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 rights
Voting Is an Act of Care for What Matters
Our right to have a say in what comes next is on the line. We have an opportunity to demand a future that puts our families and caregivers first.
Nov 03, 2026
This country depends on caregivers, but too often it fails the very people holding our families and communities together. As we head into the midterms, we have the chance to make our voices heard on the policies that affect our lives and families’ futures.
A 2025 AARP and National Alliance for Caregiving survey found that 63 million Americans identify as caregivers—nearly 50% more than the decade prior. That’s millions of people raising children, caring for aging parents, supporting loved ones with disabilities, all while balancing that labor with jobs and bills of their own. Caregiver needs and experiences deserve to be represented in the decisions we make at the ballot box.
Both of us are parents (one of us is a mother to six beautiful children and leads an advocacy organization and the other is a father and maternal health advocate).
Caregivers deserve a voice in the decisions that shape our lives, but exercising that right can be difficult when we’re already stretched thin.
We understand personally and professionally that the burden of caregiving is not shared equally, that mamas are expected to do more with less. There is an absolute need for fathers to do more as engaged parents. Black mamas make up nearly 40% of caregivers in the US. Yet, Black women continue to die from pregnancy-related causes at three times the rate of our white counterparts. When mothers lack support, the whole family feels it.
These inequities are not inevitable. They reflect decisions about whose health, time, and communities our systems prioritize—and whose needs are overlooked. Those priorities are shaped by the people we elect as leaders and the policies they enact.
As we head into the midterm elections, we cannot afford to let confusion, misinformation, or intimidation efforts stop us from making our voices heard. For parents and caregivers, these are not abstract policy fights. They are about whether we have a say in the decisions that determine our access to affordable childcare, quality healthcare, and the support we deserve.
That’s what we mean when we say care is on the ballot this November. Our right to have a say in what comes next is on the line. We have an opportunity to demand a future that puts our families and caregivers first.
Care is about more than what happens in a doctor’s office. It is whether we can afford groceries, find childcare, and take time off for a sick loved one. It is whether moms receive support before, during, and after pregnancy, and whether dads have the resources to be the parents they want to be. And it is whether our children have the tools they need to not only survive, but thrive.
From pregnancy through postpartum, care should be full-spectrum, comprehensive, and supportive. It should protect maternal health, provide direct cash during and after pregnancy, offer support to fathers, and help care for our kids while we work to put food on the table.
Caregivers deserve a voice in the decisions that shape our lives, but exercising that right can be difficult when we’re already stretched thin. We should not have to navigate a maze just to exercise our right to vote while juggling the demands of caring for our families. And we cannot hold elected officials accountable if we are shut out of the process.
Yet, changing voting rules are making it harder to understand when, where, and how to cast a ballot. From new mail-in voting shifts and voter ID requirements to redistricting efforts and the gutting of federal protections under the Voting Rights Act, these changes create additional uncertainty for busy families and caregivers—especially Black voters and other historically marginalized communities who have long faced barriers to the ballot. We cannot allow these barriers to deepen or history to repeat itself.
Every eligible voter deserves to cast a ballot free from intimidation, with confidence that their vote is private, and that their voice will be counted. Our democracy works best when everyone has a free and fair chance to participate.
Moms and dads alike know what it takes to care for what matters. Now is the time to bring the same determination to the ballot box.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A Complete DEFEAT for Trump DOJ': Supreme Court Rejects Push to Set Aside 20K California Ballots
The high court "declines to let Trump interfere in the election in California," one law professor said.
Nov 02, 2026
Although the US Supreme Court has a right-wing supermajority with multiple appointees of President Donald Trump, the nation's top tribunal rejected his administration's effort to set aside thousands of California ballots on the eve of the midterm elections.
The one-sentence order simply says that the application for an injunction pending appeal, presented to Justice Elena Kagan—one of the three liberals—and referred by her to the full court, is denied, with no noted dissents.
Trump has long claimed that voter fraud by immigrants is a rampant issue in the United States—despite evidence to the contrary—and his Department of Justice sued California last week after the state refused to set aside ballots from a list of voters the DOJ claimed could be noncitizens and thus ineligible to vote, based on databases known to be full of errors.
Democratic election attorney Marc Elias was among those celebrating the justices' denial of an emergency stay. He noted that "the court did not even ask for opposition briefs!"
The lawyer called it "a complete DEFEAT for Trump DOJ," and "another victory for Elias Law Group and our clients."
