SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
voting
Democrats File Sweeping Lawsuit to Stop 'Unlawful' Trump Attack on Mail-In Voting
"Our Constitution’s framers anticipated this kind of desire for absolute power."
Apr 02, 2026
President Donald Trump's executive order placing restrictions on mail-in voting in the US is now facing a sweeping lawsuit from the Democratic Party.
In a complaint filed Wednesday with the US District Court for the District of Columbia, the Democrats argued that Trump "has tried again and again to rewrite election rules for his own perceived partisan advantage," this time going after mail voting, which he has baselessly claimed cost him the 2020 presidential election.
The Democrats contended, however, that Trump has no constitutional authority to single-handedly rewrite election laws, noting that the US Constitution explicitly gave states the power to administer their own elections.
"Our Constitution’s framers anticipated this kind of desire for absolute power," the complaint states. "They recognized the menace it would pose to ordered liberty and the ways in which it would corrode self-government like an acid... They left most election authority with the states, permitted state regulations to be displaced only upon the agreement of both chambers of Congress, and established an independent judiciary to repel threats to individual rights."
The complaint then dives into the contents of Trump's order, which it says "seeks to impose radical changes to the manner and conditions under which citizens may cast absentee or mail-in ballots," and would "imminently threaten to disenfranchise lawful voters."
Specifically, the lawsuit argues that Trump is asking the US Postal Service to "take actions unrelated to the agency's statutory mandate that run roughshod over established protections for voters who rely on the mail to exercise their fundamental right" to vote in US elections.
Given that the order doesn't "stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself," the complaint continues, "it is an unlawful exercise of authority that must be declared invalid."
A joint statement released by Democratic leaders, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), accused Trump of trying to restrict mail-in voting as a last-ditch effort to stop voters from ousting his Republican congressional allies.
"The American people are fed up with Republicans’ price-spiking, healthcare-gutting agenda and are ready to vote them out," they said. "That’s why Donald Trump is desperately trying to rig our elections by making it harder to vote for seniors, Americans with disabilities, members of the military, rural communities, and other working families who rely on vote-by-mail. This move is blatantly unconstitutional, and we will fight against it."
Shortly after the Democrats filed their lawsuit, the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy Defenders Fund filed a complaint against the Trump executive order on behalf of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Secure Families Initiative, and Arizona Students’ Association.
Danielle Lang, vice president of voting rights and the rule of law at the Campaign Legal Center, said that the suit was necessary to block Trump's "unprecedented" effort to "unconstitutionally assert total authority over our elections."
"Attempts to command the US Department of Homeland Security to work with independent agencies on efforts to disenfranchise eligible voters... are simply unconstitutional and violate long-standing protections for Americans," Lang added.
Elections expert Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, argued in a Wednesday op-ed for Slate that lawsuits against Trump's executive order would probably prove successful and that it "likely will be found unconstitutional by courts."
However, Hasen also warned that the order could still create enough chaos and uncertainty to throw the outcome of close elections into doubt.
"Trump is engaging in election denialism theater," Hasen explained. "It makes voters of all sides mistrust the election process and the virtues of democracy. It convinces his supporters that Democrats have to cheat to win, something that will come in handy should Democrats take back control of the House in November with the intent of beginning investigations and potentially impeachment."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Voting Rights Advocates Sue Over Florida GOP 'Show Your Papers' Law
"The Legislature's failure to look out for constituents instead of legislators' own political interests will harm married women, naturalized citizens, young people, and many other eligible voters."
Apr 01, 2026
As President Donald Trump bullies Congress to pass a voter suppression bill while also trying to take matters into his own hands with an executive order, voting rights advocates on Wednesday sued to block similar legislation passed by Florida Republicans.
Common Cause, Florida Immigrant Coalition, Florida Rising, Hispanic Federation, League of Women Voters of Florida, and UnidosUS filed the lawsuit over House Bill 991 on the same day that the state's Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, signed it. The law requires documentary "evidence of citizenship," such as a birth certificate or passport, to register to vote or remain on the rolls.
