Last Updated May 2025
May 20, 2026: Wagner v. Weber
A California candidate for Secretary of State and the American Independent Party of California brought suit against Secretary of State Shirley Weber (D), alleging that the state has not satisfied its obligations under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) to properly maintain its voter registration rolls. The plaintiffs assert that California has failed to make the reasonable efforts required by Section 8 of the NVRA to identify and remove registrations of voters who are no longer eligible due to a change of residence. The complaint asks the court to declare Weber in violation of the NVRA and to compel the state to establish and implement lawful voter list maintenance procedures to remove ineligible registrations.
April 3, 2026: State of California, et al. v. Trump, et al.
On April 3, 2026, twenty-four states and the District of Columbia filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts challenging Executive Order No. 14399, issued by President Trump on March 31, 2026, titled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections.” The plaintiffs allege the executive order unlawfully establishes federal “shadow voter eligibility lists” and uses threats of investigation and prosecution to pressure states into disenfranchising voters who do not appear on those lists. The complaint further contends that the order improperly directs the United States Postal Service to refuse delivery of voted ballots unless voters are included on a USPS-maintained pre-cleared list outside state control. The states assert three constitutional claims, arguing the order violates separation of powers principles and unlawfully intrudes on state authority over voter roll maintenance, mail voting administration, and election record preservation. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent enforcement of the challenged provisions.
March 23, 2026: Watson v. Republican National Committee
The Supreme Court heard arguments in Watson v. Republican National Committee, a federal election law case challenging Mississippi’s absentee ballot receipt deadline for federal elections. The Republican National Committee, Mississippi Republican Party, and related plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi arguing that Mississippi’s law—which permits mail ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if received within five business days afterward—conflicts with federal statutes establishing a uniform federal Election Day.
The district court initially upheld Mississippi’s law, concluding that federal election-day statutes require ballots to be cast by Election Day but do not mandate receipt by that date. On appeal, however, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed in part, holding that federal law requires ballots in federal elections to be both cast and received by Election Day, thereby preempting Mississippi’s extended receipt deadline.
Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson petitioned for Supreme Court review, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari on November 10, 2025. The case presents the question of whether federal election-day statutes preempt state laws allowing timely mailed ballots to be counted after Election Day. The Court’s decision could significantly affect mail voting procedures nationwide, as numerous states permit postmarked ballots to arrive and be counted after Election Day.
March 3, 2026: United States of America v. Weber
The United States filed suit against California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, alleging that California unlawfully refused to provide the Department of Justice with access to the state’s complete voter registration records as purportedly required under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). The federal government argued that the requested records were necessary to evaluate California’s compliance with federal voter list maintenance requirements and to investigate potential violations of federal election law.
California defended its refusal by asserting that federal law does not require disclosure of sensitive voter information beyond what is expressly mandated by the NVRA and argued that the federal government’s request exceeded statutory authority and threatened voter privacy. Voting rights organizations intervened in support of the state, contending that disclosure of unredacted voter data would expose confidential personal information and undermine voter confidence.
The district court dismissed the federal government’s claims, concluding that the DOJ lacked a sufficient legal basis to compel production of the requested records. The United States appealed to the Ninth Circuit, where the case presents significant questions concerning the scope of federal oversight authority under the NVRA and the balance between election administration transparency and voter privacy protections.