Joyce White Vance, a University of Alabama law professor and legal commentator on networks including MS NOW, similarly declared that "the Supreme Court declines to let Trump interfere in the election in California."
US House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY)—who could lead the chamber if Democrats win a majority on Tuesday—also applauded that "the Supreme Court just denied the Trump Justice Department's corrupt request for an injunction in the California vote count," calling it "another complete and total defeat for the extremists."
As The Associated Press reported Monday:
A district court judge previously denied the Justice Department’s request and warned that the demand could disenfranchise citizens in Tuesday’s midterm elections to determine control of Congress.
Also on Monday in Washington, another federal judge ruled against the administration's efforts to make last-minute demands of California election officials, finding they violated the US Constitution.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta on Monday also pointed to recent rulings against the administration in a social media exchange with Bill Essayli, first assistant US attorney for the Central District of California.
While the Supreme Court has sometimes sided with Trump's agenda during his second term, it has rejected some of his recent attacks on democracy, including a September decision against his US Postal Service rules for mail-in ballots.
Despite the win at the high court on Monday, the president's efforts to interfere with the midterms are expected to continue. Given that, the Advancement Project, Legal Defense Fund, and NAACP are seeking an order to block federal law enforcement agents from serving as "election monitors."
The midterms come as Trump's public approval is at an all-time low, and Democrats highlight his illegal war on Iran and the related cost-of-living crisis in their efforts to secure majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives for the rest of his second term.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Groups Seek Emergency Restraining Order Against Trump DOJ 'Voter Intimidation Effort' at Polls
"Simply put, defendants' plans to deploy any federal law enforcement agent, investigator, or personnel for the November 3, 2026 general election constitute unlawful voter intimidation."
Nov 02, 2026
With midterm Election Day rapidly approaching, a coalition of rights groups on Sunday sought an eleventh-hour judicial intervention to stop the Trump administration from deploying federal law enforcement personnel to polling places across the country, warning that the Department of Justice's unprecedented election monitoring operation threatens to intimidate voters and interfere with the democratic process.
The NAACP, Advancement Project, and the Legal Defense Fund (LDF) asked Judge Reggie Walton—the senior judge at the US District Court for the District of Columbia and an appointee of former Republican President George W. Bush—to prohibit the DOJ from assigning federal officers as election monitors on Tuesday via an emergency temporary restraining order.
Alternatively, the groups asked the court to prohibit those personnel from carrying firearms, badges, or cameras, or from engaging in law enforcement activities while monitoring polling locations.
"In less than 36 hours, Americans will head to the polls to cast ballots for the 2026 general election, and for the first time ever, they face the risk of encountering federal law enforcement agents and criminal prosecutors at polling places," the groups' filing states.
The DOJ’s veiled attempt at fearmongering is voter intimidation. Advancement Project is working across the country to observe the polls and protect the right to vote. We’re not backing down from the fight for free and fair elections, and encourage communities to vote with confidence.
[image or embed]
— Advancement Project (@advancementproject.org) November 2, 2026 at 7:10 AM
"Simply put, defendants' plans to deploy any federal law enforcement agent, investigator, or personnel for the November 3, 2026 general election constitute unlawful voter intimidation," the document adds.
The filing follows the DOJ's initial affirmation that it would deploy personnel from several federal law enforcement agencies—including the Bureau of Prisons; Drug Enforcement Administration; and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives—to polling sites nationwide, and its subsequent about-face on the plan.
Historically, the DOJ has sent civil rights attorneys and professional support personnel to monitor elections—usually in coordination with state and local election officials and with advance public notice—in order to ensure compliance with federal voting rights laws and to spot any potential discrimination.
The Trump administration, however, has increasingly substituted criminal prosecutors and sworn law enforcement personnel for those traditional monitors.
Amid the administration's deadly US Immigration and Customs Enforcement crackdown, rights groups have also called for the establishment of “No ICE” zones around polling places, early voting locations, and ballot drop boxes, warning that the presence of federal agents could deter eligible Americans from exercising their right to vote.
The unprecedented interference has alarmed even Republican officials in deeply conservative states. Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon, for example, decried what he called "aggressive" and "disruptive" conduct by DOJ monitors, including demands to interview voters and attempts to access voting machines.
