You’re reading our series on 2025 state constitutional trends. All cases are handpicked and available by us state case database.

In the run-up to the 2024 election, state courts continued to grapple with fundamental questions about the scope of the constitutional right to vote this year, with a flurry of blockbuster decisions addressing topics such as voter identification laws, felony disenfranchisement, and mail-in voting disputes.

Some courts have directly addressed the meaning of constitutional voting guarantees, while others have resolved major election disputes on procedural or structural grounds. The resulting decisions demonstrate the growing centrality of state constitutions in defining who conducts elections, how they are conducted, and who participates in them.

Hurdles to mail-in voting

In March, the Washington Supreme Court upheld the state’s signature verification process for mail-in ballots, rejecting a facial challenge under the state constitution.

Most voters in Washington state vote by mail, and each person must sign a declaration confirming their eligibility to vote. Election officials check the signatures against the voter’s registration records before counting the ballots. If the signatures do not match, the ballot will be challenged and the vote will not be counted unless the voter successfully repairs the signature.

in Vet Voice Foundation vs. Hobbsthe plaintiffs argued that the process unfairly disenfranchises minority voters, young voters, military members, voters with disabilities, and non-English speakers and violates the state constitution’s voting rights protections. The court disagreed, noting that Washington had expanded procedures to notify voters of discrepant signatures and give them an opportunity to correct them.

As the Brennan Center previously explained, a key issue in the case was “what standard of review should courts apply when considering claims that a law or practice violates the Free Suffrage Clause and other state constitutional provisions that protect voters, such as Washington’s Due Process, Privileges, and Immunities Clause?”

The court refused to accept the federal plan. anderson burdick A balancing test to assess the burden of voting. Based on its analytical framework derived from two U.S. Supreme Court cases, the 1983 Anderson vs. Celebrese and in 1992 Burdick v. Takushithe court applies neither rational basis nor strict scrutiny. Instead, it requires balancing the burden on voting rights with the state’s regulatory interests. The Washington Supreme Court rejected this approach as “vague and unclear,” holding that laws that impose “heavy burdens on the right are appropriately subject to stricter scrutiny,” while “lesser burdens” require a “lesser degree of scrutiny.” Because the signature verification law withstood any level of scrutiny, the court “assumed without deciding” that strict scrutiny applied, but did not further define the standard.

The Brennan Center filed amicus briefs in support of both parties, asking the court to recognize that the Washington Constitution provides stronger voting protections than the federal Constitution and to apply rigorous scrutiny (the strictest judicial review) when evaluating laws that burden the right to vote. The Brennan Center called the case “a pivotal moment for the future of voting rights,” as federal courts back away from enforcing these protections.

By contrast, Pennsylvania’s high court in September struck down a county election board’s policy regarding mail-in voting, ruling that it violated voters’ procedural due process rights.

The case is Coalfield Justice Center v. Washington County Board of Electionsincluded policies adopted ahead of the 2024 primary election. Under this policy, all mail-in ballots received into the statewide system were simply marked as “returned,” regardless of whether they were later disqualified. Voters whose ballots were rejected did not receive notification that their votes would not be counted. Worse, the board misinformed voters that they could not vote in person, even though they had the right to provisionally vote if they were disqualified from voting by mail.

In finding a due process violation, the court recognized both the general liberty interest in voting under the “free and equal” election and “eligibility to vote” provisions of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the specific liberty interest in casting provisional ballots under the state election law. The court held that to satisfy due process, county boards of elections must accurately notify voters when they reject a voter’s mail-in ballot due to a disqualifying error.

Georgia’s controversial election rules

In June, the Georgia Supreme Court invalidated four of seven rules adopted by the Georgia Board of Elections, finding that the rules violated the state constitution’s nonrepresentation provisions. decision at Republican National Committee v. Eternal Vigilance Action, Inc.; Georgia vs. Eternal Vigilancepresents a serious rebuke of the Board’s attempts to change election procedures through administrative rulemaking.

The rules that were invalidated required ballots to be counted by hand, directed county election boards to conduct a “reasonable investigation” before certifying results, required identity verification of anyone mailing someone else’s absentee ballot, and allowed commissioners to “inspect all election-related documents” before certifying them. The court upheld only one of the five challenged measures, a rule requiring video surveillance of ballot boxes outside of voting hours.

Plaintiffs included a former Republican state lawmaker, the conservative election reform nonprofit he heads, and another member of the group who claimed to be running as an individual voter and on behalf of the organization. The court found that individual voter plaintiffs had standing to challenge these five rules because they directly affected their right to vote or count votes. But the same plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge two other issues: daily voting reporting and expanded access to poll watchers. Because they don’t concern their right to vote. One of these plaintiffs was also a member of the county elections board, and the justices remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether the plaintiff supported the remaining two rules in his capacity as a member. The court also held that the institutional plaintiffs had no standing to challenge any of the regulations.

as state court report It argued that the invalidated rules “would have encouraged county officials to refuse to certify or delay certification of election results in violation of state law.”

