Last Updated July 2026
July 13, 2026: Alaska Policy Forum v. Alaska Public Offices Commission
In Alaska Policy Forum v. Alaska Public Offices Commission, the Alaska Policy Forum challenged the Alaska Public Offices Commission’s application of the state’s campaign finance laws to the organization’s publication of research and educational materials about ranked-choice voting. The Commission concluded that the group’s communications constituted regulated election activity, subjecting the organization to campaign finance disclosure and reporting requirements. The Alaska Supreme Court upheld the Commission’s decision, finding that the state could apply its campaign finance laws to the speech at issue. In response, the Institute for Free Speech petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review, arguing that the ruling improperly treats nonpartisan educational research and commentary as campaign advocacy, thereby burdening core political speech protected by the First Amendment. The petition asks the Court to clarify the constitutional limits on campaign finance regulation when applied to issue advocacy and educational expression.
June 30, 2026: State of California v. Shasta County
The State of California sued Shasta County after voters approved Measure B, a local ballot initiative that would alter the county’s election system. The measure requires government-issued photo identification for voter registration and in-person voting, eliminates most vote-by-mail and early voting, mandates hand-counting of ballots, and creates a county voter registration system separate from California’s statewide system. California argues that these changes exceed the county’s legal authority and conflict with state election laws requiring uniform election procedures across all counties. The state seeks to block enforcement of Measure B before the upcoming election, contending that local governments cannot override statewide election protections or impose voting rules inconsistent with California law.
June 29, 2026: Watson v. Republican National Committee
In June, the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether federal election-day statutes preempt a Mississippi law allowing absentee ballots that are postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they are received within five business days afterward. The Republican National Committee argued that federal law requires both the casting and receipt of ballots to occur on Election Day, making Mississippi’s grace period unlawful. In a 5–4 decision, the Court rejected that argument, holding that the federal statutes establish the deadline for casting votes, not for receiving or counting ballots. The Court concluded that because Mississippi requires absentee ballots to be mailed by Election Day, its post-election receipt deadline does not conflict with federal law. The decision preserves the authority of states to count timely cast absentee ballots received after Election Day and upholds similar election procedures used in numerous other states.
June 24, 2026: Southwest Voter Registration Education Project v. City of Huntington Beach
In Southwest Voter Education Project v. City of Huntington Beach, the nonprofit Southwest Voter Registration Education Project and Huntington Beach resident Victor Valladares challenged the city’s at-large method of electing City Council members under the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA). The plaintiffs argued that the at-large election system diluted the voting strength of Latino residents, preventing them from electing candidates of their choice or meaningfully influencing election outcomes. After trial, the Orange County Superior Court found that Huntington Beach’s at-large system violated the CVRA and ordered the city to adopt a remedy to improve minority voting opportunities, ultimately directing the city to implement ranked-choice voting unless it adopted an alternative compliant election system.
June 9, 2026: Dakotans for Health v. Johnson
Dakotans for Health challenged a South Dakota law that moved the deadline for submitting initiative petitions from May to February, arguing that the earlier deadline substantially burdened the group’s ability to collect signatures and engage in protected political speech. The U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota agreed, holding that circulating initiative petitions is core political speech protected by the First Amendment and that the state failed to show the earlier deadline was narrowly tailored to serve its asserted administrative interests. The case is now before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.