August 3, 2026

BAEP FILES AMICUS BRIEF ON MAIL-IN VOTING EXECUTIVE ORDER

Today, BAEP filed an amicus curiae brief in opposition to a request for a stay of a lower court injunction of implementation of an Executive Order which, through the rulemaking process it directed, would impact the ability to States to conduct mail-in voting. The request for a stay of the injunction argues that the injunction is premature. The brief reflects BAEP’s commitment to Constitutional first principles that support the findings of the lower courts that the injunction is proper:

“The “wait and see” approach urged by the stay applicants is not an answer to these harms but instead would compound them. With just three months until Election Day and, in some States, less than 60 days until all absentee ballots must be sent to voters, election officials in thousands of jurisdictions would be asked to plan now for two different election-law regimes: the one now in place under their states’ laws, and a radically different one directed by the federal government that would require reprinting election materials, violating state laws, and scrambling to comply with a first-ever national citizenship list for determining voter eligibility. And they would do so under the pressures of potential criminal prosecution or the withholding of vital federal funds, both threatened by the EO.”

‍The link to the brief filed by BAEP can be found below.

August 24, 2026

BAEP FILES AMICUS BRIEF IN FIRST CIRCUIT APPEAL

Today, BAEP filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Massachusetts in the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Massachusetts’s defense of a lawsuit brought by the United States Department of Justice to obtain its complete, unredacted electronic voter registration data. The brief filed in support of Massachusetts continues to advance the position that the federal government demands for their complete, unredacted voter rolls are not authorized by the 66-year-old civil rights law on which the Department of Justice relies. The brief reflects BAEP’s commitment to Constitutional first principles that support Michigan’s defense:

“The Constitution divides power between the state and federal governments to secure Americans’ liberty. It entrusts States with the primary responsibility for administering elections because state governments are closer to the people and more responsive to their needs. Congress’s Elections Clause authority operates against this backdrop, and courts must read federal election statutes to mean what they say—not stretch them to intrude where Congress did not mean to go. Least of all may the Executive conscript those statutes into a campaign to nationalize elections and topple the state authority the Constitution established.”

The brief filed by BAEP can be found below.

March 23, 2026

Press Release: VETERAN ELECTION LAWYERS FROM BOTH PARTIES LAUNCH THE BIPARTISAN AMERICAN ELECTION PROJECT TO DEFEND CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING U.S. ELECTIONS

Organization Files Amicus Briefs Supporting Georgia and Massachusetts Against Federal Government’s Lawsuit to Obtain Their Unredacted Voter Registration Databases 

Lawyers affiliated with both the Democratic and Republican parties today announced the formation of the Bipartisan American Election Project (BAEP), a nonpartisan organization dedicated to defending the constitutional principles and democratic norms essential to the conduct of free and fair elections in the United States and to public confidence in the results. 

Chief among the principles and norms that BAEP was formed to uphold and defend are the professional, nonpartisan conduct of elections, the testing of outcomes in close races through the procedures provided by state laws, such as recount, contests and litigation, and the acceptance of the results.  BAEP will intervene at the federal, state, and local levels through public communications, filings with administrators, and participation in judicial proceedings, including amicus curiae briefs. 

Today, BAEP filed amicus curiae briefs in support of the States of Georgia and Massachusetts who are defending lawsuits brought by the United States Department of Justice to obtain their complete, unredacted electronic voter registration data bases. 

BAEP is led by Bob Bauer and Ben Ginsberg. Beginning with their 2013 co-chairmanship of the Presidential Commission on Election Administration, Bauer and Ginsberg have collaborated across the partisan divide to support the nonpartisan, professional management of the electoral process. Their work together includes leading Pillars of the Community, which encourages constructive dialogue between state and local community leaders and election officials to build public confidence in nonpartisan administration of voting systems.

BAEP’s work is supported by Board members Dana Remus, former White House Counsel to President Biden, and Donald Verrilli, former Solicitor General of the United States under President Obama, election litigator John Devaney, and by a senior advisory group whose members include election litigator and former Reagan Justice Department official Michael Carvin and former Chief Counsel for the Food and Drug Administration, Daniel Troy, a veteran of the Reagan and George W. Bush administrations. BAEP also retains state and local counsel without regard to party affiliation to represent it in legal filings such as the ones announced today. The organization is led day-to-day by Executive Director Lanny Acosta, Jr., a retired U.S. Army Judge Advocate.

The amicus curiae briefs filed today in support of Georgia and Massachusetts show that the federal government demands for their complete, unredacted voter rolls are not authorized by the 66-year-old civil rights law on which the Department of Justice relies. More fundamentally, BAEP argues for the recognition of constitutional first principles that support each state’s defense: 

 “The Constitution …. entrusts States with the primary responsibility for administering elections because state governments are closer to the people and more responsive to their needs. Congress’s Elections Clause authority operates against this backdrop, and courts must read federal election statutes to mean what they say—not stretch them to intrude where Congress did not mean to go. Nor may the United States stretch their meaning in an attempt to “nationalize” federal elections.” 

The briefs filed by BAEP can be found below.