Search Tips
sorted by
Cards viewTable viewMap view
30 shown of 357 entities

Cooper v. Harris

Question Presented
Whether North Carolina's 2011 congressional redistricting plan used race as the predominant factor in drawing Districts 1 and 12, thereby triggering strict scrutiny — and, if so, whether the State's use of race was narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest (specifically, compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act). A subsidiary issue was whether the legislature's pursuit of partisan advantage could explain the racial composition of the districts, thereby negating the claim that race predominated.
Legal Issue(s)
  • Electoral Maps and Districting
  • Voters' Rights
Country
United States of America
Language of Decision
  • English
Date of decision
May 22, 2017
Date modified
Aug 21, 2026
Judgment

Buckley v. Valeo

Question Presented
Whether the various provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) — including limits on contributions, limits on expenditures (both by candidates and independent spenders), disclosure requirements, the public financing of presidential campaigns, and the structure of the FEC — violated the First Amendment's protection of political speech and association, the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection, and the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. The central question was whether the government's interest in preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption in federal elections could justify restrictions on political spending, and if so, which restrictions.
Legal Issue(s)
  • Campaign Finance
Country
United States of America
Language of Decision
  • English
Date of decision
Jan 30, 1976
Date modified
Aug 21, 2026
Judgment

Federal Election Committee v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee

Question Presented
Whether FECA's limits on a political party's coordinated expenditures — spending made by a party in cooperation, consultation, or concert with a candidate — are constitutional under the First Amendment as a means of preventing circumvention of the base contribution limits. Specifically, whether a party's coordinated expenditures, which function like contributions to the candidate, may be restricted to prevent donors from funneling large contributions through a party to a candidate.
Legal Issue(s)
  • Campaign Finance
Country
United States of America
Language of Decision
  • English
Date of decision
Jun 25, 2001
Date modified
Aug 21, 2026
Judgment

McConnell v. Federal Election Commission

Question Presented
Whether the two principal features of Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) — (1) the soft-money ban on national, state, and local political parties (Title I), and (2) the regulation of electioneering communications by corporations and unions, including disclosure requirements (Title II) — violated the First Amendment's protections of free speech and association. Subsidiary issues included whether BCRA exceeded Congress's Elections Clause authority, violated principles of federalism, violated equal protection by treating political parties differently from interest groups, and whether specific provisions (including the ban on contributions by minors, the "choice" provision requiring parties to choose between coordinated and independent expenditures, and various disclosure requirements) were constitutional.
Legal Issue(s)
  • Campaign Finance
Country
United States of America
Language of Decision
  • English
Date of decision
Dec 10, 2003
Date modified
Aug 21, 2026
Judgment

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission

Question Presented
Whether the Federal Election Campaign Act's (FECA) aggregate contribution limits — which cap the total amount an individual may contribute to all federal candidates and political committees combined in a two-year election cycle — violated the First Amendment by restricting political speech and association beyond what was necessary to prevent quid pro quo corruption. The specific question was whether the aggregate limits were "closely drawn" to the government's anti-circumvention interest, or whether they constituted an unconstitutional "outright ban" on further contributions to additional candidates and committees — particularly given that the base limits already prevented any single donor from giving more than the statutory maximum to any individual candidate or committee.
Legal Issue(s)
  • Campaign Finance
Country
United States of America
Language of Decision
  • English
Date of decision
Apr 2, 2014
Date modified
Aug 21, 2026
Judgment

San Antonio Acha v. García Vélez

Question Presented
Whether the Puerto Rico State Elections Commission (CEE) violated the due process rights of voters with mobility impairments by denying their early voting applications (voto adelantado) based on alleged deficiencies in their forms — including missing signatures, incomplete information, and suspected fraud (e.g., dozens of applications certified by the same physician on the same date) — while simultaneously failing to provide timely notice of those denials, thereby depriving the voters of any meaningful opportunity to cure the defects before the November 8, 2016 general election.
Legal Issue(s)
  • Accessibility
  • Voter Registration
  • Voters' Rights
Country
Puerto Rico
Language of Decision
  • Spanish
Date of decision
Nov 4, 2016
Date modified
Aug 21, 2026
Judgment

Gugum Ridho Putra v. Indonesia

Question Presented
Can Indonesian political candidates alter their "self-image" by posting and utilizing pictures and videos to substantively polish or change their political image? Does the Indonesian voter have a right to truthful information about candidates that is violated by excessive "self-image" manipulation done through AI technology?
Legal Issue(s)
  • Elections as a Fundamental Right
  • Electoral Integrity
  • Technology
  • Voters' Rights
Country
Indonesia
Language of Decision
  • Indonesian
Date of decision
Jan 2, 2025
Date modified
Jul 28, 2026
Judgment