Advancement Project executive director Carmen Daugherty said in a statement, "Let’s call the DOJ’s veiled attempt at fearmongering what it is, it’s voter intimidation, and we know that the Voting Rights Act clearly states that any attempts to intimidate voters from practicing their right to vote are illegal."
NAACP general counsel Kristen Clarke stressed that “the law is clear—law enforcement agents can have an intimidating effect on voters, especially Black voters, and they have no role and no right to be inside our polling places."
"We are taking action to ensure that the path to the ballot box remains free from harassment and intimidation for all voters on Election Day," Clarke added. "This Justice Department may want us to be afraid, but that’s only because they are afraid of us and the power of our votes. The NAACP urges every voter to cast a ballot if they have not already done so.”
LDF senior counsel Kathryn Sadasivan said that “the Justice Department must not be permitted to subvert its foundational responsibility of protecting voters’ right to elections free from fear."
“The continued threats of law enforcement deployment to the polls are clearly deliberate attempts to dissuade voter participation," she continued. "This is immoral, this is illegal, and this is absolutely shameful behavior from what’s supposed to be the nation’s highest legal authority."
"We will continue to fight to protect every eligible voters’ ability to cast a ballot without the threat of violence hanging over their head at the ballot box," Sadasivan added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Doomsday’ Was No Joke: DOJ Considering Scenarios In Which It Would Intervene in Midterms
"Nobody knows what the president might do if the midterms don’t go his way."
Oct 27, 2026
When US Attorney General Todd Blanche said last week that the Department of Justice may seek to block states from certifying elections if a "doomsday" scenario occurred, he wasn't simply speaking hypothetically.
Three administration officials have told investigative journalist Ken Klippenstein that the DOJ has several "contingency plans" that may result in unprecedented efforts at federal interference, many of which President Donald Trump and other administration officials have hinted at in the press.
The plans include extreme scenarios like a foreign cyberattack, according to a report from Klippenstein on Monday. They also include scenarios that the administration has claimed are already underway, such as “questions about qualified voters” and “voter confusion.”
The DOJ has already acted on such claims in three states.
At Trump's direction, the DOJ has demanded that Alaska suspend the certification of its Senate election if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses, arguing that the presence of another person with the same name on the ballot was part of a ploy to “confuse” voters.
Earlier this month, the department sued California to keep officials from tallying ballots cast by people it flagged as potentially ineligible using an error-prone federal database. Its list contained around 20,000 names.
Two judges expressed concerns that the list could disenfranchise lawful voters. When Los Angeles County officials reviewed a sample of 200 records, they found that the list included US-born people, people with inactive or canceled registrations, and people with no voting history.
On Monday, the DOJ demanded that Washington state set aside ballots from over 400 people on similar grounds.
Officials told Klippenstein that other potential "doomsday" scenarios are being discussed as possible catalysts for federal intervention, including "disruptions at the polls" and "irregularities with the count."
After suggesting the midterms should be outright "canceled," Trump has suggested that Republicans should "nationalize" elections despite the plain language of the US Constitution, which makes them the domain of states, subject to congressional regulation.
During a TV interview in February, he suggested that plans were in the works to "put in federal controls as opposed to state controls" if states could not conduct elections "honestly."
Following that interview, officials said that then-Attorney General Pam Bondi met with Trump and several governors in the White House State Dining Room to discuss potential election doomsday scenarios. Bondi then reportedly spoke with senior department officials about what situations might justify action.
While the president and DOJ cannot unilaterally block states from certifying elections, the department can bring lawsuits and seek emergency court orders under the Voting Rights Act if the attorney general has “reasonable grounds” to conclude that there has been intimidation, threats, or coercion against voters or that someone has knowingly provided false registration information or conspired to encourage false registration.
Trump has still not accepted his 2020 presidential election defeat and continues to sow doubts about it six years later. In 2020, he attempted to overturn the outcome by spreading claims that the election was marred by systemic “irregularities” and fraud, which his own advisers informed him were baseless.
Unlike previous attorneys general who declined to lend legitimacy to Trump’s claims, Blanche has repeatedly said he agrees with Trump’s sentiment that the 2020 election was “rigged.” When asked to provide specific evidence last month that mail-in voting produces large amounts of fraud, he said it was simply “common sense.”
Trump has voted by mail numerous times, and mail-in ballots have been used for elections in several states for years, including the conservative state of Utah.
Asked by CNN anchor Dana Bash on Sunday whether Trump was "laying the groundwork" to try to overturn the election again, as he did in 2020, Blanche was defiant.
