5
#000000
#FFFFFF
voting rights
Don't Let False Claims of Fraud Make It Harder to Vote
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear a case that could overturn grace periods for mail-in ballots, and the Trump administration targets mail-in voting as well, it's important to refute false claims about mail ballots and misreadings of election laws.
Jun 26, 2026
The Supreme Court is set to decide a case that could overturn laws in 30 states that provide grace periods, which allow counting mail ballots received after Election Day but sent on time.
Meanwhile, President Donald Trump has issued two executive orders seeking to displace states’ mail voting laws, including one that attempts to deny federal funds to states that do not reject mail ballots received after Election Day. (The Brennan Center and other voting rights groups have challenged both orders in court.)
These efforts seek to undermine state policies for when mail ballots may be counted. They are centered on false claims about mail ballots and misreading of election law and are occurring as states pass restrictive voting laws—some of which even rely on the executive orders or the ongoing litigation.
While many states have expanded access to mail voting since 2020, between 2020 and 2025, 27 states enacted laws restricting mail voting. These restrictions have followed false claims by Trump and his allies about fraudulent mail ballots. Indeed, Trump made similar claims due to ballot processing times following California’s recent primary. These false claims and restrictive laws around mail voting persist even though the overwhelming evidence shows that it continues to be safe and secure.
Lawmakers who focus on voters when enacting election laws recognize that some face unique hurdles when accessing the ballot box.
Laws restricting mail voting include laws eliminating grace periods. Notably, between 2020 and 2025, at least seven states, including Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, and Utah, have either tightened the deadline for returning a mail ballot or blocked officials from accepting mail ballots arriving after Election Day. At least four states have done so in the past year, including two that did so after the executive orders or Supreme Court litigation.
North Dakota eliminated its grace period, which counted mail ballots so long as they were postmarked by the day before Election Day, in April, shortly after Trump’s March 2025 executive order on voting. Among other things, that order illegally directs the Election Assistance Commission, an independent federal agency, to condition funding on a state’s adherence to an Election Day ballot-receipt deadline, even if the ballots were submitted on time under state law. Just three weeks after Trump issued the order, state legislators amended an elections bill to include a new section “addressing the new executive order” by eliminating the state’s grace period.
Then, in December 2025, Ohio passed a law eliminating its grace period, which counted ballots postmarked before Election Day and received by the fourth day after (a period that Ohio had already shortened in 2022 from the 10th day after the election). One of the 2025 bill’s sponsors pointed to Trump’s executive order. But Ohio lawmakers also made their decision while the Supreme Court case, Watson v. Republican National Committee, had yet to be argued, let alone decided.
That case began in early 2024 under a sham legal theory: that century-old federal “Election Day” laws, which require states to have presidential and congressional elections on the first Tuesday of November, preempt Mississippi’s policy of accepting mail ballots postmarked by Election Day and received within five business days thereafter. Those federal laws do not set the date by which states must receive and count ballots, and a federal district court rejected the lawsuit. But in March 2025, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the ruling in a deeply flawed opinion that inaccurately described the plain text, historical practice, and congressional history of the “Election Day” laws.
The same week in November 2025 that the Supreme Court agreed to hear Watson, Ohio’s Legislative Budget Office cited the Fifth Circuit’s flawed reasoning in its analysis for lawmakers. By the following month, Ohio had eliminated the state’s grace period except for military and overseas voters. (Mississippi, for its part, recently enacted a “trigger law” that, if the court overturns Mississippi’s current grace period, will require mail ballots to be received a full day before Election Day.)
To be sure, North Dakota and Ohio lawmakers also pointed to other states that do not provide grace periods. But North Dakota and Ohio’s passing of restrictive voting laws following a contested executive order and grace period-related litigation, respectively, shows the damage that the executive branch and courts alike can cause by elevating debunked legal theories.
In contrast with the executive order and Watson litigation, multiple states have exercised their authority to develop mail voting policies under a different approach: addressing voters’ needs. Today, at least 14 states, the District of Columbia, and three other US territories provide a grace period for all voters. At least 16 states provide a grace period specifically for military and overseas voters. And Montana provides a grace period specifically for users of the Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot, which serves as a backup ballot for military and overseas voters.