Călin Georgescu v. Romania

Question Presented
Did the Constitutional Court of Romania err in annulling the first round of elections or infringe upon Georgescu's right to a free election?
Legal Issue(s)
  • Electoral Integrity
  • Improper Practices
  • Social Media
  • Technology
Country
Romania
Language of Decision
  • English
Date of decision
Mar 6, 2025
Date modified
Jul 28, 2026
Judgment

Partido Liberal v. Ricardo Pereira

Question Presented
Was the defendant Pereira liable for generating and disseminating an AI deepfake image masquerading as a “leaked photo”, which falsely portrayed a group of Brazilian politicians meeting over brunch?
Legal Issue(s)
  • Social Media
  • Technology
Country
Brazil
Language of Decision
  • Portuguese
Date of decision
Jun 8, 2026
Date modified
Jul 28, 2026
Judgment

Evandro Sá Barreto Leitão v. André Fernandes de Moura

Question Presented
Did defendant Leitao violate Brazilian Electoral Law when he posted and disseminated artificial intelligence generated videos of international celebrities including Barack Obama, Taylor Swift, Tom Cruise, and Cristiano Ronaldo endorsing his 2024 mayoral campaign on his TikTok profile?
Legal Issue(s)
  • Social Media
  • Technology
Country
Brazil
Language of Decision
  • Portuguese
Date of decision
May 8, 2026
Date modified
Jul 28, 2026
Judgment

Barthelemy v. President of the Republic of Vanuatu

Question Presented
(1) Was the Council of Minister’s advice to the President to dissolve Parliament while there was a pending motion of no confidence by members of parliament a violation of the Constitution? (2) If so, was the dissolution of parliament by President void? (3) Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to hear constitutional writ petitions relating to the dissolution of parliament?
Legal Issue(s)
  • Conflict of Interests
Country
Vanuatu
Date of decision
Sep 9, 2022
Date modified
Jul 22, 2026
Judgment

Allen v. Milligan

Question Presented
Whether Alabama's 2021 congressional redistricting plan (HB1) — which created only one majority-Black district out of seven in a state that is 27% Black — violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting Black voting strength.
Legal Issue(s)
  • Electoral Maps and Districting
  • Voters' Rights
Country
United States of America
Language of Decision
  • English
Date of decision
Jun 8, 2023
Date modified
Jul 15, 2026
Judgment

Abbott v. Perez

Question Presented
Whether the 2013 Texas congressional and state House redistricting plans violated the Equal Protection Clause (racial gerrymandering), Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (vote dilution), and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments (intentional discrimination) — and specifically whether the district court erred by finding that the 2011 discriminatory intent "carried over" into the 2013 plans enacted by the Legislature; holding that certain districts were racial gerrymanders where race was the predominant factor; finding Section 2 vote dilution in certain districts where plaintiffs could not demonstrate that an additional compact minority opportunity district was possible; and applying the wrong legal standard in distinguishing between racial motivation and partisan motivation in redistricting.
Legal Issue(s)
  • Electoral Maps and Districting
  • Voters' Rights
Country
United States of America
Language of Decision
  • English
Date of decision
Jun 25, 2018
Date modified
Jul 14, 2026
Judgment

Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate

Question Presented
Whether Section 304 of BCRA — which limits the amount of post-election contributions that a campaign may use to repay a candidate's personal loans to the campaign — violated the First Amendment by burdening core political speech. The specific question was whether the Government could demonstrate that the loan-repayment limitation was "closely drawn" to a sufficiently important interest — namely, preventing quid pro quo corruption or its appearance — given that the limitation deters candidates from loaning money to their campaigns by increasing the risk that such loans will not be fully repaid.
Legal Issue(s)
  • Campaign Finance
Country
United States of America
Language of Decision
  • English
Date of decision
May 16, 2022
Date modified
Jul 14, 2026
Judgment

Shaw v. Reno

Question Presented
Whether a plaintiff may state a cognizable claim under the Equal Protection Clause by alleging that a legislature, though race-neutral on its face, drew district boundaries so bizarrely irregular that they can only be understood as an effort to separate voters into different districts on the basis of race — and whether such a racial gerrymander, even without proof of vote dilution, triggers strict scrutiny as a racial classification.
Legal Issue(s)
  • Electoral Maps and Districting
  • Voters' Rights
Country
United States of America
Language of Decision
  • English
Date of decision
Jun 28, 1993
Date modified
Jul 14, 2026
Judgment

