New online tool to assist judges and the public with navigating state election laws
November 17, 2025
Election statutes, regulations and advisory opinions are now available in one place using the Election Law Navigator, a free, comprehensive online tool.
Released by the Election Law Program (ELP), a joint project of William & Mary Law School and the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), the tool is designed to help judges, lawyers, members of the media, elections officials and the public efficiently navigate complex state election statutes.
“The Election Law Navigator is the culmination of years of work to provide courts with a trusted, neutral tool for the fair and efficient resolution of election disputes,” said A. Benjamin Spencer, Dean and Trustee Professor of William & Mary Law School. “In a rapidly changing legal landscape, this platform serves as a toolkit for judges to resolve disputes and strengthen public confidence in our electoral process.”
While the Navigator was developed as a nonpartisan resource for judges, this extensive, one-of-a-kind database is a valuable tool for anyone interested in election laws with more than 30,000 statutes, regulations, advisory opinions, and related material from all 50 states.
Powered by a human-checked AI model, the Navigator organizes legal documents by topic and features a custom election-focused search tool; state-to-state comparison capability; and 100+ election-specific topic tags for quick access to relevant content.
“NCSC is committed to providing resources and tools that drive innovation and progress in courts,” said NCSC President Elizabeth Clement. “The Election Law Navigator is a perfect example of how new technologies can be used to further support the judiciary in resolving disputes fairly and efficiently and upholding the rule of law.” The Navigator is now available at www.electionlawnavigator.org. To learn more about the tool, watch our brief YouTube video or register online to attend a live demo and Q&A session on Tuesday, Dec. 2, at 2 p.m. ET.
NVRA v. W.V. SB 622
November 18, 2024
By: Andrew Flaxman
The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (commonly referred to as the NVRA or “motor voter) set forth regulations on voter registration concerning elections for federal office. NVRA Section 8 contains requirements concerning the administration of voter registration and procedures to maintain accurate and current voter lists. Part of this includes protections to voters against arbitrary removal from voter rolls and a requirement of notice in advance to allow voters to confirm their voter registration. Specifically, in section (b), in 52 USC § 2050, states that a voter cannot be removed from the voter list if they aren’t given notice and have not voted in two consecutive federal elections. Section (b)(2) also prevents voters from being removed from the registry for lack of voting, also known as the failure-to-vote clause.
Proving Candidate Eligibility in Illinois: A New Intent Requirement?
November 18, 2024
By: Matthias Connelly
Note: This post is the part 2 to a previous post by the same author linked here: Chaos or Federalism: Section 3 Enforcement in Illinois
The Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Anderson did not settle all state-wide litigation relating to Section 3 challenges against former President Trump’s eligibility for the presidency. The court’s ruling that only Congress is empowered to enforce the 14th Amendment’s ban against insurrectionists from holding federal office foreclosed ballot challenges in Colorado, Maine, and Illinois. But thanks to an unprecedented interpretation of Illinois law made in the course of that state’s proceedings, important questions bearing on future candidate eligibility requirements are still unanswered.
Voter ID Conflict in Huntington Beach: Measure A vs. California’s SB 1174 and the Future of Local Elections
November 15, 2024
By: Erika Froehler
In California, voters are required to have a valid driver’s license or identification to register to vote, but they are allowed to vote without having to provide such identification. This is permissible under California’s Election Code § 2196 passed in 2023, and allows the use of a voter’s signature to provide identification. However, this statute failed to clarify if local counties were allowed to pass stricter requirements regarding photo identification requirements. Due to this vagueness, Huntington Beach proposed Measure A in March of 2024. Measure A, passed by the Huntington Beach City Council in a 4-3 vote and will be put into effect in 2026, requires voters to provide photo identification to vote in city-wide elections.
Coalition Files Federal Lawsuit to Challenge New Hampshire’s HB 1569
November 15, 2024
By: Eli Avila
On September 30, 2024, the ACLU of New Hampshire, American Civil Liberties Union, and Ropes & Gray LLP filed a federal lawsuit challenging New Hampshire’s HB 1569. The plaintiffs represented are the Coalition for Open Democracy, the League of Women Voters of New Hampshire, the Forward Foundation, and five current and future voters. New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu signed HB 1569 into law on September 12, 2024. For many, the bill’s passage comes as a surprise since Governor Sununu said months earlier that he was “not looking into making significant changes in voting laws.” The bill will take effect on November 11, 2024, after the election on November 5, 2024.
A State of Uncertainty: How Delaware courts grapple with pro-voter statute challenges over time
November 14, 2024
By: Marley Fishburn
On June 28th, 2024, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed a Superior Court decision to uphold both early voting and permanent absentee voting for some residents, a huge win for expanding voting rights. This is a drastic change from the court’s previous jurisprudence that struck down same-day registration and mail-in ballot statutes in 2022.
Wisconsin Judge Dismisses Challenge to the Accuracy of State’s Voter Roll
November 14, 2024
By: Freddy Parola
A lawsuit filed by three voters in Wisconsin Circuit Court seeking to remove nearly 150,000 people from voter rolls in the state less than two months before Election Day has been dismissed by Judge Timothy Witkowiak. The lawsuit was filed on September 30 and dismissed on October 28. In Eucke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, three Milwaukee residents (Dennis Eucke, Justin Gavery, and Joe Nolan) alleged that a significant number of voter registrations were outdated because voters had permanently moved away from Wisconsin. They claimed the state has had years to correct the issue but have nonetheless failed to maintain the State’s voter roll properly. The plaintiff argued that leaving the voter roll as is would increase the risk of casting illegal votes by individuals whose voter registration is not adequately up to date. (more…)
Michigan Republican Party v. Benson
November 14, 2024
By: William & Mary Student Contributor
On October 8th, 2024, the Michigan Republican Party filed a lawsuit challenging guidance issued in compliance with MCL 168.759(3) by the Michigan Secretary of state. This guidance extends the right to vote in Michigan’s elections to US citizens living abroad who have never resided in Michigan but have “a parent, legal guardian, or spouse” who have.
The Bridgeport Ballot-Stuffing Controversy Reaches the Connecticut Supreme Court
November 14, 2024
By: Jayli Esber
The Connecticut Supreme Court’s decision regarding a ballot-stuffing controversy comes at a crucial time in the context of American elections. But the decision—a dismissal for lack of standing—might be an unsatisfying resolution to an inflammatory matter.
Ranked-Confusion: A Fitting System for Undecided Voters in San Francisco’s Mayoral Election
November 14, 2024
By: Caroline Olsen
The City of San Francisco has used ranked choice voting (RCV) for its local elections since 2004. RCV allows voters to rank candidates by preference, effectively eliminating the need for subsequent runoff elections—and San Francisco was the first major city to try it.