[link removed]

Welcome to the October edition of The Lever, featuring expert insights and analysis from Voting Rights Lab ([link removed]) .

This month, we break down the Supreme Court’s growing election docket and examine new threats to military and overseas voting. We also highlight media coverage of two recent SCOTUS cases that could significantly impact our elections.

Read on for the latest developments to watch as election litigation and legislation changes heat up ahead of 2026.


** WHAT’S AT STAKE FOR ELECTIONS AT THE SUPREME COURT
------------------------------------------------------------

The Supreme Court has heard — and may soon hear — several cases ([link removed]) with the potential to reshape how Americans vote and who is represented. We’ve compiled a rundown of the key election-related cases now on the docket and in the pipeline.
LEARN MORE ([link removed])


** 150 YEARS OF MILITARY AND OVERSEAS VOTING NOW UNDER THREAT
------------------------------------------------------------

For more than 150 years, absentee voting has allowed millions of Americans living overseas — including military service members and their families — to participate in elections back home. However, this once-uncontroversial issue has come under fire in recent years.

While military and overseas voting (known as UOCAVA voting after the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986 ([link removed]) ) remains safe and secure, we have identified ([link removed]) four key trends that could impact these voters:
1. Litigation targeting UOCAVA voters
2. New legislative restrictions at the state and federal levels
3. Federal administrative changes that affect ballot access
4. Positive innovations in some states that are modernizing election systems

LEARN MORE IN OUR ANALYSIS ([link removed])


** BY THE NUMBERS
------------------------------------------------------------

19

That’s the number of U.S. House seats Republicans could potentially gain if the Supreme Court decides to substantially weaken Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v. Callais.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act broadly prohibits racial discrimination in voting laws and practices. Section 2 prohibits gerrymandering that would dilute the voting power of minority groups. For decades, it has ensured those groups have fair representation. A new report ([link removed]) published in Politico by Fair Fight Action and the Black Voters Matter Fund finds that a ruling weakening Section 2 could lead to more aggressive partisan redistricting efforts.

Louisiana v. Callais is part of a broader redistricting push ahead of the 2026 midterms. As of the publication of this newsletter, partisan redistricting in Texas and Missouri has created six more GOP-favored House seats. North Carolina also recently voted to redraw the state’s congressional map to add a GOP House seat ([link removed]) . Several more states are poised to take similar action. Meanwhile, in response to the GOP redistricting efforts, California Gov. Gavin Newsom launched Prop. 50 ([link removed]) , a ballot measure to temporarily redraw California’s congressional map. California voters will decide whether to approve the measure in a special election next month. If the Court diminishes the VRA’s Section 2 protections, we can expect another wave of state redistricting battles.
READ MORE ([link removed])


** WHAT WE’RE READING: JUSTICES LOOK TO LOWER BAR FOR CANDIDATE ELECTION RULE CHALLENGES
------------------------------------------------------------

Currently, candidates who wish to bring an election rule challenge must allege that the election rule in question will cause them harm. A new case at the U.S. Supreme Court brought by Rep. Michael Bost (R-IL) could loosen this standard, giving candidates running for office more leeway to challenge all election rules.

In 2022, Bost attempted to challenge Illinois’s mail ballot deadline, claiming that it violates federal election law. Lower courts ruled that Bost’s case lacked standing because he could not demonstrate that the rule would harm his candidacy. Bost’s legal team is now making the case at the Supreme Court that all candidates should have standing to challenge election rules, arguing that candidates have a “unique, concrete and particularized interest in the rules of the electoral road, especially those that address which ballots are going to be counted and when.”

The Court appeared receptive to these arguments on October 8, expressing concern about how the existing standard and others like it could contribute to chaotic litigation too close to Election Day. A ruling is expected by the end of June 2026.
READ MORE ([link removed])


** THE MARKUP
------------------------------------------------------------

The Markup is Voting Rights Lab’s law and policy update, powered by our Election Policy Tracker ([link removed]) . We’re currently on a biweekly schedule. If you would like to subscribe, please check the sign-up box at the bottom of this form ([link removed]) .

Here’s an excerpt from yesterday’s Markup:
* North Carolina’s board of elections demands private voter data. The North Carolina State Board of Elections sent a letter to the state's Division of Motor Vehicles demanding the full Social Security numbers of registered voters. Advocates have warned that using full Social Security numbers, rather than the last four digits, creates privacy and identity theft risks. The board is moving forward with a plan requiring all voters to have an ID number associated with their registration record for their vote to be counted.
* Trump administration hires 2020 election deniers to lead election investigations. The Trump administration hired Kurt Olsen, a lawyer who helped advance false fraud claims after the 2020 presidential election, as a special government employee. The administration temporarily hired Olsen to investigate voting machine "issues" and other election-related questions. This hiring is part of a larger trend that includes the hiring of Heather Honey as the deputy assistant secretary for election integrity at the Department of Homeland Security. Experts ([link removed]) have repeatedly debunked claims that the 2020 election was stolen or fraudulent.

Did someone forward this to you? Subscribe to our newsletters here. ([link removed])

Like our work, and want to help make it happen?
Make a tax-deductible contribution to Voting Rights Lab here. ([link removed])

============================================================
** Voting Rights Lab ([link removed])

611 Pennsylvania Ave SE | Suite 201 | Washington, DC 20003

We're grateful for your interest and support, but if you'd prefer not to receive emails from the Voting Rights Lab, click here to ** unsubscribe ([link removed])
.