#voting-rights
6 entries with this tag
Months After Gutting the Voting Rights Act So Elected Officials Could Redraw Districts However They Please, the Supreme Court Handed Them the Other Half of the Power Over Elections — Clearing the Trump Administration to Let States Screen Voter Rolls With SAVE, a Federal Database So Flawed That More Than One in Five Texans It Flagged as Noncitizens Turned Out to Be Citizens — Over the Three Liberal Justices' Dissent That Disenfranchising "Even a Few Lawful Voters" Outweighs the Government's "Nonexistent" Harm
On September 25, 2026, the Supreme Court reversed a lower court and cleared the way for the Trump administration to let states use SAVE — the Department of Homeland Security's Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements database — to check the citizenship of registered voters before the November midterms. The order, on the emergency docket, drew a public dissent from the three liberal justices. The Court limited the ruling to "individualized" citizenship checks and noted that federal law still bars mass purges close to Election Day, reserving that larger question for a case next term. But the tool it revived is notoriously inaccurate, and it fails in one direction: it disproportionately flags naturalized citizens as ineligible. When Texas ran its voter rolls through SAVE, it identified 2,724 "potential noncitizens" — and then confirmed that at least 578 of them, more than one in five, were in fact U.S. citizens. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Sotomayor and Kagan, dissented that "the harm caused by burdening or disenfranchising even a few lawful voters outweighs the nonexistent harm that the Government experiences" — noting there is no meaningful noncitizen-voting problem for the database to solve. Seen alongside the Court's April decision gutting the Voting Rights Act to free legislators to gerrymander at will, this ruling completes a pattern: having let elected officials decide how voters are grouped, the Court is now letting the political branches decide, through a faulty database, who counts as a voter at all.
Trump's Multi-Front Assault on How Americans Vote — a Mail-Ballot Executive Order, a Bid for a National Voter Database, Citizenship-Document Demands, and a Rushed USPS System That Could Reject Ballots in Bulk — Has Run Into a Wall of Public Rejection: Mail Voting Is Popular Across Both Parties, Voters Tell Pollsters His Fraud Claims Are "BS," and His Broader Power Grab Drew One of the Largest Protest Days in American History
Trump has spent 2026 waging a coordinated campaign against how Americans vote — an executive order directing the Postal Service to restrict mail ballots, an effort to compile a national database of voters' private data, demands that registrants produce documents like birth certificates and passports, and, as a whistleblower recently revealed, a rushed USPS system that could reject entire batches of ballots. The stated rationale is "election integrity" and the specter of noncitizen voting. The problem for Trump is that Americans are not buying it, and the backlash has been broad and measurable. Mail and early voting are popular across party lines — Pew found 60% of Americans, including 37% of Republicans, believe people should be able to vote early or absentee without an excuse. CNN's chief data analyst, Harry Enten, summarized the polling bluntly: voters feel Trump is "full of it. Full of BS" on mail voting, the attacks "aren't sticking," and he'd be better off moving on. The rejection extends beyond surveys: the "No Kings" mobilization against Trump's imperial turn filled all 50 states with more than 3,300 events, among the largest single-day protests in U.S. history, and roughly 43% of registered voters say they support it, while a Navigator poll found 52% of Americans describe the federal government as "authoritarian." The through-line is that Trump is attacking a voting method his own voters like, on a fraud premise the evidence does not support, and the public — in polls and in the streets — is pushing back.
The Supreme Court Cleared One of the Two Legal Roadblocks to Trump's Mail-Ballot Executive Order — a Decree That Would Let the Postal Service Refuse to Deliver Mail Ballots From States That Don't Hand Over Their Voter Rolls, Months Before the Midterms — Over a Dissent Warning It "Needlessly Injects Chaos" Into the Election; Justice Jackson Called It a "Kafkaesque Nightmare"
On August 24, 2026, the Supreme Court lifted one of two injunctions that had frozen Trump's executive order restricting mail-in voting — an order that, among other things, would have the U.S. Postal Service decline to deliver mail ballots from any state that refuses to hand the federal government a list of every voter receiving one, impose new federal design and tracking standards on mail ballots, and put the Department of Homeland Security in the business of screening state voter rolls. The unsigned order fell along ideological lines. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, warning the ruling "needlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections" and calling the situation a "Kafkaesque nightmare"; Justices Sotomayor and Kagan also dissented. Crucially, the order is not yet in effect: a second nationwide injunction — won by the League of Women Voters and other groups on August 11 — still stands, and legal experts expect the trial court to quickly block the Postal Service's newly finalized rule too. But the direction is unmistakable. The Constitution's Elections Clause gives states, not the president, the power to run federal elections, and two federal courts found Trump's order unconstitutional on exactly that ground. The Court didn't bless the order — it explicitly said implementing measures could still be unlawful — but it pulled away one of the barriers holding back a presidential attempt to dictate how Americans vote, mere months before they do.
On the Same Day Trump Held a Housing Bill Hostage for a Voter-ID Law, a Judge Permanently Struck Down His Voter-ID Executive Order — Ruling He Has No Power Over Elections At All
On June 24, 2026 — the same day Trump canceled the signing of a bipartisan housing bill to pressure Congress into passing his SAVE America Act voter-ID law — U.S. District Judge Denise Casper in Boston permanently struck down most of his elections executive order, including its requirement that Americans show documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote. In a 59-page ruling converting her year-old preliminary injunction into a permanent one, Casper held that the Constitution "does not grant the President any specific powers over elections," that authority belongs to the states and Congress, and that the order violated separation of powers. She also found the Justice Department "failed to demonstrate the alleged fraud" used to justify the order, and that the policy "would have disenfranchised thousands." The case was brought by 19 states. It is the latest in a string of defeats: three separate federal judges have now blocked the 2025 order. The ruling lays bare the futility loop Trump is in — courts say he can't do it by executive order, so he's trying to do it by legislation (the SAVE Act), which can't get 60 votes in the Senate, which is why he's now holding popular bills hostage to force it through. Noncitizen voting is already a felony and is vanishingly rare; the federal registration form already requires attesting to citizenship under penalty of prison or deportation.
Judge Orders Trump's Name Stripped From Kennedy Center Within Two Weeks — "Only Congress Can Rename It"
A federal judge ruled that Trump illegally put his name on the Kennedy Center and ordered all signage removed within two weeks. The 94-page ruling found that Congress named the center after JFK and only Congress can change it — the board cannot unilaterally rename a national memorial. The judge also blocked the planned two-year closure, finding trustees learned about it "by social media post" with "no meaningful opportunity" to consider it. Trump: the judge "should be ashamed of himself."
Trump's Redistricting Plot Defeated: South Carolina Republicans Rebel and Save Clyburn's District
The South Carolina Senate voted 20-24 to kill Trump's mid-decade redistricting plan that would have eliminated the state's only majority-Black district — held by 85-year-old Rep. Jim Clyburn for 34 years. Nearly a dozen Republicans joined Democrats. One of the most conservative senators in the statehouse: "Neither my conscience nor my common sense will allow me to stop an election that is already underway." Trump had already destroyed five Indiana Republicans who defied him on redistricting. The South Carolina senators voted no anyway.