Baker v. Carr

Question Presented
Whether a claim alleging that a state's legislative apportionment scheme violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment — by diluting the voting power of citizens in overpopulated districts — presents a justiciable controversy or is a non-justiciable "political question" that federal courts lack authority to adjudicate. This issue required the Court to revisit and overturn the precedent of Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549 (1946), which had held that federal courts should not intervene in reapportionment disputes.
Legal Issue(s)
  • Electoral Maps and Districting
  • Voters' Rights
Country
United States of America
Language of Decision
  • English
Date of decision
Mar 26, 1962
Date modified
Jul 12, 2026
Judgment

Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee

Question Presented
Whether Arizona's out-of-precinct ballot policy and ballot collection ban (HB 2023) violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and more broadly, what legal standard governs Section 2 challenges to "time, place, or manner" voting rules—specifically, whether the "totality of the circumstances" test from Thornburg v. Gingles and the Senate Factors applies to challenges to facially neutral voting procedures.
Legal Issue(s)
  • Electoral Administration Irregularities
  • Electoral Integrity
  • Voters' Rights
Country
United States of America
Language of Decision
  • English
Date of decision
Jul 1, 2021
Date modified
Jul 10, 2026
Judgment

Shelby County v. Holder

Question Presented
Whether the coverage formula in Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act — which determined which jurisdictions were subject to the preclearance requirement of Section 5 — remained constitutionally valid after Congress reauthorized it in 2006 without updating the formula, given that the formula was based on decades-old data (voter registration and turnout from the 1960s and early 1970s) and practices (literacy tests) that had since been banned nationwide. More broadly, whether the formula violated the constitutional principle of equal sovereignty among the states by subjecting only certain jurisdictions to the extraordinary federal intrusion of preclearance.
Legal Issue(s)
  • Elections as a Fundamental Right
  • Electoral Administration Irregularities
  • Voters' Rights
Country
United States of America
Language of Decision
  • English
Date of decision
Jun 25, 2013
Date modified
Jul 9, 2026
Judgment

Sentencia T-487/03

Question Presented
Whether the failure of the Registraduría to provide Braille electoral ballots to visually impaired voters violated their fundamental rights to political participation (Article 40 of the Constitution), equality (Article 13), and human dignity (Article 1) — and whether the provision of Braille ballots is a constitutionally mandated necessary consequence of the state's obligation to promote real and effective equality (igualdad real) for persons with disabilities.
Legal Issue(s)
  • Accessibility
  • Voters' Rights
Country
Colombia
Language of Decision
  • Spanish
Date of decision
Jun 11, 2003
Date modified
Jul 9, 2026
Judgment

Sentencia C-025/21

Question Presented
Whether Article 6 of Law 1996 of 2019, which establishes the presumption of full legal capacity for all persons with disabilities regardless of whether they use supports, is constitutional; whether Article 53 of Law 1996 of 2019, which repealed all provisions related to interdiction and inhabilitation in the Colombian legal system, is constitutional; and whether the shift from a substitute decision-making model (guardianship/interdiction) to a supported decision-making model is consistent with the Colombian Constitution and Colombia's international obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), ratified by Colombia via Act 1346 of 2009.
Legal Issue(s)
  • Accessibility
  • Voters' Rights
Country
Colombia
Language of Decision
  • Spanish
Date of decision
Feb 4, 2021
Date modified
Jul 9, 2026
Judgment

In the Matter of William Pughsley

Question Presented
Whether the circuit court erred in disqualifying William Pughsley from voting by applying an improper "base level understanding" standard—rather than the statutory standard of whether the individual can communicate, with or without accommodations, a desire to participate in the voting process—and whether the court erred in denying accommodations and the Supported Decision-Making Act petition.
Legal Issue(s)
  • Accessibility
  • Voters' Rights
Country
United States of America
Language of Decision
  • English
Date modified
Jul 9, 2026
Judgment

Kasozi & 3 Ors v Attorney General & 2 Ors

Question Presented
Whether forcing PWDs to be members of NUDIPU-affiliated associations to vote (as per Regulation 10) violated their constitutional rights, including the freedom of association (Article 29(1)(e)), the right to participate in public affairs (Article 38(1)), the right to redress (Article 50(1)), and the right to vote (Article 59(1)); Whether Parliament unconstitutionally abdicated its mandate under Article 78(4) of the Constitution by delegating the power to create electoral procedures to a Minister instead of prescribing them directly through legislation; and whether the legal framework for PWD elections, particularly after the 2013 legislative amendments, was constitutional.
Legal Issue(s)
  • Freedom of association and assembly
  • Voters' Rights
Country
Uganda
Language of Decision
  • English
Date of decision
Sep 29, 2015
Date modified
Jul 9, 2026
Judgment