"Oh stop it!" he scoffed. "You've got to stop it with that! You're not being a real person... We're not laying any groundwork for the president to do that. So the premise of your question is not true."
Breaking with previous norms of DOJ independence from the White House, Blanche declared last week, “I work for President Trump,” suggesting that he will dutifully assist any attempts by the president to undermine the results.
The question is how far he may be willing to go: “Nobody knows what the president might do if the midterms don’t go his way, what Trump might say or what he might provoke,” one senior intelligence official who served in the first Trump White House told Klippenstein.
One government lawyer told Klippenstein that while there is no law allowing the federal government to suspend elections simply by alleging fraud, that doesn’t mean the administration won’t seek to find a legal justification:
“Could Trump sign a classified emergency order raising the specter of national security to justify intervention?” the intelligence official asks. “Could Doomsday involve some continuity of government argument? You just never know with Donald Trump.”
"If all else fails,” he says, the president could put “pressure on officials, undertake unsupported litigation, or even issue unlawful executive orders." This, he says, could cause enough disruption to provoke a January 6-style riot.
Meanwhile, the government lawyer says the lack of clear legal authority hasn’t stopped the planning.
“Justice Department and White House lawyers are grappling with these very scenarios… [including] what it can do if the law is no guide,” he says.
With the midterms just a week away and Republicans projected to do poorly, Trump has a veritable army of influencers online prepared to sow doubt about the election result.
A Washington Post analysis on Tuesday found nearly 600 high-profile right-wing social media accounts, podcasts, and other media sources that have published content questioning the integrity of the election and telling Trump supporters to expect cheating. Many of their claims echo those made by the administration about the prevalence of noncitizen voting, which is exceedingly rare.
Democrats on the congressional intelligence committees have said they are prepared for Trump to claim that classified intelligence shows that foreign powers tampered with vote totals or otherwise intervened to help his rivals.
"This administration has a record of using weaponized intelligence to make the case for election interference, and now its officials are grasping at straws to satisfy the president's desire to interfere with the elections," Alexandra Chandler, the director of impact programs at Free and Fair Elections, told Common Dreams. "None of this is new."
If Trump makes such a claim, Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said that Trump’s CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Director of National Intelligence Jay Clayton have agreed to review any of the underlying intelligence with him and Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Himes told reporters, "We’re making the presumption that the president will not accept the results,” adding that they expect him to "pull out all the stops."
Voting rights groups have also said they are ready for whatever Trump throws their way.
"States and local election officials run our elections, not the federal government," Tianna Mays, legal director at the Democracy Defenders Fund, told Common Dreams. "Trump administration officials cannot claim powers they do not have under the Constitution, and we will fight them in court if they try."
“The pro-democracy coalition is prepared for whatever scenario comes,” Chandler said. “We will defend the integrity of this election.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Media Has a Critical Role in Safeguarding Our Democracy This Election Season
Even if Trump and his allies know they will lose in court if they try these illegal moves to subvert the election, they can still successfully control our elections if they cause enough noise to overwhelm voters and discourage turnout. The confusion is the point. Clarity is the cure.
Oct 27, 2026
We’re just days out from November 3, and already millions of Americans are heading to the polls or dropping off their mail-in ballots, while threats to their freedom to vote continue making front-page news.
Since returning to office, President Donald Trump and members of his administration have desperately tried to take over our elections—a move that is both unconstitutional and has, thus far, failed. But these realities haven’t stopped him from indicating a willingness to have federal officers show up at polling places, something that has been illegal since the Civil War. He has continually railed against vote-by-mail, despite the US Supreme Court blocking his most damaging plans. And where he has failed to pass federal legislation or successfully move executive orders, he has repeatedly attacked our elections. In fact, he spread false or misleading claims about our elections on 70% of the days of his second term.
And while Trump’s efforts continue to fail to pass legal muster, there are two intertwined threats built into his continued public flirtation with election interference: anti-voter actions themselves, and the confusion and chaos created by floating these plans in public.
The job of the media ecosystem—whether print journalists, TV pundits, or content creators on TikTok—is to make sure the American people know the truth.
The media ecosystem has a big role to play in mitigating that second threat.
Even if Trump and his allies know they will lose in court if they try these illegal moves to subvert the election, they can still successfully control our elections if they cause enough noise to overwhelm voters and discourage turnout.
The confusion is the point. Clarity is the cure.
