Former President Donald Trump remained in the spotlight this week as his cases in Colorado and Washington, D.C. continue to see movement. In Ohio and Wisconsin, voters were dealt a pair of blows to their voting rights after a federal judge upheld a slew of voting restrictions and a Monday ruling struck down the use of a mobile voting van in the respective states.

Meanwhile, the race to the White House is officially underway as the Iowa Caucuses kick off on Monday. While the Republican candidates may differ on some issues, they are united against democracy. Read our in-depth guide on each candidate’s record on voting rights here.

Trump’s Legal Fights Continue To Make Waves

Last Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review Trump‘s removal from the Colorado primary ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, a move that could potentially settle the debate over presidential eligibility and Section 3 of the 14th Amendment once and for all.

Trump had asked the Court to review a shocking decision by the Colorado Supreme Court, which held that Trump was disqualified from the office of the presidency given his incitement of the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection. In appealing the decision, Trump claimed that the Colorado court made “multiple grave jurisdictional and legal errors.” The U.S. Supreme Court set oral argument for Feb. 8, less than a month before Republican voters cast ballots in the Colorado primary. 

Meanwhile, in Trump’s Washington D.C. election subversion case, a lawyer for the former president made a mystifying case for Trump’s immunity after intense scrutiny from D.C. Circuit judges. Trump’s lawyers argued that the former president can’t be prosecuted criminally for official acts he took as president if he was not impeached and convicted for them by Congress, going so far as to assert that even if Trump had ordered “SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival,” he would still be immune from federal prosecution.

Slate of Voting Restrictions Upheld In Ohio

A federal judge on Monday upheld a multitude of restrictive voting provisions that have saddled Ohioans' right to vote. The provisions, which are a result of Ohio’s 2023 omnibus voter suppression bill, include the state’s strict new photo ID requirement that eliminates a slew of previously accepted IDs, restrictions on the use of drop boxes, partial elimination of early, in-person voting and a tightened time period for voters to fix mistakes on their provisional and mail-in ballots.

The decision results from a federal lawsuit filed early last year by a handful of pro-voting groups immediately after the omnibus law was enacted. Nonprofit organizations had argued that the now-upheld restrictions are unconstitutional and disproportionately harm young, elderly, Black, unhoused and military and overseas voters. However, the judge ruled in favor of Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose (R) and other Republicans, holding that the challenged provisions did not pose an undue burden on the fundamental right to vote.

Maintaining Ohio’s “election integrity” was a source of reasoning for the decision, according to the judge, despite the fact that the ruling conceded that voter fraud is “exceedingly rare” in the state. The restrictive changes were “very small,” the judge further held. 

While the provisions of Ohio’s voter suppression law will remain in effect, an effort is underway to place a voting rights amendment on the ballot that would greatly expand voting in the Buckeye State and directly counteract some provisions upheld in Monday’s ruling. Among the many proposed changes are same-day voter registration, no-excuse-mail-in voting and the elimination of photo ID requirements, given the voter signs a declaration attesting to their identity. 

Conservative Wisconsin Law Group Strikes, But It’s Hardly The First Time

Also on Monday, a Wisconsin judge ruled that the city of Racine’s operation of a mobile election van that moved to various locations to best allow for early in-person voting violated Wisconsin law. The court ruling reversed a 2022 administrative decision by the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC), which had found “that the Complainant did not show probable cause to believe that a violation of law or abuse of discretion occurred.”

However, the judge rejected the group’s other claims that aimed to undermine the use of in-person absentee voting sites more broadly.

In both rulings, lawyers for the parties seeking to strike down the accessible voting method were part of the Milwaukee-based Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL). Little known in mainstream politics, the conservative law group has made attacking voting rights and elections in Wisconsin a major priority.

WILL spent nearly a year investigating former President Donald Trump’s bogus claims of election fraud and forced the purging of 200,000 voter registrations, and the law firm has litigated to restrict voting rights in numerous cases in recent years, with some cases still outstanding. 

WILL’s most devastating impact on the state is arguably its success in banning drop boxes entirely. Despite clear statements from both Democrats and Republicans affirming the safety and efficacy of drop boxes, lawyers for WILL argued the guidance issued by WEC allowing the use of drop boxes conflicted with the state’s existing mail-in ballot system. 

The firm also made Wisconsin a national anomaly when it successfully sued to prohibit the state from accepting the National Mail Voter Registration Form, which is provided by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission and has long been used to allow voters to register by mail and by third-party registration groups to increase turnout from diverse communities. 

Despite fierce arguments for its legality by WEC, a Wisconsin judge declared the form illegal, making Wisconsin one of just four states in the U.S. that does not accept the form.

Louisiana Redistricting To Take Center Stage Next Week

Next week, the Louisiana Legislature will begin a special session that could have a tremendous impact on democracy in the Pelican State. In their special session, which newly sworn-in Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry (R) has slated to last from Jan 15. to Jan. 23, state lawmakers will consider changes to the state’s congressional map and state Supreme Court districts, among other priorities listed by Landry.

The Legislature has until Jan. 30 to redraw the state’s congressional map, or inform the court it is unable, after being ordered to do so by a court that found the map likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. 

Though it's clear why changes should soon be coming to Louisiana's congressional districts, the Legislature’s consideration of several changes to the state’s high court has raised eyebrows. Landry had asked the Legislature to consider numerous and significant changes, despite no court ordering so, including:

• Legislation related to redistricting and elections of the Louisiana Supreme Court;

• Amendments to the Louisiana Constitution pertaining to the Supreme Court’s composition, number of justices, number of districts, method of electing justices and method of selecting a chief justice; 

• Legislation for the implementation of the Louisiana Supreme Court redistricting changes and

• Funding for implementation of the changes to the state Supreme Court. 

Louisiana Supreme Court justices sent a letter at the end of December requesting a new map with the hopes of resolving a decades-old lawsuit that has long plagued the court — the state has been subject to a consent decree and court oversight for Supreme Court elections due to prior discrimination for years. 

Last fall, the lawsuit was almost finally resolved after the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that the state must abide by the rules set out in a 1992 agreement that created a temporary eighth seat, required the Legislature to dissolve the multi-member district and ensure the justice occupying the eighth seat was an equal member of the state’s high court.

Though the additional seat was eventually dissolved after the state created a majority-minority district, the consent decree has remained in place. The state moved in 2021 and again in 2022 to dissolve the decree, but both times the requests were rejected. 

The lawsuit is also still ongoing as Republican officials have asked the entire 5th Circuit to rehear the decision upholding the consent decree. It is unclear if the Republican-controlled Legislature will adopt a new map that will also give Black voters the ability to elect a candidate of their choice in two state Supreme Court districts as opposed to one.

OPINION: Where Are the Judges Who Know How To Fight for Workers?

When our judges are more familiar with our experiences, that wisdom transforms the justice they dispense. By Rakim Brooks. Read more  ➡️

What We’re Doing

We will be honoring and celebrating the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr., a trailblazer in the fight for civil and voting rights. Look out for a very special guest author piece on Monday from his eldest son, Martin Luther King III.

This morning we released a previously-recorded interview with Anderson Clayton, the chairwoman of the North Carolina Democratic Party, on YouTube in newly available video form. Watch it here and subscribe to our channel here — we are trying to hit 100,000 subscribers!