Voting rights intake that surfaces standing and timing first
Ask whether a voter was blocked from registering or casting a ballot, confirm the person filling out the form has personal standing and the issue happened within the last two years, and flag possible discriminatory treatment — with rejection notices or election correspondence attached before the lead lands in your CRM.
The exact intake your voting rights leads complete
This is the real 7-question guided intake for Voting Rights — the same flow your customers finish before you ever pick up the phone.
What a qualified voting rights lead should tell you
Claims involving a person being blocked from registering to vote, having a ballot rejected, or otherwise obstructed in exercising their right to vote in the United States, often tied to a specific office, election worker, or discriminatory pattern.
- Problem Happen In United
- This Affect Personally (Or
- Prevented From Voting, Had
- Issue Happen Within Last
- Know Which Office, Agency,
- Believe Were Treated Differently
- Suffer Real Harm, Such
The questions your team needs answered
Every voting rights intake asks these — and why each one matters.
| Question | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Did a problem happen in the United States related to your ability to register to vote or cast a ballot? | Confirms the incident is actually a U.S. voting access problem before any legal review time is spent on it. |
| Did this affect you personally (or someone you are legally allowed to act for, like your minor child or a person you have legal guardianship/power of attorney for)? | Establishes personal standing or legal authority to act, filtering out third-party reports that don't yet have a client behind them. |
| Were you prevented from voting, had your ballot rejected, or were you blocked from registering or staying registered? | Distinguishes an actual obstruction — a rejected ballot or blocked registration — from a general complaint about the voting process. |
| Did the issue happen within the last 2 years (or is it still ongoing)? | Recent or ongoing issues are more actionable than older, resolved ones, which affects how quickly the matter should be reviewed. |
| Do you know which office, agency, election worker, or organization caused the problem (or can you identify where and when it happened)? | Knowing the specific office, worker, or organization involved makes the claim easier to investigate and pursue. |
| Do you believe you were treated differently because of your race, ethnicity, language, disability, age, citizenship status, or political views? | A discriminatory motive can shift the matter from an administrative dispute into a stronger civil rights claim. |
| Did you suffer a real harm, such as missing the chance to vote, extra costs, lost time from work, or being threatened or intimidated? | Confirms a concrete harm occurred — like a missed vote or lost wages — rather than a near-miss with no real damage. |
How Cliont scores voting rights leads
Every answer is weighted automatically — no manual review required.
Value signals
- Problem Happen In United: yes
- This Affect Personally (Or: yes
- Prevented From Voting, Had: yes
- Issue Happen Within Last: yes
- Know Which Office, Agency,: yes
- Believe Were Treated Differently: yes
See the lead your team receives
Voting Rights Lead
From first click to qualified lead
Follow people and businesses seeking counsel through one smooth, guided flow.
They land & meet you
Your video greeting plays instantly — a real face instead of a blank form.
They explain the matter
Smart questions adapt to their matter and capture the full scope.
They share the documents
The facts, dates, and any paperwork come attached, so you can assess the matter before the consultation.
You get a ready lead
Scored and qualified — waiting for you to win it.
Built for voting rights workflows
| Cliont capability | Voting Rights application |
|---|---|
| Weighted scoring engine | Weights personal standing, ballot/registration obstruction, recency within two years, and discriminatory treatment more heavily than a vague or third-party report, so the strongest voting rights matters surface first in your CRM. |
| Document capture | Lets a prospective client attach rejection letters, election office correspondence, or a provisional ballot receipt directly to the intake instead of describing them over the phone. |
| Conditional routing | Separates first-person claims from reports made by someone without legal authority to act for the affected voter, so third-party tips route differently than an actionable client matter. |
| CRM delivery | Sends the completed voting rights intake, including whether the office or worker responsible was identified, straight into your CRM so intake staff aren't manually re-asking the same questions before scheduling. |
Common voting rights lead scenarios
Ballot rejected within two years
The prospective client's own ballot was rejected or their registration was blocked recently, and they can name the office or election worker involved — the highest-fit mix of catalog answers.
Discrimination at the polls
The problem may tie to race, language access, disability, or citizenship status, which the intake flags separately from a routine registration error even when the underlying facts overlap.
Third party reporting on someone else
An advocacy volunteer or family member describes a voter access problem that did not happen to them personally and where they lack legal authority to act, which the intake distinguishes from a first-person claim.
Old registration purge outside the window
The voter was removed from the rolls more than two years ago and the issue is not ongoing, a timing answer that changes how the matter should be prioritized against a fresh incident.
Unclear source of the problem
The person experienced a real barrier to voting but cannot identify which agency, poll site, or worker was responsible, which affects how quickly the claim could move without further fact-gathering.
Connect Cliont to your workflow
Send leads
HubSpot, HighLevel, Salesforce, JobNimbus
Book matters
Google Calendar, Outlook Calendar, Calendly
Notify your team
Email, SMS, Slack
Automate follow-up
Zapier, Webhooks, API
Simple, transparent pricing
Choose the plan that works for your business.
Professional
Unlimited intake forms and leads for your growing business.
- Unlimited intake forms
- Custom video greetings
- AI-powered voice bot
- English + Spanish support
- Automatic lead scoring
- Digital estimates & e-signatures
- Photo, video & file upload
- Advanced analytics dashboard
Pay Per Lead
Only pay when you receive a qualified lead.
- Unlimited intake forms
- Custom video greetings
- AI-powered voice bot
- English + Spanish support
- Automatic lead scoring
- Digital estimates & e-signatures
- Photo, video & file upload
- Charged only for submitted leads
More civil rights and constitutional law intake templates
View all civil rights and constitutional law intake templates →
Voting Rights lead-intake FAQs
Does the intake screen out complaints that aren't actually about voting access?
Yes. The first question confirms whether the problem was specifically about registering to vote or casting a ballot in the United States, which routes unrelated civil rights or election-administration gripes away from your consultation calendar.
How does the intake handle someone reporting a problem on behalf of another voter?
It asks whether the issue affected the person filling out the form personally or someone they are legally authorized to act for, such as a minor child or a person under guardianship, so reports from advocacy groups or bystanders without standing are identified before you spend consultation time.
What if the prospective client doesn't know which election office or worker caused the problem?
The intake still records the answer as a data point rather than blocking submission — not knowing the responsible office lowers the weight slightly compared to a fully identified incident, but the lead can still reach your CRM for review.
Does the intake capture whether discrimination played a role?
Yes, it directly asks whether the person believes they were treated differently because of race, ethnicity, language, disability, age, citizenship status, or political views, which is scored as a high-value signal distinct from a plain administrative error.
What happens with a voting problem from several years ago?
The intake asks whether the issue occurred within the last two years or is still ongoing; older, resolved incidents score lower than a recent or continuing barrier to voting.
What proof does the intake ask a prospective client to upload?
It's built to collect documents like rejection notices, provisional ballot receipts, or written correspondence with an election office, so you have supporting evidence to review before the consultation instead of relying on a verbal account.
Turn voting rights visitors into qualified cases
Give every voting rights visitor a guided intake instead of a dead contact form — and get a scored, qualified lead before you book a consultation.