Consider the rumors about the federal government deploying its agents in connection with voting.
Surely, the Trump administration knows that sending ICE to polling places is illegal and unpopular. And the administration is already backtracking on earlier statements. But as voting gets underway, the media and anyone with a platform must avoid sensationalizing, verify any reports before sharing, and make clear that the presence of ICE or other federal agents at voting sites would be straightforwardly illegal. That doesn’t mean dismissing the tangible fears Black and Brown voters may have. Instead, we can reassure voters by highlighting election workers' preparations, encouraging voters to cast their ballots with their neighbors (as millions of Americans have already done), and emphasizing the steps voting rights advocates are taking to protect access to the ballot.
While the fears of ICE feel unique to 2026, we have been down a similar road in the past. In 2022, there was extensive media coverage of a handful of armed people in tactical gear who showed up at voting drop boxes in Maricopa County, AZ. As courts later confirmed, this was undoubtedly an illegal situation that should never have happened. Although it was isolated to two drop boxes in a county larger than Connecticut, the incident received widespread coverage throughout Arizona and nationwide, and spread quickly on social media. Coverage of important incidents like this should include the key context that lets voters know they can still vote safely.
The media is powerful, and its job is so important. In 1965, the media coverage of Selma’s Bloody Sunday allowed the whole country to see the reality of voter suppression, generating outrage in communities beyond those directly affected by it. Eight days after images from Selma aired on live broadcasts and appeared on the front pages of newspapers, President Lyndon Johnson spoke to a joint session of Congress, urging them to pass the Voting Rights Act.
The job of the media ecosystem—whether print journalists, TV pundits, or content creators on TikTok—is to make sure the American people know the truth. As we approach Election Day, that includes the reality that threats of election interference are desperate moves doomed to fail.
We cannot treat threats to deploy federal officers at polling places, efforts to restrict mail-in voting, or refusals to certify lawful election results as ordinary legal debates. We must call them out as attempts to control our elections that we, the American people, will not tolerate. This is how we instill confidence in the election and in our democracy.
After all the rhetoric undermining elections from the White House, it’s understandable that voters may fear the worst-case scenarios. Those steering the public conversation should remember the power of their work to dispel those fears with the truth.
The framers of the Constitution considered the role of the press important enough to list it explicitly in the First Amendment. Two hundred and fifty years after our founding, the media is as critical as ever in safeguarding our democracy.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump DOJ Brings 'Tired, Desperate' Attempt to Find Noncitizen Voting to Washington State
"The timing of this request—one week before the general election—is no doubt intended to cast unfounded suspicion on the results," said Secretary of State Steve Hobbs.
Oct 27, 2026
As a federal appeals court on Monday refused to order California officials to set aside 20,000 mail-in ballots that the Trump administration claimed were cast by noncitizens, the US Department of Justice was already pushing a similar effort in Washington state—the latest of what one advocate called "tired, desperate attempts by a cornered and losing side" to cast doubt on the validity of the November 3 midterm elections.
Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs received a letter Monday from acting US Attorney Charles Neil Floyd, who demanded that the state set aside any ballots cast by 405 people whom the DOJ claims are illegally registered to vote despite not being US citizens.
Floyd said the voters have cast 1,500 ballots in past elections, and complained that the Democratic-led state's refusal to turn over unredacted voter rolls to the DOJ earlier this year made his search for noncitizen voters more time-consuming.
The Trump administration has filed lawsuits against more than 20 states for refusing to hand over voter data on millions of people, and the DOJ has resorted to using commercially available information and comparing it with federal records in an effort to track down people it says have voted illegally despite being noncitizens.
The right-wing Heritage Foundation was able to uncover just 23 instances of noncitizen voting between 2003-22, and election officials in found that in 42 jurisdictions, .0001% of 23.5 million votes were cast by suspected noncitizens in 2016.
Those statistics are in line with the results of the DOJ's efforts thus far. In California, federal officials announced they had identified 28 immigrants who were suspected of voting before they became naturalized citizens. The group represented about .0001% of registered voters in California.
In Nevada in September, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin claimed authorities had found 16,000 noncitizens on the state's voter rolls. DHS ultimately sent the state a list of just 185 people who it said were illegally registered to vote, but state officials found that all 185 voters were citizens.
Despite the administration's track record, Floyd insisted that this time would be different, asserting in a news conference that the 405 people identified by the DOJ in Washington were "only the tip of the iceberg."
“Because of limitations the state has placed on our investigation, we’ve only been able to uncover a fraction of the total number,” he said. "We will continue to investigate and identify those who are committing crimes by voting illegally.”
A spokesperson for Hobbs' office told NBC News that the secretary of state is reviewing the list, but Hobbs stressed that he "will only respond to requests that follow due process."
"We take our responsibility to protect voter information seriously," said Hobbs. "We saw what happened in California and don’t want Washingtonians to be harassed. The timing of this request—one week before the general election—is no doubt intended to cast unfounded suspicion on the results.”
The search for illegally registered voters in Washington comes days after the DOJ filed a lawsuit in Alaska seeking to block the certification of the state's US Senate election results if Sen. Dan Sullivan (R) narrowly loses to his Democratic challenger, former Rep. Mary Peltola.
The DOJ argued that voters may be confused by their ballots, on which Sullivan and Peltola are listed along with other candidates—one of whom is a retired teacher named Daniel J. Sullivan, Jr. Critics have noted that the sitting senator is clearly marked as the incumbent.
The latest polling average in the key race, which could determine control of the Senate, shows Peltola leading Sullivan by about two points.
On Sunday in an interview with CNN, Attorney General Todd Blanche defended the DOJ's push to stop the automatic certification of the Alaska election results, saying that President Donald Trump "is not trying to take over a state election in any way, shape, or form" and becoming angry when anchor Dana Bash asked whether the refusal to accept the election results could lay the groundwork for violence, as in the January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol.
Last week Blanche told reporters that the DOJ could become involved in the election certification process in a "doomsday" scenario.
"Trump’s DOJ has been trying to figure out how to rob Americans of their votes in the midterms since February," said journalist Pedro L. Gonzalez Tuesday. "I hope states are ready to fight and resist the administration. These freaks aren’t just going to let Americans vote their way out of this if they think they can do something about it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Days Before Midterms, US Supreme Court Lets New Hampshire Bar Student IDs for Voting
"The Supreme Court thinks corporations can buy our elections but a college kid can’t use a student ID to vote."
Oct 23, 2026
The US Supreme Court ruled Thursday, less than two weeks before the midterm elections, that New Hampshire officials can bar students from using their school ID cards as a form of identification when voting.
Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the lone dissenter, expressing support for a lower-court decision ordering New Hampshire election officials to consider student IDs as evidence of a prospective voter's identity. Jackson wrote that "when an election is looming," she "would not disturb a clearly justifiable federal-court order issued to ensure that the public receives accurate information about a state’s electoral processes."
Josh Orton, president of the advocacy group Demand Justice, condemned the high court's decision as "absurd," saying that "the Supreme Court thinks corporations can buy our elections but a college kid can’t use a student ID to vote."
“This November we vote in numbers they can’t ignore," said Orton. "Long term, we must expand the Court and end this corrupt majority for good.”
The Supreme Court's brief decision came after New Hampshire officials, with the support of national Republicans, filed an emergency request urging the justices to block the lower-court order allowing election officials to take student IDs into consideration when a voter is trying to prove their identity. The lower-court order limited an April directive from New Hampshire's Republican secretary of state, David Scanlon, who said that "student IDs cannot be used as proof" under a recently enacted state voter ID law.
Retiring Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), whose seat is up for grabs in a competitive race on November 3, wrote in a social media post that she "strongly" disagrees with the Supreme Court's decision and is "troubled by any efforts to limit access at the ballot box."
"With midterm elections days away," Shaheen added, "the Supreme Court just made it harder for our Granite State students to vote."
The counsel for the Coalition for Open Democracy, which sued over the New Hampshire voter ID law, said in a statement that the Supreme Court's decision was "wrong," arguing it injects "confusion into the election" and authorizes "an unconstitutional policy that will deprive young voters of their right to vote."
"We applaud Justice Jackson for her dissent," the statement continued. "We will continue to vigorously litigate this case in the defense of the fundamental right to vote of young voters across New Hampshire."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Judge Blocks Error-Riddled Effort by Trump DHS to Crack Down on Vanishingly Rare Voting by Noncitizens
"It was clear from the start that DHS built its lists on bad data, never checked how often it was wrong, and recklessly sent agents to people's homes weeks before an election," said one voting rights advocate.
Oct 22, 2026
A federal judge in California ruled late Wednesday that the US Department of Homeland Security has violated the Voting Rights Act by sending agents door-to-door and demanding information from people about their immigration status and whether they've voted in recent elections—part of President Donald Trump's perennial effort to prove the baseless claim that noncitizens are committing mass voter fraud to secure Democratic victories.
In the US District Court of the Northern District of California, District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin ordered federal agents to end their "elections-related field operations and field interviews" in nine states, including California, New York, Missouri, Connecticut, Georgia, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin.
DHS can no longer carry out the operations if they are likely to involve interrogations of people whom agency officials "know, suspect, or should reasonably know or suspect are US citizens," said the judge.
Because the Trump administration has been turned away by state and local agencies when officials have demanded access to voter data, DHS has been forced to compile its lists of targets using commercially available information and comparing it with federal records.
That method has resulted in target lists that are "voluminous and unreliable," wrote Martinez-Olguin.
In Nevada last month, for example, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin asserted that his agency had determined there were close to 16,000 noncitizens on the state voter rolls. DHS sent the state a list of 185 people from that list, whom it claimed had been improperly permitted to register to vote.
But a deputy attorney general for the state tersely informed Mullin that records indicated all 185 people DHS was targeting were citizens.
“You have provided nothing of substance to suggest otherwise," he wrote.
Martinez-Olguin suggested she would not tolerate more large-scale errors that threaten the voting rights of thousands of Americans, and said the Trump administration's so-called "Unlawful Voter Initiative" violates a section of the Voting Rights Act that makes it illegal to "intimidate, threaten, or coerce" people and groups that contribute to voter mobilization efforts or assist with voting.
"Plaintiffs do not claim, nor does the court find, that it is unlawful for federal officials to undertake investigations into unlawful voting in federal elections," the judge said in her ruling. "Rather, plaintiffs seek to stop DHS from continuing to investigate US citizens, who have a legal right to vote, in a way that intimidates and threatens the participation" of National Nurses United and California Nurses Association, which have been involved in voter mobilization and sued DHS over its policy.
Martinez-Olguin added that "the public’s interest in safe elections, free from interference or intimidation... far exceed defendants’ purported interest in combating unlawful voting by non-US citizens.”
The Department of Justice has indicated that a tiny fraction of registered voters in the US—156 people—have been charged with offenses related to "voter fraud," despite Trump's claims that voting by noncitizens, which is illegal, is rampant in the US.
In California, federal authorities this week said they had identified 28 immigrants who were suspected of voting before they became naturalized citizens. They all denied knowingly registering to vote or voting, and the group represented about 0.0001% of registered voters in California.
"It was clear from the start that DHS built its lists on bad data, never checked how often it was wrong, and recklessly sent agents to people's homes weeks before an election," Beau Tremitiere, counsel at Protect Democracy, which also sued over the policy, told CBS News. "Today's ruling should remind us that American citizens hold the ultimate power in our democracy, not the government—no matter what the administration says otherwise."
Keep ReadingShow Less
This Election Season, Turn Out for Working Women
When we show up to the polls, we increase our chances of winning the gains needed for working people to take care of ourselves and our families. That’s what this election is all about.
Oct 21, 2026
With midterms fast approaching, it seems that all eyes are turned toward what will happen pre- and post-election. There is nonstop coverage of how much money is being spent on local, state, and federal races, as well as the ongoing threats to our democracy.
The political moment is stressful, particularly for working women and nonbinary people of color. Prices are rising, wages are stagnant, and it seems harder than ever to get ahead. Despite the stress of the political moment, there is reason for hope, and we can find those reasons at the polls.
When we vote, we show up for ourselves, our futures, and for collective power. When we show up to the polls, we increase our chances of winning the gains needed for working people to take care of ourselves and our families. That’s what this election is all about.
If collective power was truly meaningless, we wouldn’t see so many attempts to limit it.
We know there are policies that will improve the lives of our communities, and we know they are achievable. We have seen what advancements in equal pay and workplace protections are possible when women organize and policymakers listen.
The power of organizing is why we at 9to5 recently held a fundraiser and rallying point, “Built By Us, For All of Us.” When we raise our own money and move it on our own terms, we can speak truth to power and fight for our communities without compromise. Real power comes from neighbors organizing and showing up for each other, not billionaires and corporate interests spending to divide us and keep money at the top.
