The SAVE America Act, a legislative proposal that aimed to introduce new voting rules, is effectively defunct as the window for its implementation has closed. This assessment, coming from Senator Tom Tillis, suggests that the practicalities of enacting such significant changes have simply run out of time, particularly in the lead-up to elections. The idea that it might be “too late” to alter election rules is a sentiment that resonates with many, though a deep-seated mistrust of certain political actors fuels skepticism.
The notion that election rule changes are impossible at this juncture is met with considerable doubt, given past instances where voting processes have been altered, sometimes in response to court rulings or even to accommodate redistricting efforts.… Continue reading
The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, ruled that mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day but arriving late may still be counted. This ruling rejects a challenge by the Republican National Committee and upholds Mississippi’s law, which allows a five-day extension for receiving such ballots. The decision avoids significant upheaval of existing state election laws ahead of the midterm elections, impacting measures in 13 other states that permit late-arriving ballots under similar conditions. This outcome represents a setback for those who have raised concerns about the integrity of mail-in voting.
Read More
This article details a federal judge’s order compelling Elon Musk to testify under oath concerning two class-action lawsuits. These suits accuse Musk and his political action committee, America PAC, of misleading voters with a publicized $1 million-a-day election giveaway. The judge recommended allowing a fraud claim to proceed, alleging voters were deceived into providing personal information by falsely advertising the giveaway as random, while suggesting a breach-of-contract claim be dismissed. This development signifies a significant step in the legal challenges surrounding Musk’s election-related activities.
Read More
A federal judge has permanently blocked the Trump administration from enforcing key provisions of an executive order on elections, including the requirement for documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote. The ruling asserts that the Constitution grants states and Congress, not the President, the authority to regulate elections. This decision converts a previous preliminary injunction into a permanent ban, reinforcing the separation of powers in election oversight. The blocked order also sought to prevent mail ballots from being counted if they arrived after Election Day, even if postmarked on time.
Read More
A three-judge district court panel has ruled that Alabama cannot eliminate a second Black-opportunity congressional seat, upholding its previous order that the state’s preferred map intentionally discriminated based on race. The court rejected Alabama’s attempt to retroactively justify its discriminatory map, citing that the state had refused to comply with prior rulings requiring the creation of a second Black-opportunity district. Consequently, Alabama must continue to use the court-ordered, race-blind map that includes two Black-opportunity districts for the 2026 elections. This decision is significant as other Southern states have moved to eliminate Black-majority districts following a recent Supreme Court ruling, and Alabama has vowed to appeal the ruling.
Read More
The article discusses a novel legal strategy emerging in Hawaii aimed at curbing corporate influence in elections by redefining corporate powers granted by the state, rather than directly challenging Citizens United on First Amendment grounds. This approach argues that state charters, which create corporations, precede any constitutional rights, allowing states to limit corporate political spending. While met with skepticism from some legal experts who believe it will ultimately be struck down by courts, the legislation has garnered significant bipartisan support in Hawaii and is being explored in other states as a potential avenue to address concerns about the influence of “dark money” in politics. The outcome in Hawaii, should the governor sign the bill, is expected to lead to legal battles that could ultimately reach the Supreme Court, reigniting the debate over corporate speech rights.
Read More
Florida is once again at the center of a political firestorm, as voters have launched a lawsuit challenging the state’s newly drawn congressional map, with critics labeling it “one of the most extreme gerrymanders in American history.” This legal battle highlights a fundamental tension between political power grabs and the principles of fair representation enshrined in Florida’s own constitution. The core of the dispute lies in Section 20 of the Florida Constitution, which explicitly states, “no apportionment plan or individual district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or incumbent.”
The lawsuit argues that the new map, championed by Governor Ron DeSantis, directly violates this constitutional mandate by manipulating district boundaries to overwhelmingly benefit Republican candidates and diminish the voting power of minority communities.… Continue reading
The recent Supreme Court decision has certainly thrown a wrench into the plans for some Louisiana Republicans, who are now reportedly weighing the possibility of canceling their US House primary elections. This is a rather dramatic development, stemming from a redistricting case and the potential implications of the Court’s ruling. Essentially, the core of the issue seems to be about how congressional districts are drawn and whether existing maps, or potential new ones, can be used in the upcoming elections.
The rationale behind this consideration of canceling primaries appears to be linked to the Supreme Court’s decision, which has apparently given a green light for certain redistricting approaches that might not have been as favorable before.… Continue reading
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
Matt Underwood 
John Q. Hosedrinker