Voting access for non-English speakers

In June, the Iowa High Court refused to consider whether the Secretary of State could provide voter registration forms in languages ​​other than English, dismissing the case as ineligible.

The plaintiff, the United League of Latin American Citizens of Iowa (LULAC), was seeking to overturn a 2008 injunction that blocked state officials from distributing online voter registration forms in languages ​​other than English. Although LULAC was not a party to the original lawsuit, it has filed a new lawsuit. Iowa League of Latin American Citizens vs. Pate —Claims that the earlier injunction was erroneously decided.

LULAC argued that multilingual voter registration falls under an exception to the 2002 “English Only” law that was the basis for the injunction. The law required most “official documents” to be in English, but explicitly exempted the use of language “required by or necessary to secure” rights guaranteed by federal law or state constitutions.

The group said providing voter registration materials in other languages ​​is essential to allowing people with limited English proficiency to meaningfully exercise their right to vote. The group cited research showing that lack of access to native language election materials reduces registration and voter turnout.

The court never reached those questions. Instead, it determined that LULAC had no standing and argued that an organization’s expending of resources in response to laws that do not directly regulate or violate its own rights, status, or legal relationships does not constitute a legally permissible harm.

Non-citizen voting in local elections

In March, New York City’s highest court ruled that the state constitution limits voting rights to U.S. citizens, striking down a 2023 New York City law that allowed certain noncitizens to vote only in local elections. In addition to legal permanent residents, Dreamers (undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children and protected under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program), the law would also give rights to selected noncitizens who have lived in the city for at least 30 days and have work permits. decision at Fossella vs. Adams These residents will be ineligible to vote in local government elections.

non-citizens vote federal and state Elections are strictly prohibited and carry serious criminal penalties. Evidence shows that, with rare exceptions, only citizens vote in federal and state elections. In contrast, voting by noncitizens in local elections is not criminalized or explicitly prohibited.

Voting rights groups and advocacy groups, including Common Cause, Dēmos, and the New York Civil Liberties Union, filed court briefs defending the law. However, a majority of six judges ruled that the law violated Article II, Section 1 of the New York Constitution, which guarantees the right to vote to “citizens” who meet age and residency requirements. The court first rejected the appellant’s argument that this provision merely establishes a constitutional basis, guaranteeing the franchise to citizens but not prohibiting its extension to other citizens.

Second, it rejected the appellants’ argument, echoed by Justice Jenny Rivera’s dissenting opinion, that Article IX’s broad grant of domestic governance powers created an exception to Article II’s citizenship limitations. Instead, the majority wrote, “Article IX further strengthens constitutional constraints on noncitizen voting by expressly incorporating Article II, Section 1.”

Participants and the New York Civil Liberties Union also argued that “citizen” under the state constitution could include more than U.S. citizenship. They pointed to historical evidence that black voters continued to vote in New York after the 1857 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Dred Scott vs. Sandford This decision stripped them of their federal citizenship. The court rejected this theory, finding that “there is no known procedure for a person who is not a U.S. citizen to become a New York citizen.” Even if such a category existed, the court said, there was no indication that the city law was “intended to confer voting rights on those persons.” A review of discussions at the state’s constitutional convention found that there was “a common understanding that the New York State Constitution limits the franchise to U.S. citizens” and “there is no evidence that any proposed amendment would change that understanding.”

Mr. Rivera disagreed, agreeing that the city law was invalid, but on a narrower basis. She would have considered this a change in “how to vote” that would require approval of a local referendum under the state’s internal policy rules.

• • •

This year’s voting rights decisions continue the resolution of disputes carried over from the 2024 election, testing the constitutionality of key election procedures and examining the broad scope of voting rights in federal, state, and municipal elections. Procedural barriers such as standing and justice also determine which of these claims can be advanced.

But courts aren’t just ending old disputes. As the 2026 midterm elections approach, new challenges are emerging, particularly regarding mid-decade redistricting efforts and other voting restrictions. Since the 2019 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Lucho vs. Common Cause As federal partisan gerrymandering claims are foreclosed, state courts have become the primary venue for such disputes and increasingly for defining the right to vote itself.

Chihiro Isozaki is a consultant in the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice.

Recommended citation: Chihiro Isozaki Litigation trends: State courts shape voting rightsSᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (November 4, 2025), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/case-trends-state-courts-shape-right-vote