During the Civil War, officials in states including Maryland, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island gave military voters additional time after Election Day to have their ballots arrive so they could be counted. In 2010, US Postal Service delays resulted in over 26,000 mail ballots arriving too late to be counted in California’s general election. This led California to adopt a three-day grace period for all voters, which the legislature lengthened to 17 days during the Covid-19 pandemic and shortened to seven days following the pandemic. Texas decided in 2005 to accept ballots postmarked by Election Day and received the day after. It added longer deadlines in 2017: five days after Election Day for civilian ballots and six days for military service members deployed abroad and their families. And some states, like Alabama and Colorado, that have adopted grace periods specifically for military and overseas voters have done so to build upon protections embedded in the federal Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act.
Lawmakers who focus on voters when enacting election laws recognize that some face unique hurdles when accessing the ballot box. As the Brennan Center and co-counsel Covington & Burling noted in a friend-of-the-court brief in Watson, overseas civilian and military voters can face mail delays that prevent ballots from arriving on time, through no fault of the voter. Rural voters, like many in largely rural Alaska, can be wholly dependent on mail voting to participate in elections. So too can voters with disabilities, or certain communities of color that may rely on mail voting as an effective alternative to in-person voting. Indeed, recent research on the rescission of Ohio’s grace period suggests that thousands of valid votes in the 2024 election would not have been counted under the new rules.
Court decisions sanctioning Trump’s unconstitutional executive orders or the misleading claims underpinning Watson could add to the burdens some voters already face. But even if Trump’s executive orders fail and the Supreme Court upholds the grace period at issue, policymakers and advocates should still be concerned about how lawmakers can turn the false claims behind executive orders and litigation into restrictive state voting laws.
Keep Reading
Show Less
State AGs Applaud Court Blocking 'Unconstitutional' Trump Proof of Citizenship Voting Requirement
"As President Trump has made clear today, the fight to protect the right to vote isn’t over," said California Attorney General Rob Bonfa.
Jun 24, 2026
A federal judge on Wednesday blocked portions of an executive order signed by President Donald Trump last year that required Americans to show proof of citizenship when registering to vote.
US District Court Judge Denise Casper ruled that Trump's March 2025 executive order establishing proof-of-citizenship requirements was illegal because the US Constitution explicitly gives states the power to implement elections, with some oversight and input from the US Congress.
In contrast, wrote Casper, the Constitution "does not grant the president any specific powers over elections," making any effort to regulate voter registration via executive order unconstitutional on its face.
Casper's ruling came about after 19 states sued to block the Trump executive order from taking effect.
New York Attorney General Letitia James expressed gratitude that the court "blocked the president’s unconstitutional attempt to seize control of our elections."
"Generations of Americans fought tirelessly for the right to vote, and we honor their legacy by protecting that right against anyone who tries to undermine it," said James. "As we approach this year’s midterms, I will continue doing everything in my power to protect free and fair elections and defend the sacred right to vote for New Yorkers and all Americans."
Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar called the ruling "an important reminder to our president that he does not administer our elections." Aguilar vowed that he and other state-level officials nationwide would use every tool we have to protect the right to run our elections at the local level, and the ability of our voters to lawfully participate.”
California Attorney General Rob Bonta celebrated the court victory but warned that Trump would continue efforts to rig the 2026 midterm elections in the GOP's favor.
"As President Trump has made clear today, the fight to protect the right to vote isn’t over," Bonta said. "While President Trump continues to spread lies and feed into delusions about our elections, our coalition of AGs will continue to stand strong in protecting our democracy."
Keep Reading
Show Less
'Totally Crazy': Trump Holds Bipartisan Housing Bill Hostage to Push Evisceration of Voting Rights
"Trump just threw a tantrum," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren. "He's refusing to sign bipartisan legislation to make housing more affordable in a bizarre effort to try to rig the elections."
Jun 24, 2026
Congress this week passed a bipartisan bill "to build more housing, lower costs, and stop private equity's housing grab," as US Sen. Elizabeth Warren highlighted after the final vote, but President Donald Trump on Wednesday scrapped his plans to sign the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act over a stalled GOP attack on voting rights.
Trump initially took a swipe at Warren (D-Mass.) on his Truth Social platform Wednesday morning, writing that "the Elizabeth 'Pocahontas' Warren centric housing bill, which is of minor importance compared to lower interest rates, and even FISA, pales in comparison to passing THE SAVE AMERICA ACT. That is what Americans, both Dumocrats, Republicans, and everyone else, care about."
"Get the bad Republicans to approve it or, better yet, Terminate the Filibuster and approve it, AND EVERYTHING ELSE REPUBLICANS HAVE EVER DREAMED OF," Trump continued. "The Dumocrats will do it in hour one, 100%. Republicans will feel very stupid if they don’t do it first. I'll be watching with tears in my eyes!!!"
Less than an hour later, he added, "Today's Housing News Conference and Signing is hereby cancelled until such time as we pass the desperately needed SAVE AMERICA ACT, which I consider to be a National Emergency."
Trump and other backers of the anti-voter bill argue it is needed to prevent undocumented immigrants from voting in US elections—which is already illegal, and research shows is remarkably rare. Critics warn that the legislation would disenfranchise eligible voters who lack access to proof-of-citizenship documents.
While Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) responded by stressing that he and other Republicans in the House of Representatives support the SAVE America Act, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) said the canceled ceremony was Trump's "call to make" but expressed hope that he'll "find his way to sign" the housing bill, other lawmakers—including Warren—and supporters of the legislation took aim at the president over his move.
"Congress overwhelmingly passed a housing bill to bring down costs. But Trump just threw a tantrum," Warren wrote on social media. "He's refusing to sign bipartisan legislation to make housing more affordable in a bizarre effort to try to rig the elections. Nope—I'll keep fighting to lower housing costs."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) told journalists that "Trump is running away from one of the very few accomplishments that could actually help the American people," and urged the president not to veto the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act.
Approved by the Senate in an 85-5 vote on Monday and the House in a 358-32 vote on Tuesday, the bill contains dozens of provisions to promote the rebuilding of older homes and development of vacant buildings, encourage local governments to build more housing, streamline regulations for construction, ban corporate investors from buying single-family homes to rent out, and more.
Stressing that the bill passed "overwhelmingly in a bipartisan way," and would "save American families a lot of money when it comes to housing," Sen. Andy Kim (D-Calif.) said that "I honestly can't believe that the president is holding this hostage."
"I hope the American people see this for what it is, which is that he doesn't care at all about the high cost of living that a lot of Americans are struggling with," Kim declared. "He doesn't care about the housing crisis. He is just continuing to push forward on his extreme agenda."
In the House, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) replied to the president: "The housing crisis is a national emergency. Do something to make life more affordable for hardworking American taxpayers. Sign the bill."
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) pointed to Trump's campaign pledges, writing: "The president who promised lower costs on Day 1 is refusing to sign the largest housing affordability bill in a generation. It's a slap in the face to millions of Americans struggling to afford a place to live. My Republican colleagues need to find some courage and stand up to this mad king."
In a video, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) warned the public that Trump "is taking away your housing for his personal projects that can never pass and are unconstitutional."
Longtime human rights advocate Kenneth Roth, who's now a visiting professor at Princeton University, similarly summarized: "Trump to America: I [couldn't] care less about affordable housing. So I won't sign a bill to advance it unless Congress endorses my autocratic efforts to restrict the right to vote."
Although Trump has not decisively said whether he will formally block the bill, Roth wondered, "Will the Republicans have the backbone to override his veto?"
Either way, The New York Times noted that "Trump's decision threatened to deprive Republicans, in particular, of an opportunity to showcase a legislative success in a year with very few of them—one that spoke directly to voters' economic concerns."
In a Wednesday statement, Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America, looked to the midterm elections, in which Democrats aim to retake majorities in both chambers of Congress.
"Donald Trump has been clear: The SAVE Act is his #1 legislative priority—not lowering costs for working people, creating good-paying jobs, or helping families afford a roof over their heads," said Edkins. "Today, he decided it was more important to help Republicans avoid accountability for the cost-of-living crisis than actually do something about it."
"Trump was born on third base, and it shows. He has no clue what it’s like to struggle to make rent, save for a down payment, pay a mortgage, or worry that your kids will be able to afford a home of their own," he added. "Trump could've signed bipartisan legislation today to help lower housing costs and give Republicans something—anything—to show voters that they deserve reelection this November. Instead, he told working families to screw themselves. It's selfish, petty, and self-defeating."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Most Popular