If collective power was truly meaningless, we wouldn’t see so many attempts to limit it. If we couldn’t win, we wouldn’t see racial gerrymandering in the wake of Louisiana v. Callais, threats of armed federal agents outside of polls, or the looming specter of legislation like the SAVE Act (which would require documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote, adding even more roadblocks to the process for women, LGBTQ+ folks, and people of color).
We have too much to gain to let efforts aimed at limiting our collective power stop us from being heard. Instead, they further compel us to respond with action. We need elected officials in office who will fight for policies that allow for safe and affordable living and working conditions. It is high time for policies that expand workplace harassment protections, close the gender pay gap for women, and pursue climate and utility justice.
We are long overdue for a national paid leave policy in the US that would expand paid family and medical leave policies at the state and federal level. It is proven that paid family and medical leave improves employee well-being and workplace productivity. Expanding paid family and medical leave policies at the state and federal level could change workers’ lives. They would no longer have to choose between getting paid or taking time to care for themselves and their loved ones.
Childcare affordability is a serious concern for voters across political ideologies, and parents can’t work without childcare. Investing in affordable, accessible, quality childcare supports small businesses and state infrastructure as well as parents, children, and communities. Lawmakers can push through false narratives to give the necessary resources to the workforce behind the workforce.
Housing justice and affordability is another issue at the top of minds; the cost of housing tied for the second most pressing issue for Americans in a recent Gallup poll. Everyone needs a warm, safe, and stable place to live; policies prioritizing safe housing and renters' rights can bring this into reach for families across the country.
These are all issues that can be advanced if we elect leaders who will fight for our interests in office.
Every single voice counts, especially in this political moment. When we come together, speak out, and vote for officials who care about and answer to their constituents, we invite the possibility of true change.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rights Group Says Polling Places Should Be 'No ICE' Zones During Midterm Elections
"Voters should not have to fear being caught in an ICE dragnet when they head to the polls.”
Oct 20, 2026
Human Rights Watch on Tuesday called for the establishment of “No ICE” zones around polling places, early voting locations, and ballot drop boxes ahead of next month's midterm elections, warning that the presence of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents could deter eligible Americans from exercising their right to vote.
“ICE officers’ abuses have already seriously affected US citizens who have been stopped, beaten, detained, deported, and even killed,” Human Rights Watch (HRW) executive director Philippe Bolopion said in a statement. “Voters should not have to fear being caught in an ICE dragnet when they head to the polls.”
As HRW noted:
Federal law generally prohibits federal officials from sending “troops or armed men” to voting sites. Several state laws prohibit any armed officers, including police, from engaging in acts that could interfere with the elections or intimidate voters by their presence near polling places. Some states bar law enforcement officers, including police, from being in close proximity to polling places at all unless they are responding to a specific incident.
Despite these robust prohibitions, neither President Donald Trump nor the heads of the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have been willing to rule out the possibility that federal agents, including ICE, may be at places where people vote.
While Trump administration officials, including Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, have indicated there are no plans to deploy ICE agents to polling stations, many voters—especially nonwhite ones—are nonetheless wary amid mixed signals and an often violent, and sometimes deadly, anti-immigrant crackdown that's harmed both immigrants and citizens.
In a survey released last month by the Center for Transparent and Trusted Elections at the University of California, San Diego School of Social Sciences, 40% of respondents said they expected some kind of ICE presence at polling places, with nonwhite respondents even more likely to anticipate seeing immigration enforcers where they vote.
Critics point to Trump's efforts to cast doubt on the integrity of US voting, as well as the push by some of the president's allies for a martial law declaration, as cause for alarm. Trump has repeatedly promoted unsubstantiated claims of widespread election fraud and noncitizen voting—even after his own administration's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency called the 2020 election “the most secure in American history.”
The president's "Big Lie" that Democrats stole that election fueled the deadly January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection, while sowing doubt in the minds of right-wing voters, 82% of whom believe that the biggest problem in the nation’s elections is “ineligible people casting votes,” according to a Public Religion Research Institute survey released Tuesday.
HRW noted that three lawsuits are pending in federal courts to prevent ICE from conducting operations at polling places, with an additional case seeking to compel the federal government to disclose any plans for such deployments. Additionally, the Washington, DC Board of Elections recently asked the National Guard to limit troops' presence near midterm drop box locations after Guard members were spotted near one such box in Foggy Bottom.
“ICE agents should be publicly ordered to stay away from the polls, and anywhere ballots are being cast,” Bolopion said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy