19, a state court dismissed the RNC’s Open Public Records Act (OPRA) suit over the state’s handling of voter records. The Attorney General’s office additionally filed a motion in federal court to dismiss the companion suit.
Republican Nat’l Comm. v. Bergen Cnty. Bd. of Elections, No. BER-L002599-26 (N.J. Super. Ct., Bergen Cnty.)
On March 2, the RNC filed suit against the Bergen County Board of Elections for failing to provide a list of poll workers who worked the polls during the 2025 election. The RNC has cited concerns over partisan disparities among poll workers.
New York
Williams v. Board of Elections of the State of New York, No. 164002/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty.)
On March 2, the U.S. Supreme Court granted an emergency stay of a New York State court ruling that ordered the redrawing of New York’s Eleventh Congressional District before this year’s midterm election.
Pennsylvania
Public Interest Legal Foundation v. Schmidt, No. 1:19-cv-00622 (M.D. Pa.)
On March 2, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear PILF’s request to overturn a Third Circuit holding which stated that the organization lacked standing to bring their public records claim under the NVRA.
Texas
Coleman v. Adams, No. DC-26-03805 (162nd Dist. Ct., Dallas Cnty.)
On March 3, the Texas Supreme Court temporarily paused a lower court order that had extended voting hours in Dallas County during the state’s primary election. The extension had been granted after confusion over new precinct-based voting rules led to voters being turned away from polling locations. The state’s high court ruled that any ballots cast by voters after the standard closing time be separated while litigation continues over whether those votes will ultimately be counted.
Utah
League of Women Voters of Utah v. Utah State Legislature, No. 220901712 (3d Jud. Dist. Ct., Salt Lake Cnty.)
On February 20, the Utah Supreme Court rejected a request by the Republican-controlled legislature to halt enforcement of a judge-ordered congressional map and reinstate the legislature’s 2021 plan.
Subsequently on February 21, plaintiffs filed a supplemental complaint asking the court to block implementation of a newly created three-judge “constitutional court” established by the Utah Legislature to hear challenges to state laws.
Virginia
City of Lynchburg v. Koski, No. CL26-183 (Va. Cir. Ct., City of Lynchburg)
On March 2, a state court dismissed the City of Lynchburg’s lawsuit seeking to pause early voting in the midst of questions about the legality of the state’s redistricting referendum.
Republican National Committee v. Koski, No. CL26-266 (Va. Cir. Ct., Tazewell Cnty.)
On February 19, a state court granted a temporary injunction halting Virginia’s redistricting amendment referendum. Republican plaintiffs argue the ballot language is misleading and that the legislature violated procedural requirements under the state constitution in its passage of the bill.
Subsequently on March 4, the Virginia Supreme Court stayed the lower court’s order, permitting the referendum to proceed.
Wisconsin
Precious Ayodabo v. City of Madison, No. 2025CV003082 (Wis. Cir. Ct., Dane Cnty.)
On February 23, the City of Madison appealed a state court ruling allowing it to be sued for monetary damages for ballot-counting errors that disenfranchised 193 voters.
Sheila Nix, who previously served as chief of staff for former Vice President Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign, is now the CEO of the Mobile Voting Project.
A senior Department of Homeland Security official told state election administrators that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents will not be stationed at polling places during the 2026 midterm elections.
The National Student Clearinghouse has ended its 13-year partnership with Tufts University’s National Study of Learning, Voting and Engagement (NSLVE), a project that tracks college student voter participation using enrollment data matched with public voting records. The move follows a U.S. Department of Education investigation into whether the program violates federal student privacy law.
The New York Times Editorial Board criticizes California’s slow approach to counting ballots, arguing that the prolonged delays in reporting results undermine public trust and play into the hands of misinformation-peddlers by allowing speculation to fill the vacuum.
Hans von Spakovsky argues in favor of the passage of the SAVE Act to ensure that only citizens are voting in American elections.
Richard Re contends that the Supreme Court’s decision in Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections represents a pivotal shift in federal standing doctrine, especially in election litigation.
The Advancing American Freedom Foundation has released a report arguing that longstanding federal limits on coordinated political spending by national parties and their candidates are unconstitutional and should be overturned by the Supreme Court and Congress.
This article discusses how the Ohio Secretary of State’s office deployed an artificial-intelligence tool called “Eva” (Elections Virtual Assistant) to assist election administrators. The authors argue that this type of limited deployment illustrates how AI can improve election operations without replacing human judgment or introducing significant new risks.
The Grant Institute has potential openings for junior level attorneys and others interested in the study of election administration and voting issues. Interested candidates should please email their resume to info@grantdemocracy.org.