In November 2020, a record number of people cast a ballot in the presidential election. While this civic participation represents a great victory for our democracy, select legislators have sought to perpetuate the ‘Big Lie’ claiming voter fraud and a stolen election. As a result, legislation designed to suppress the votes of underrepresented communities has passed in nineteen states. Free Speech For People has launched legal actions to challenge efforts to suppress the vote and other emerging threats to our fundamental right to vote. I Featured Case - Challenging Voter Suppression Law in Texas: Mi Familia Vota v. Abbott II II Challenging Voter Suppression Laws in Arizona: Mi Familia Vota, Arizona Coalition for Change, Living United for Change in Arizona, and Chispa Arizona v. Fontes III Challenging Additional Voter Suppression Laws in Arizona: Mi Familia Vota v. Petersen Featured Case - Challenging Voter Suppression Law in Texas: Mi Familia Vota v. Abbott II Free Speech For People represents Mi Familia Vota and individual voters in this challenge of a new voter suppression law enacted by the Texas Legislature. The lawsuit challenges Texas Senate Bill No. 1 (SB 1), a law designed to suppress votes from Texans of color and other marginalized communities through measures that include prohibiting drive-through voting, limiting voting hours, making it unlawful for counties to automatically mail eligible voters mail-in ballot applications; implementing stricter rules for voting by mail; allowing election officials to reject allegedly defective ballots without notice to the voter prior to the election; implementing monthly purges of voter rolls; limiting physical and language assistance at the polls; and enabling partisan poll watchers, which creates increased risk of voter intimidation. Free Speech For People is pleased to partner with the law firms of Stoel Rives and Lyons & Lyons in this litigation. Read More Challenging Voter Suppression Laws in Arizona: Mi Familia Vota, Arizona Coalition for Change, Living United for Change in Arizona, and Chispa Arizona v. Fontes Free Speech For People represents Mi Familia Vota, Arizona Coalition for Change, Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA), and Chispa Arizona in this challenge of two new voter suppression laws passed by the Arizona legislature, which will disproportionately disenfranchise Black, Native American, and Latino voters. With our litigation, we will seek to overturn SB 1485, a law that will result in voters being removed from the Permanent Early Voting List by 2024 if they fail to vote in two consecutive election cycles, and SB 1003, a law that gives voters only until 7pm on election day to cure a mail-in ballot that is missing a signature, disenfranchising voters with a lack of access to transportation, child-care, leave from work, or other barriers. Free Speech For People is pleased to partner with the law firms of Mayer Brown LLP and Quarles & Brady LLP in this litigation. Read More Challenging Additional Voter Suppression Laws in Arizona: Mi Familia Vota v. Petersen On July 18, 2022, Free Speech For People joined Campaign Legal Center, the San Carlos Apache Tribe, and pro bono law firms Mayer Brown LLP and Barton Mendez Soto PLLC on a lawsuit challenging Arizona’s anti-voter laws H.B. 2492 and H.B. 2243. The amended complaint asserted that H.B. 2492 and H.B. 2243, by requiring voters to provide extraneous, immaterial information in order to register to vote and subjecting, naturalized citizens to systemic voter roll purges, violate several voter protection laws, including the National Voter Registration Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The case was consolidated with several other challenges to the laws. In a September 2023 order on the parties’ motions for summary judgment and in a February 2024 post-trial order, the district court struck down a number of the anti-voter provisions of the two laws, but left some anti-voter provisions standing. After cross-appeal from the parties, in February 2025 the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling that largely held in favor of the plaintiffs. Read More Photo by Vic Hinterlang / Shutterstock.com