Election Law: Voting Rights and Registration

Guides.vote We provide clear, insightful, and well-sourced nonpartisan information on candidate positions to engage potential voters, especially young voters, so they can know what’s at stake in each election.

• National Voter Guides
• State Voter Guides 
• Voter Guides in Spanish 

 Vote411 Launched by the League of Women Voters Education Fund (LWVEF) in October of 2006, VOTE411.org is a "one-stop-shop" for election related information. It provides nonpartisan information to the public with both general and state-specific information

• Search by State and topic 
• Voters' Guide
• Voter Registration Deadlines

Electronic Resources 

Fee-based Resources

HeinOnline HeinOnline is a subscription service available through the law school which has access to a variety of material regarding voting rights and election law. Researchers must use their own credentials to access content.  This list is not exhaustive but provides a beginning point to your research. 

• Voting Rights and Election Law Database This database features thousands of titles on the electoral process: how elections are conducted, how votes are counted, how political campaigns are run and funded, and who is allowed to vote. Featuring content on historical and more recent elections, this database allows users to understand both how the current electoral system came to be as well as the context for proposals for its complete overhaul.

Free Resources 

There are also a variety of resources available to researchers seeking further information about voting rights. We have included the links to a variety of materials to being your search. Please note this list is not exhaustive and only provides a place to begin. 

• Federal Elections Commission The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is the independent regulatory agency charged with administering and enforcing the federal campaign finance law. The FEC has jurisdiction over the financing of campaigns for the U.S. House, Senate, Presidency and the Vice Presidency.
• Voters Rights Act of 1965 "The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a landmark piece of federal legislation in the United States that prohibits racial discrimination in voting" 
• National Voters Registration Act 1993 "Congress enacted the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (also known as the "NVRA" and the "Motor Voter Act"), to enhance voting opportunities for every American. The Act has made it easier for all Americans to register to vote and to maintain their registration. The NVRA allows the Department of Justice to bring civil actions in federal court to enforce its requirements. The Act also gives the responsibility to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to provide States with guidance on the Act, to develop a national mail voter registration form, and to compile reports on the effectiveness of the Act. An amendment in the Help America Vote Act of 2002 transferred the FEC's responsibilities under the Act to the Election Assistance Commission. " 
• Help America Vote Act of 2002 "The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) is an item of United States federal election law signed in to law on October 29, 2002 by President Bush. Under HAVA, a new federal voter registration form was created. HAVA guarantees the ability of individuals to cast a provisional ballot and have the validity of their registration checked later if they do not appear on voter registration rolls."
• American Disability Act "The ADA requires state and local governments and their election officials to ensure that people with disabilities have a full and equal opportunity to vote in all elections. This includes federal, state, and local elections. And it includes all parts of voting, like voter registration, selecting a location for polling places, and voting, whether on election day or during an early or absentee voting process"

Voting rights cases can be accessed using a variety of resources both free and fee based. We have provided link to some of these resources below but this list is not exhaustive. 

Fee-based Resources

• Lexis+ Access to Lexis+ requires a subscription. Researchers must use their own login credentials to access legal content. 
• Westlaw Precision Access to Westlaw Precision requires a subscription. Researchers must use their own login credentials to access legal content. 
• HeinOnline HeinOnline is a subscription service available through the law school which has access to a variety of material regarding voting rights and election law. Researchers must use their own login credentials to access legal content. This list is not exhaustive but provides a beginning point to your research.

Free Resources

• Oyez Oyez (pronounced OH-yay)—a free law project from Cornell’s Legal Information Institute (LII), Justia, and Chicago-Kent College of Law—is a multimedia archive devoted to making the Supreme Court of the United States accessible to everyone. It is the most complete and authoritative source for all of the Court’s audio since the installation of a recording system in October 1955. Oyez offers transcript-synchronized and searchable audio, plain-English case summaries, illustrated decision information, and full-text Supreme Court opinions (through Justia). Oyez also provides detailed information on every justice throughout the Court’s history and offers a panoramic tour of the Supreme Court building, including the chambers of several justices.
• Google Scholar
• Justia 

We have provided a links to a few cases from Justia which address various issues in voting rights. This list is not exhaustive. 

• United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214 (1875) - "The Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution does not confer the right of suffrage, but it invests citizens of the United States with the right of exemption from discrimination in the exercise of the elective franchise on account of their race, color, or previous condition of servitude, and empowers Congress to enforce that right by "appropriate legislation."

• Guinn & Beal v. United States, 238 U.S. 347 (1915)  - "A provision in a state constitution recurring to conditions existing before the adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment, the continuance of which the Fifteenth Amendment prohibited, and making those conditions the test of the right to suffrage is void under the Fifteenth Amendment."

• Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944)  - "Held that states must make voting in their primary elections equally accessible to voters of all races, even if they do not manage the election process themselves. The right of a citizen of the United States to vote for the nomination of candidates for the United States Senate and House of Representatives in a primary which is an integral part of the elective process is a right secured by the Federal Constitution, and this right of the citizen may not be abridged by the State on account of his race or color."

• Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966) - "Virginia residents, brought this action to have Virginia's poll tax declared unconstitutional.The Court held that a State's conditioning of the right to vote on the payment of a fee or tax violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

• City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980)  - "Wiley Bolden brought a class action in Federal District Court against the city and the incumbent Commissioners on behalf of all black citizens of the city, alleging, inter alia, that the practice of electing the City Commissioners at large unfairly diluted the voting strength of black citizens in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Although finding that black citizens in Mobile "register and vote without hindrance," the District Court nevertheless held that the at-large electoral system violated the Fifteenth Amendment and invidiously discriminated against Negroes in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and ordered that the Commission be disestablished and replaced by a Mayor and a Council elected from single-member districts. The Court of Appeals affirmed."

• Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983) - "A Congressional redistricting plan was drawn up by the Democrat controlled New Jersey Legislature and signed by a Democratic governor that, though creating districts that differed by less that 1%, were blatantly drawn to favor the Democratic Party. The plan was challenged as violating the “equal representation” clause of Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the apportionment plan was unconstitutional because its variations from equal population could not be justified. The Court determined that the “equal representation” standard requires that Congressional districts be drawn to achieve as close to population equality as practicable."