Democrats have filed a lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order that restricts mail-in voting. The suit, brought forth by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, and other Democratic organizations, argues that the Constitution vests the authority to govern voting eligibility with states and Congress, not the president. This action represents a second legal confrontation over Trump’s control of election procedures, following a previous unsuccessful attempt to reshape election rules via executive order. Democrats assert that Trump is attempting to undermine democratic processes for perceived partisan gain, echoing claims that he has repeatedly sought to interfere in state-run elections based on unsubstantiated fraud allegations.
Read More
New Hampshire’s Secretary of State, David Scanlan, has stated that the state will not alter its election practices in response to President Trump’s executive order restricting mail-in voting. Scanlan emphasized that the federal government cannot override New Hampshire’s constitutional authority to conduct elections and that the state’s existing procedures ensure election security and transparency. This stance reaffirms New Hampshire’s long-held position that states, not the federal government, determine election rules and processes, particularly regarding voter registration and ballot accessibility.
Read More
This executive order seeks to establish federal lists of citizens and direct the U.S. Postal Service to transmit mail ballots only to individuals on these lists. The order directs the Department of Homeland Security to compile “state citizenship lists” from various federal records for states to verify their voter rolls. However, legal experts anticipate swift court challenges, citing the Constitution’s clear allocation of election administration powers to the states, making federal presidential overreach unlikely to stand. This action follows previous attempts by the president to influence election processes and impose stricter voter identification requirements.
Read More
The Supreme Court’s delay in ruling on Louisiana v. Callais has inadvertently prevented Southern states from immediately redrawing congressional maps to diminish Black voting power. With primary elections and ballot deadlines already passed or rapidly approaching in many states, the window to implement new redistricting plans before the 2026 midterms has largely closed. While a future ruling that weakens the Voting Rights Act could still impact state elections in 2027 and the subsequent congressional elections, the immediate impact on the upcoming House elections has been mitigated by the court’s timing.
Read More
President Donald Trump has expressed a desire for Republicans to “take over” and “nationalize” voting, citing unsubstantiated concerns about election fraud. However, legal experts have stated that such actions would violate the U.S. Constitution, which delegates election administration authority to the states. While Congress can enact laws to modify election regulations, it does not possess the power to nationalize the electoral process itself. These comments have revived concerns about Trump’s ongoing challenges to election outcomes and his potential influence on upcoming elections.
Read More
The Supreme Court has revived a lawsuit brought by Illinois Republican Congressman Mike Bost challenging a state law allowing mail-in ballots received after Election Day to be counted. The 7-2 decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, determined that candidates have a concrete interest in the rules governing vote counting. Justices debated whether candidates have standing to challenge such laws, despite lower courts dismissing Bost’s suit. This case reflects broader Republican efforts to challenge mail-in voting practices, with sixteen states currently accepting mail-in ballots received after Election Day.
Read More
A federal judge in Seattle ruled against the Trump administration’s Executive Order 14248, which sought to reshape election administration, including requiring proof of citizenship and ending vote-by-mail systems that count ballots received after Election Day. The ruling came in response to a lawsuit from Oregon and Washington, states that utilize vote-by-mail. The court found that the President lacked the constitutional authority to dictate election procedures, citing the Constitution’s assignment of election regulation to the states and Congress. Consequently, multiple provisions of the executive order were permanently blocked, and the states were permitted to maintain their existing ballot-receipt deadlines.
Read More
In a recent ruling, a federal judge has permanently blocked a portion of former President Donald Trump’s executive order regarding voter identification requirements. The order, which aimed to overhaul federal elections, was challenged by various groups and deemed unlawful because it would have required voters to present passports or similar documents to prove citizenship. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly determined that the U.S. Constitution grants states, not the president, the authority to oversee elections, making this part of the order illegal. The ruling comes amidst ongoing scrutiny of the electoral system and false claims of widespread fraud.
Read More
A Michigan judge has dismissed charges against the state’s fake electors who falsely claimed Donald Trump won the 2020 election, citing a lack of evidence proving the group knowingly intended to break the law. The ruling ends the criminal prosecutions against the group, which included prominent GOP officials and Trump supporters. This decision is a setback to accountability efforts, especially since similar cases are still pending in other states like Nevada, Arizona, and Wisconsin. The Attorney General of Michigan, who brought the case, disagreed with the ruling and is evaluating the next steps, as defense lawyers celebrated it as a victory.
Read More
Federal court rules Kansas legislators tried to suppress speech with 2021 advance voting law. This is a pretty significant ruling, and it really highlights the ongoing battle surrounding voting rights and access. The core of the matter revolves around a law, House Bill 2332, passed in 2021, which sought to restrict how advance mail ballot applications were distributed in Kansas. The court found that the motivations behind this law went beyond simply ensuring fair elections and veered into the realm of suppressing free speech.
Specifically, the law was aimed at banning non-Kansas residents or businesses from sending out advance mail ballot applications to voters.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood