fbpx

Resources

We provide tools and guidance for state and local election officials, law enforcement leaders, pro-democracy partners, the press, and the public. Our resources focus on election protection, accountability, truth in elections, and preventing political violence.
Filter by
Filter
  • Issue

  • Resource Type

  • State

  • Entity

Amicus Briefs

Mason v. State of Texas – Voting Rights (TX)

TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
Cases

Hobbs v. Crosby – Certification of Results (AZ)

COCHISE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
Cases

Chapman v. Berks County Board of Elections – Refusal to Certify (PA)

COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cases

Montgomery County BOE v. Secretary – Dating of Mail-in Ballots (PA)

COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cases

Finchem v. Fontes – 2022 Election Contest (AZ)

MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT; ARIZONA SUPREME COURT
Cases

Hamadeh v. Mayes; Kentch v. Mayes – 2022 Election Contest (AZ)

MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT; MOHAVE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
Amicus Briefs, Cases, Ethics and Regulatory Complaints

Legal Tracker

Through our legal work, we support states, counties, and cities as they fight to protect the freedom to vote and our nonpartisan election system. We provide pro bono counsel to state and local officials, share research and guidance, and file amicus briefs on behalf of bipartisan voices. We represent states as they defend strong voting laws, the security and integrity of our elections systems, and the will of the people.
Amicus Briefs

AZ AARP v. Crosby – Hand Counts (AZ)

COCHISE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
Cases

AZ GOP v. Hobbs – Early Voting and Elections Procedures Manual (AZ)

ARIZONA SUPREME COURT (CASE NO. CV-22-0048-SA), MOHAVE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT (CASE NO. S8015CV2022-00594) COURT OF APPEALS, DIV ONE (CASE NO.1 CA-CV-22-0388); ARIZONA SUPREME COURT (CASE NO. T-22-0003-CV)
Reports

A Democracy Crisis in the Making Report Update: 2022 Year-End Numbers

The state legislature-driven election subversion trend gained momentum throughout the last two years. All told, we have catalogued more than 400 legislative proposals that would enable election subversion. Over that time, the proposals have morphed and become more far-reaching and aggressive.