August v Electoral Commission of South Africa

Question Presented
Whether prisoners retained their constitutional right to vote under the 1996 Constitution, and, if so, whether the IEC was obligated to take active steps to facilitate their registration and voting, particularly in the absence of any parliamentary legislation that explicitly disenfranchised them.
Legal Issue(s)
  • Elections as a Fundamental Right
  • Voter Registration
  • Voters' Rights
Country
South Africa
Language of Decision
  • English
Date of decision
Apr 1, 1999
Date modified
Jul 9, 2026
Judgment

Emily's List v. FEC

Question Presented
Whether the FEC's regulations requiring non-profit political committees to use federally regulated ("hard money") funds for at least 50% of their administrative, voter drive, and public communications costs—and restricting how such groups may solicit contributions—violate the First Amendment's protection of political speech and association, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's intervening decisions in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (2007) and Davis v. FEC (2008).
Legal Issue(s)
  • Campaign Finance
Country
United States of America
Language of Decision
  • English
Date of decision
Sep 18, 2009
Date modified
Jul 8, 2026
Judgment

Gomillion v. Lightfoot

Question Presented
Whether a state legislature's redefinition of municipal boundaries—designed to exclude African American voters from a city—violates the Fifteenth Amendment, and whether such a legislative act is subject to federal judicial review despite the legislature's general authority to define municipal boundaries.
Legal Issue(s)
  • Electoral Maps and Districting
  • Voters' Rights
Country
United States of America
Language of Decision
  • English
Date of decision
Nov 14, 1960
Date modified
Jul 8, 2026
Judgment

National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission

Question Presented
Whether FECA's limits on political parties' coordinated expenditures with candidates violate the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech, and specifically whether Colorado II—which upheld those limits under a deferential standard of review—remains good law in light of the Court's subsequent, more demanding campaign finance jurisprudence requiring that restrictions be "necessary," "narrowly tailored," and not "disproportionate" to the government's interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption.
Legal Issue(s)
  • Campaign Finance
  • Conflict of Interests
Country
United States of America
Language of Decision
  • English
Date of decision
Jun 30, 2026
Date modified
Jul 8, 2026
Judgment

Moore v. Harper

Question Presented
Whether the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, § 4, cl. 1)—which provides that "[t]he Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof"—vests exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules for federal elections, insulating them from review by state courts applying state constitutional constraints.
Legal Issue(s)
  • Electoral Maps and Districting
  • Judicial Independence
Country
United States of America
Language of Decision
  • English
Date of decision
Jun 27, 2023
Date modified
Jul 8, 2026
Judgment

Louisiana v. Callais

Question Presented
Whether compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 provides a compelling reason that may justify the intentional use of race in drawing legislative districts.
Legal Issue(s)
  • Electoral Maps and Districting
  • Voters' Rights
Country
United States of America
Language of Decision
  • English
Date of decision
Apr 29, 2026
Date modified
Jul 8, 2026
Judgment

Richter v. Minister of Home Affairs

Question Presented
Whether Section 33(1)(b) and Section 33(1)(e) of the Electoral Act 73 of 1998 — which limited the "special vote" to South African citizens absent from the Republic only if they were on "government service" (or members of the household of such persons), while effectively excluding all other citizens living or working abroad — unjustifiably limited the constitutional right to vote under Section 19(3)(a) of the Constitution, read with the rights to equality (Section 9(1)), human dignity (Section 10), and equal citizenship (Section 3(2)(a)).
Legal Issue(s)
  • Accessibility
Country
South Africa
Language of Decision
  • English
Date of decision
Feb 9, 2009
Date modified
Jul 7, 2026
Judgment

Brotherton N.O. v. Electoral Commission of Zambia

Question Presented
Did the Electoral Commission of Zambia violate the fundamental voting rights of disabled voters by failing to provide adequate facilites?
Legal Issue(s)
  • Accessibility
  • Elections as a Fundamental Right
  • Voters' Rights
Country
Zambia
Language of Decision
  • English
Date of decision
Sep 18, 2011
Date modified
Jul 7, 2026
Judgment

30 shown of 357 entities

30 more 300 more

  • Uwazi is developed by Human Rights Information and Documentation Systems

  •  
  • Election Judgments - IFES
  •  
  • Library
  • Login