Legal training and technical assistance: Offensive and defensive solutions to protect local elections officials and constituents from state overreach and bogus litigation

Direct legal representation: Ongoing litigation support and answer legal questions in real time

Amicus coalition representation: Defend pro-voting rights efforts by elevating the expert voices of local elections officials in court filings.

Stay Updated - Sign Up for Our Newsletter

Our newsletter lands in your inbox biweekly and includes:

• Election Protection Hub updates — what we’re working on, who we’re supporting, and more

• Cases we’re following and news about the voting rights landscape

• Upcoming events

• Stories from the field

Who’s With Us?

We support election officials in multiple states, including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin where:

• Black and brown communities have been targeted for voter suppression

• Local elections officials have an interest in and/or a track record of developing innovative, pro-voter policies (e.g., drop-box voting, expanded early voting, etc.)

• State officials and third-party groups have mounted legal and political challenges against local elections officials

Hub Updates

Our Impact

Courts Recognize the Role and Expertise of Local Election Officials

Amid a frenzy of voter suppression lawsuits and policies, local election officials are key influencers in expanding and ensuring voting access. When the Wisconsin Supreme Court recently revisited a 2022 decision banning unstaffed drop boxes, we reached out to local election clerks to hear their perspective on the issue. We subsequently filed an amicus brief on behalf of 10 election officials arguing that drop boxes are a convenient, secure, and essential tool for voters and election officials.

PRP was the only organization representing the voice of local election clerks. The court – which ultimately reinstated unstaffed drop boxes – specifically highlighted the valuable role clerks play in our election system. In its decision, the court stated that election officials are given “significant responsibility,” and “discretion” for administering elections in Wisconsin’s decentralized election system. The decision was a victory for election clerks who rely on a variety of tools to make elections accessible to all.

Clerks Get Clear Guidance on Election Procedures

Earlier this year, Wisconsin voters approved a constitutional provision that prohibits non-election officials from performing “task[s] in the conduct of . . . elections.” This caused confusion and concern among Wisconsin clerks because many of them rely on vendors, other government employees, and volunteers to perform election-related activities necessary to ensure free and secure elections.

Seeking clarification, the counsel for Dane County requested an opinion from Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, who opened a public comment period. Since many election officials lack time and resources to provide comments, PRP filed a comment on behalf of a coalition of Wisconsin clerks. The result? AG Kaul responded with a decision making clear that while only election officials as defined in Wisconsin statute can direct or lead the administration of elections, they may continue to rely on other entities to support their work. The decision tracked key parts of the comment PRP submitted, relying on dictionary definitions of the word “conduct” to conclude that tasks in the conduct of elections refers only to “activities in directing or leading the administration of the election.”

Bipartisan Coalitions Find Common Ground

PRP collaborated with 28 election clerks across political parties to urge the Michigan Supreme Court to hold rogue election workers accountable.

The amicus brief asked the court to grant review of and reverse an appeals court decision dismissing election fraud charges against election inspector James Holkeboer. He allegedly told investigators that he used a personal, unapproved USB drive to extract voter information from the electronic poll book on an election laptop to compare voter registration records.

Our conversations revealed that regardless of political affiliation, election officials are concerned with ensuring Michigan’s criminal law deters rogue election workers from undermining the election process. Additionally, we were able to raise awareness about bad-faith actors in elections. Our efforts were picked up by several media outlets in Michigan and the New York Times.

Our State & Local Partners

Our Funders