"New barriers to voting too often fall hardest on the communities that have long fought to be heard in our democracy," noted Caren Short, director of legal and research at the League of Women Voters of the United States. "Sadly, but unsurprisingly, Florida's new documentary proof of citizenship law requirement is based on xenophobic lies and disinformation."
It's already illegal for noncitizens to vote, and research has shown voter fraud is incredibly rare. Short said that "the Legislature's failure to look out for constituents instead of legislators' own political interests will harm married women, naturalized citizens, young people, and many other eligible voters who do not have ready access to documents like passports or birth certificates."
Common Cause Florida executive director Amy Keith warned that "if this law stands, thousands of US citizens will be removed from Florida's voter rolls, blocking them from voting in the next presidential election if they can't afford specific documents."
"Life is getting increasingly harder and more expensive in Florida," Keith continued, "but with this bill, legislators are purging the very voters who are suffering most from Florida's affordability crisis. I don't think that's a coincidence."
UnidosUS Florida state director Jared Nordlund similarly said that the state's Republican policymakers "know their agenda is unpopular, and when they cannot win by persuading voters, they try to win by making it harder for people to vote."
"HB 991 is another solution in search of a problem, and Florida is once again the testing ground for a voter suppression playbook that could spread nationwide," Nordlund declared. "These laws target the voices they fear most, especially women, communities of color, and working-class voters."
The groups behind the suit—filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida—are represented by the state and national ACLU as well as the Advancement Project and LatinoJustice PRLDEF.
BREAKING: Gov. Ron DeSantis just signed Florida’s new anti-voter law, HB 991. This “show your papers” law adds unnecessary barriers to voting, so @aclu.org and @aclufl.bsky.social are suing. In America, voters choose our leaders — politicians don’t get to choose who votes.We’ll see you in court.
— Abdelilah Skhir (@abskhir.bsky.social) April 1, 2026 at 12:18 PM
"Florida's new 'show your papers' law is a blatant attempt to add unnecessary barriers to the ballot box," said Jonathan Topaz, staff attorney with the ACLU's Voting Rights Project. "We bring this lawsuit to ensure that Florida cannot block its eligible voters from exercising their fundamental right to vote because of missing or mismatched paperwork."
Separately on Wednesday, Elias Law Group launched another legal challenge on behalf of the Florida NAACP and the Florida Alliance for Retired Americans, also challenging what law firm partner Abha Khanna called "one of the worst voter suppression laws in modern American history." This case was filed in the Northern District of Florida.
DeSantis' signing of HB 991 and the subsequent suits came a day after Trump signed a voter suppression executive order that critics called a "blatant, unconstitutional abuse of power." The measure requires the secretary of homeland security to establish a "citizenship list" of verified eligible voters in each state and directs the postmaster general to make new rules for voting by mail.
Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, said in a Tuesday statement that "once again, President Trump is attempting to seize power he does not have. The president's order is not about protecting elections—it's about trying to control them and using that control to make it harder to vote for his perceived enemies. The Constitution is very clear: Only Congress and the states can make laws regarding our elections."
"The ability to vote by mail is crucial to our democracy," she explained. "It ensures that voters with disabilities, those without transportation access, working families, those who are deployed or otherwise abroad, and many others who rely on its flexibility can exercise their right to vote. President Trump's attempts to undermine a safe, proven, and reliable method of voting is just another part of his strategy to sow distrust in our elections. As always, we are prepared to protect our democracy and our right to vote in court against these continued unconstitutional attacks."
Trump signed the order while pressuring the US Senate to pass anti-voter legislation that's already been approved by Republicans in the House of Representatives. Advancement Project power and democracy program director Hani Mirza said that the president's directive "cannot be separated from the broader legislative push for the SAVE America Act, which would impose burdensome proof-of-citizenship and photo ID requirements that would create new barriers to the ballot for millions of Americans."
"The authoritarian plan to shrink the number of people who can participate in the 2026 midterms is clear," Mirza added, just over seven months before Election Day. "In our ongoing pursuit of a truly multiracial democracy, we refuse to remain silent and will continue to defend the right to vote until every community is heard and every eligible voter is able to cast a ballot that counts."
This article has been updated to include a second lawsuit against the Florida law.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Virginia Democrats Pass New Political Map to Combat Trump—But Court Battles Continue
"Virginia has to fight back," said state House Speaker Don Scott. "We can't stand by and do nothing but to do everything in our power to level the playing field."
Feb 20, 2026
Democrats in the Virginia General Assembly on Friday passed a new potential congressional map and a later primary date—but it came after a setback in court for a pending referendum in which voters would decide whether to redistrict to combat a national GOP gerrymandering effort launched last year by Republican President Donald Trump.
After advancing in a 21-18 Virginia Senate vote on Thursday, HB29 was approved by the House of Delegates 59-35, with five Democrats not voting. The bill still needs a signature from Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger, but VPM reported that House Speaker Don Scott (D-80) expects her to sign it as soon as Saturday, or by Monday at the latest.
"Virginia has to fight back," Scott said, accusing Trump of trying to rig the November midterm elections for the Republican Party. "We can't stand by and do nothing but to do everything in our power to level the playing field."
Spanberger—who is set to deliver Democrats' response to Trump's State of the Union speech next week—similarly said when she approved the referendum that "Virginia has the opportunity and responsibility to be responsive in the face of efforts across the country to change maps."
Trump has convinced Republicans in Texas, North Carolina, and Missouri to redraw their congressional maps in a bid to hold on to the GOP's dwindling majority in the US House of Representatives. That led to various court battles, a new voter-approved map in California crafted to benefit Democrats, and the ongoing fight for a similar one in Virginia.
If Virginia voters support Democrats' constitutional amendment to temporarily redistrict, the new map would give the party an advantage in 10 of the state's 11 congressional districts, and the June 16 primary would be delayed until August 4. However, a Thursday court order puts the referendum, scheduled for April 21, in jeopardy.
GOP-appointed Tazewell Circuit Court Judge Jack Hurley Jr. on Thursday granted a temporary restraining order sought by the Republican National Committee, which is challenging the state Democrats' redistricting endeavor alongside the National Republican Congressional Committee and GOP US Reps. Ben Cline and Morgan Griffith.
In a written order that followed a bench decision, the judge prohibited Virginia officials from "administering, preparing for, taking any action to further the procedure of the referendum, or otherwise moving forward with causing an election to be held on the proposed constitutional amendment" until March 18. Early voting was set to start on March 6.
Thursday was the second time that Hurley "ruled against Democrats' redistricting agenda. In January, he ruled that a resolution for a constitutional amendment was illegally passed in a special legislative session and taken up too close to an intervening election," the Associated Press noted. "That case has been appealed to the state Supreme Court, and justices had said they would allow the referendum to proceed while they review the appeal."
Democratic Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones also vowed to challenge the temporary restraining order, saying in a statement that "my office will immediately appeal the ruling issued by the Tazewell County Circuit Court. These arguments are already before the Supreme Court of Virginia, the proper forum to consider the arguments, which has set a schedule for receiving arguments and has justifiably allowed the vote to proceed during this time."
Meanwhile, in Missouri, a four-day bench trial over Republicans' gerrymandering wrapped up before the Circuit Court of Jackson County. That GOP map targets the state's 5th Congressional District, currently represented by Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver.
"Missouri's mid-decade gerrymander is a lose-lose situation for voters in Kansas City and those in smaller rural communities," said Marina Jenkins, executive director of the National Redistricting Foundation, which is supporting plaintiffs in the case. "The strategic manipulation of district lines breaks up long-standing communities and forces urban and rural communities with vastly different needs to share the same member of Congress, which will now make these communities compete for their voices to be heard in Congress."
"What's happening in Missouri is not happening in a vacuum. The national gerrymandering crisis that Donald Trump and DC Republicans started in Texas, continued in Missouri and North Carolina, and it is showing no signs of stopping at this point," she said. "No one wins this race to the bottom. Least of all the American people. This court should send a strong signal that unconstitutional gerrymanders will not be tolerated in Missouri."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular