5
#000000
#FFFFFF
voting rights
'Voter Suppression, Plain and Simple': Lawsuit Aims to Stop Trump From Sending ICE to Polling Sites
“Putting armed officers in polling places is a tactic used by dictators, but we won’t be scared out of exercising our rights."
Sep 10, 2026
Noncitizens are barred from voting in federal elections, and a coalition of rights groups suggested Thursday that President Donald Trump's plan to have armed immigration agents enter polling places isn't aimed at cracking down on unlawful immigrants at all.
"Sending armed ICE officers to polling places is not immigration enforcement—it is voter suppression, plain and simple,” said Janet Murguía, president and CEO of UnidosUS, referring to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
UnidosUS joined Common Cause, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), and the city and county of Denver, Colorado in filing a lawsuit to stop the administration from authorizing ICE deployments in polling places during the 2026 elections, in which early voting will soon be underway in a number of states.
The groups filed the legal challenge in the US District Court for the District of Columbia several days after Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said ICE could be sent to polling sites to address "specific threats."
Earlier this year, the Department of Justice ended long-standing guidance on why federal law enforcement activity is restricted at polling places, and ICE agents conducted enforcement actions at voting sites in Texas and New York.
clMullin said in July that states could be denied federal aid if they refuse to comply with election directives from the Department of Homeland Security related to the administration's baseless claims that undocumented immigrants engage in widespread "voter fraud."
A Reuters analysis this year found that only 73 people in the last three decades have ever been convicted of illegally voting as noncitizens. The right-wing Heritage Foundation has proidentified about 100 cases of proven noncitizen voting dating back to 2000—representing around 0.0001% of total votes cast over that time.
In their lawsuit, the groups argued that Mullin's plan to deploy ICE agents to voting sites violates the nationwide prohibition against armed federal agents in polling places, which was first enacted during the Civil War out of concerns "about executive overreach, and the risk that the federal executive would use armed force to interfere in state and federal elections."
The policy also violates "the federal prohibition on arbitrary and capricious government action," said the groups.
The administration is pushing to deploy ICE to polling places as voters express widespread disapproval of numerous Republican policies, including ICE's violent crackdown in cities such as Minneapolis and Chicago, Trump's war on Iran, and tariffs that have worsened the cost-of-living crisis the president pledged to solve.
Virginia Kase Solomón, president and CEO of Common Cause, said that Americans will not be "silenced by the administration’s continuous efforts to meddle with our elections."
“Putting armed officers in polling places is a tactic used by dictators, but we won’t be scared out of exercising our rights,” said Kase Solomón. “No American should ever have to walk past armed federal law enforcement just to cast a ballot, yet this administration has adopted a policy that allows exactly that."
The lawsuit emphasizes that with ICE having unlawfully detained more than 170 US citizens and killed at least three citizens since Trump took office, Americans "may reasonably fear interactions with ICE."
“All Americans—including Latino voters—have a constitutional right to cast their ballot without fear of interrogation, detention, or family separation," said Murguía. "This case is about protecting voters, preserving confidence in our elections, and ensuring that every eligible voter can participate free from intimidation.”
At the Democracy Project at New York University School of Law, poSoephen Richer and Gina Goldenberg cautioned that the threat of ICE agents potentially being at the polls could serve as a voter suppression tactic and "real voting deterrent" in itself.
"ICE-at-the-polls is something that American elections are well-equipped to handle," they wrote. "The highly decentralized nature of our elections, plus the massive growth of early voting, combined with a strong legal framework, would make widespread ICE interference a heavy lift for the federal government. Ironically, the real threat of ICE-at-the-polls could be in its potential voter-deterrent effect.
"It’s not too far-fetched to imagine a newly naturalized, brown-skinned American in Michigan who only casually follows political news, but hears that ICE might be at the polls," they added. "This person knows he’s in a higher-risk category for being mistakenly apprehended by ICE, and he wonders, 'Why risk it?'"
All voters, said Juan Proaño, CEO of LULAC, "should be able to cast their ballots without fear of intimidation by armed ICE officers at polling places."
“The right to vote is foundational to our democracy," he added, "and yet this administration continues in its endless attempts to weaken the very institutions it is entrusted to protect."
Keep Reading
Show Less
You Can Fight Trump's Voter Suppression Efforts With One Simple Action: Voting
The effort to undermine the election is failing. It will succeed only if citizens stay home.
Sep 10, 2026
Benjamin Franklin wrote, “Never trouble trouble until trouble troubles you.” That’s not quite our approach at the Brennan Center. We worry. (Dr. Franklin also advised, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”)
What are we particularly concerned about as we look toward November?
Voter confusion is perhaps the biggest risk. People ask, understandably, can they still vote by mail? Will I need to show a passport or birth certificate to register? It has been many years since the freedom to vote has faced so many proposed challenges, and never before from the federal government. With all the news and noise, citizens cannot be expected to follow the executive edicts and ping-ponging court rulings in minute detail.
In fact, for voters, very little has actually changed. Congress and courts blocked all those bad ideas. The SAVE Act never passed. As a general matter, citizens can cast ballots as before.
After all the push and pull, voters can make their voices heard. Make a plan to vote. Vote early if possible. In person, with a drop box, or if necessary, using the mail.
With less than two months to go, President Donald Trump’s drive to undermine the election is failing. Judges, states and counties, and voting rights groups have blocked his moves. If we keep at it, we can have free and fair elections in 2026.
What else keeps us on edge? The Supreme Court, of course. It is now considering whether to undo a trial court’s decision blocking a rule that would allow the US Postal Service to withhold mail ballots. The trial court determined that rule is illegal and unconstitutional.
If the court allows the USPS to implement its rule, it would introduce chaos and disenfranchise many voters just before the election, as a USPS whistleblower explained in a friend-of-the-court brief detailing the agency’s rushed and flawed process to implement the rule. The court will likely rule in a matter of days on the administration’s request to allow the USPS rule. Fingers crossed.
Here’s a third concern: a growing risk of foreign interference. America is at war. (An illegal, unauthorized war, worth noting.) In 1980, the “October surprise” was the notion that Iran would release Americans it held hostage to influence that year’s election. Let’s hope that Iranian hackers do not produce a digital “October surprise” this year.
Iran has shown its ability to break into municipal water systems in Minnesota. In previous elections, Russia and China have tried to sway voters or attack registration lists. Trump’s purge of election security offices means that American elections have less federal protection against malevolent foreign hackers than before.
States have worked hard to get ready. And it’s important to remember that there is no way for even the most sophisticated schemer to change the results. Voting machines are not connected to the internet. And citizens cast ballots with a paper record, which can be audited and recounted.
Some of our worries are decreasing.
First, “ICE at the polls.” That could still happen. But deployment of federal forces is illegal under numerous federal and state laws. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff pledged recently not to use federal troops, correctly asserting, “Election administration and security remain the fundamental responsibility of state and local officials.” We have growing confidence that courts would step in fast. At the Brennan Center, we are prepared to sue if necessary. The briefs are written, and the toner is in the printer.
Then there are the Justice Department observers deployed to some states. They are annoying and often seem like a bit of a mess. But they too are subject to the laws that prohibit voter intimidation, and state officials are prepared to speak up if observers are disruptive.
And as for the worry that electoral winners won’t be certified, we are increasingly confident that courts will step in here, too. Judges have been heroes and upheld the rule of law.
But courts are not enough. We need a citizen mobilization to watch polls, help voters, and blow the whistle on abuse. That, too, gives hope.
It’s going to be a busy two months. No doubt Trump and his partisans will fling new charges every few days. All that clatter can confuse voters further. Perhaps that’s part of the goal.
So for all of us who want voters to have their say in 2026, a chief job is to stay calm and make clear that—as of right now, at least—little has changed. That’s a task for the news media. Public officials should be clear and calm. We who fight for voting rights must measure our own tone, so as not to rattle confidence.
After all the push and pull, voters can make their voices heard. Make a plan to vote. Vote early if possible. In person, with a drop box, or if necessary, using the mail. As we’ve said before, the effort to undermine the election is failing. It will succeed only if citizens stay home.
Keep Reading
Show Less
'We Must Stop Trump’s Authoritarian Power Grab,' Sanders Says of Assault on Mail-In Voting
"The Trump administration is trying to use the United States Postal Service to decide who gets to vote in this year's election. Unacceptable."
Sep 02, 2026
Sen. Bernie Sanders warned Tuesday that President Donald Trump's attempt to leverage the US Postal Service to advance his assault on mail-in voting is part of a broader and intensifying "authoritarian power grab" that poses an existential threat to American democracy.
"The Trump administration is trying to use the United States Postal Service to decide who gets to vote in this year's election. Unacceptable," Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote after an anonymous federal official said in a whistleblower disclosure that USPS systems being hastily implemented at the president's direction—and in possible violation of court orders—could threaten the delivery of millions of ballots in the fast-approaching midterm elections.
Sanders said that Trump's assault on mail-in voting via the Postal Service is "blatantly unconstitutional," noting that the nation's founders empowered states to administer elections "precisely so that no authoritarian in Washington could ever seize that power for himself."
"Trump is trying to seize it anyway—in a blatant attempt to rig the election in his favor," the senator warned. "Trump knows this has nothing to do with the safety of mail-in ballots, because he himself has voted by mail in Florida twice this year. He knows mail-in voting is safe and secure."
"Voter fraud is not the problem," Sanders continued. "Trump's problem is that his agenda is deeply unpopular. He has waged illegal wars the American people did not ask for. He is throwing 15 million Americans off the healthcare they have and has made the largest cuts to education and nutrition assistance in history in order to pay for $1 trillion in tax breaks to the top 1% and his billionaire friends."
"He knows that when people vote, they will reject oligarchy and corporate greed. So instead of changing his policies, he is trying to decide which voters get to participate in elections this November," he added. "Too many Americans have fought and died to defend American democracy. We must stop Trump’s authoritarian power grab—before it is too late."
Trump Must Not Be Allowed to Prevent Millions of Americans from Voting
The Trump administration is trying to use the United States Postal Service to decide who gets to vote in this year's election. Unacceptable. We will not accept Trump’s authoritarianism.
Last month, the…
— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) September 1, 2026
Following the USPS whistleblower disclosure, the investigative outlet ProPublica reported on Wednesday that top Postal Service officials have "expressed concerns" during recent internal meetings about how the new policies the agency is implementing in compliance with Trump's March executive order "could delay or block ballots from reaching large swaths of eligible voters for the upcoming midterms."
Days after the Postal Service published its final rule on new mail-in voting requirements, election clerks warned USPS officials that potentially millions of ballots could be impacted, according to ProPublica.
"An example was given of Maricopa County, Arizona, which often sends out more than 2 million ballots at a time in its initial mailing," the outlet reported. "USPS officials confirmed it was possible that one ballot with a bad barcode or wrong voter information within the more than 2 million ballots could delay the entire mailing, according to two people who attended the related committee meeting."
The USPS rule is currently blocked by a federal court, but the Trump administration is working to clear legal hurdles and implement the mail-in ballot restrictions ahead of the midterms.
In a letter to Postmaster General David Steiner on Tuesday, every Democratic member of the House Oversight Committee called for an immediate end to "this irresponsible and illegal scheme to implement the Trump administration’s plan to control our federal elections."
"The right of all Americans to have their votes counted is sacrosanct," the lawmakers wrote. "The Postal Service's current actions are putting clear obstacles in the way of that right."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Talarico Protests as Texas Swing County Plans to Close 92 Polling Places
“The most powerful people in this county, the most powerful people in this country, don’t want us to be able to vote easily."
Aug 31, 2026
Texas Democratic Senate nominee James Talarico is pushing for one of Texas' most important swing counties to drop plans to close nearly a third of its polling places before November's midterms.
Amid public outcry, the Commissioners Court for Tarrant County—which contains Fort Worth and borders Dallas—plans to hold a vote on Tuesday on whether to shutter 92 of the polling places used in the 2022 election, many of which serve the city's poorer and minority populations.
If Democrats flip the Senate this November, the road to that outcome will almost certainly run through Texas. A Democrat has not won a statewide election there since 1994, but Talarico may be in a position to break the trend—leading Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton in most polls.
Tarrant County narrowly supported then-Rep. Collin Allred, the Democratic challenger to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in 2024. Talarico said the closure of polling places was meant to suppress turnout and help Republicans cling to their advantage in the state.
“The most powerful people in this county, the most powerful people in this country, don’t want us to be able to vote easily,” Talarico said at a press event Sunday, during which he argued that the closures would result in longer travel for voters and lower turnout, especially in heavily Black and Latino communities.
"We're here fighting for the rights of everybody," Talarico added. "The problem is when we let voting rights become a partisan issue. That's when we walk down a very dangerous path in this country."
Proponents of the closures have described them as a way for the county to save money, rather than a political tactic.
“We’re clearly not trying to suppress the vote,” state Rep. Matt Shaheen (R-66), the chairman of the Texas House Elections Committee, told the Associated Press. “That’s a silly accusation.”
But Republican officials in Tarrant County have, in the past, explicitly tied closures of certain voting locations to partisan aims. In 2024, Republican County Judge Tim O'Hare attempted, unsuccessfully, to remove several early voting sites on college campuses, a move that the county's GOP chairman said would have been "a serious win for Republicans in Tarrant County."
In 2025's off-year elections, Republicans voted 3-2 to reduce the number of polling locations by more than a third and cut funding for free bus rides to the polls for low-income residents. The previous year, they introduced new rules blocking what they derided as "left-wing" groups from registering voters inside county buildings.
At the state level, meanwhile, Texas has carried out unprecedented mid-decade redistricting to hand more US House seats to Republicans at the behest of President Donald Trump. And following Trump's false assertions that his loss in the 2020 election was marred by fraud, Texas introduced several new restrictions on mail-in voting that were found to have significantly reduced turnout.
Tuesday's scheduled vote in Tarrant County comes after commissioners opted to table an earlier proposal that would have shuttered nearly half the county's polling places.
An analysis of that plan showed that the lowest-income third of ZIP codes would lose nearly 58% of their Election Day polling sites, while the highest-income third would lose just under 22%. Majority-minority ZIP codes would have lost nearly 52% of their polling places, while majority-white ones would have lost just a third of theirs.
A similar analysis has not yet been conducted for the new proposal. But civil rights groups still argue that the proposal will disenfranchise many voters.
"Cutting the number of poll sites, especially at such a large scale, will harm Tarrant County voters and their right to participate in the democratic process—and cause particular harm to Black, Latino, and [Asian American and Pacific Islander] voters who already face significant barriers to exercising that fundamental right," wrote groups including the ACLU, the Legal Defense Fund, and the Texas Civil Rights Project, in a letter to the Commissioners' Court on Friday.
They emphasized that the polling places slated to close under the new proposal were clustered in areas such as south and southeast Fort Worth and central and eastern Arlington, which have predominantly nonwhite populations.
Tarrant County Commissioner Alisa Simmons, a Democrat who is running to unseat O'Hare as county judge and spoke alongside Talarico on Sunday, argued that while it was an improvement on the earlier proposal, "dropping 92 Election Day polling places is crazy."
"We should not compare this proposal to the worst proposal," she said. "We should compare it to the access that Tarrant County voters actually had in 2022."
Keep Reading
Show Less
'Trump Must Keep His Hands Off Our Elections': Judge Again Blocks Attack on Mail-In Voting
US District Judge Indira Talwani said states will "face irreparable harm where they are required to comply with a likely unconstitutional regulation for which compliance is practically impossible as to the 2026 midterm elections," now just two months away.
Aug 28, 2026
A federal judge in Boston on Thursday evening issued a new and complete block on rules recently set forth by the US Postal Service designed to severely restrict mail-in voting nationwide—a ruling that comes just days after the US Supreme Court put a hold on a previous, similar injunction against the rules that stemmed from an executive order issued last year by President Donald Trump.
US District Judge Indira Talwani said the group of Democratic-led states and voting rights group that filed separate legal challenges over the changes to how the USPS would handle mail-in ballots adequately proved that they would "face irreparable harm where they are required to comply with a likely unconstitutional regulation for which compliance is practically impossible as to the 2026 midterm elections, now little more than two months away."
When the Supreme Court ruled Monday on the lawsuit, it lifted a previous injunction ordered by Judge Talwani, ruling not on the legality of the rules themselves but arguing that the states and other plaintiffs did not have proper legal standing at the time because the Postal Service had yet to release the finalized rules stemming from Trump's order at the time the lawsuit was filed.
However, because the USPS did finalize its rules at the end of last week, Talwani's new temporary injunction ordered on Thursday would not fall prey to that dynamic. As the New York Times reports:
[Talwani] wrote that while the Supreme Court had “admonished” her on Monday that the Postal Service had not finalized any changes when the groups sued initially, making court action premature, the stakes had changed since then because of the step the agency took Friday to formalize its plan.
Her ruling marked the third court decision on the issue in less than a week, a whipsaw of action that threatened to confuse voters. But each delay has reduced the administration’s chances of clearing the legal hurdles to execute its logistically complicated mail-in ballot plan before the November election. She blocked the rule from taking effect for 14 days, and she had previously scheduled a hearing to discuss the legality of the rule on Sept. 3.
In her order, Judge Talwani explained that the prospect of the new rule suddenly taking effect carried “significant risk of their members’ disenfranchisement” for voting rights organizations, which had also sued, along with the states.
Counsel and plaintiffs in the lawsuit by voting rights groups—led by the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts—issued a statement welcoming Thursday's decision.
“The Administration previously dismissed plaintiffs’ ongoing harms from the executive order as speculative, but the newly finalized rule confirmed what plaintiffs have been saying all along," the statement read. "The Rule implements the Executive Order’s unprecedented attempt to usurp electoral authority from the states and Congress at the expense of voters. We welcome the court’s order, which recognized the immediate need to protect the entire electorate from the damaging impacts of this unlawful final rule in the lead-up to November’s general elections. This is an important step towards affirming the public’s confidence in the system of mail ballots, which thousands of eligible voters nationwide rely on as a core method of democratic participation.”
After Monday's ruling by the Supreme Court, the group's behind the challenge vowed to keep fighting and introduced a new round of legal challenges.
"USPS’s decision to rush this blatantly unconstitutional rule into effect just weeks before an election is the latest step in a rollout that has sown confusion at every turn and now threatens to disenfranchise voters who did everything right. This is chaos by design, and voters are the ones who will pay for it,” warned Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, on Wednesday.
Attorneys General from the coalition of 24 states that had challenged the rule also welcomed Talwani's latest intervention.
“From the beginning, it’s been clear that President Trump doesn’t understand how elections work. He’s repeatedly broken the law, so we’ve repeatedly taken him to court,” said California Attorney General Bonta in a statement. “On Monday, the US Supreme Court issued an order on the emergency docket stating we brought our lawsuit too early but did not address the merits of our challenge to the President’s executive order seeking to impose additional, unlawful restrictions on the ability to vote by mail. Just two days later, consistent with that order, we sued to stop the illegal USPS rule in its tracks. Today, the district court blocked the rule, making it clear that President Trump must keep his hands off our elections. The right to vote is a foundational principle of our democracy, and we’re making sure it remains protected for everyone.”
With the Trump administration almost certain to appeal, the case is likely headed back to the US Supreme Court, likely on a fast track, to decide the legal merits presented by the challengers.
Keep Reading
Show Less
'Democracy Is Under Attack': Civil Rights Lawsuit Aims to Block Trump Assault on Mail-In Voting
“These mail-in ballot restrictions threaten to disenfranchise millions of eligible voters who rely on mail voting to participate in our democracy," said one advocate.
Aug 27, 2026
A day after a federal judge lifted her injunction on President Donald Trump's executive order targeting mail-in ballots, a quartet of civil rights groups on Thursday filed fresh claims in their lawsuit challenging the administration's weaponization of the US Postal Service to attack the right to vote under the pretense of fighting nearly nonexistent fraud.
The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, NAACP, Common Cause, and Black Voters Matter Fund argued in the US District Court for the District of Columbia that Trump’s March 31 executive order unlawfully attempts to federalize important parts of election administration—especially voter eligibility verification and mail-ballot delivery—by presidential fiat, without authorization from Congress, while creating serious risks of disenfranchisement and misuse of personal data.
The plaintiffs—and many legal experts—argue that the US Constitution gives the states and Congress the authority to regulate federal elections, not the president.
"Our democracy is under attack," NAACP president and CEO Derrick Johnson said Thursday in a statement. "No federal entity should be allowed to implement last-minute rules that disenfranchise voters and override state election laws."
"This new USPS rule is a direct assault on the fundamental freedoms of millions of Americans—particularly Black voters, communities of color, seniors, military members, and rural residents—just weeks before a critical election,” Johnson added, referring to November's pmidterms. "We will not stand idly by while the voices of the people are silenced. We must protect every eligible citizen’s right to cast their ballot.”
Damon Hewitt, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, warned that “these mail-in ballot restrictions threaten to disenfranchise millions of eligible voters who rely on mail voting to participate in our democracy while balancing work, caregiving responsibilities, disabilities, and other realities of daily life."
"The Trump administration is trying to limit access to the ballot, sow confusion at the polls, and to use the ensuing chaos as an excuse to exert power over agencies and processes in a politicized way," Hewitt added. “We will not let this or any administration further undermine our democratic process. We will fight to ensure our elections are free and fair, and that eligible voters are not shut out—especially Black voters and other voters of color, who are frequently targeted by voter suppression schemes.”
Several courts had ruled against Trump's order. But this week, the US Supreme Court cleared the way for the administration to proceed with its plans, and on Wednesday US District Judge Indira Talwani, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, was compelled to lift her injunction on the executive order as a result of the high court's decision.
Also on Wednesday, the groups behind the case before Talwani moved to block the Postal Service rule, as did a coalition of two dozen Democratic state attorneys general, whose initial challenge had resulted in the ruling from the Supreme Court—which found that the AGs filed their first suit prematurely.
Republicans including Trump—who has repeatedly voted by mail—have used fearmongering and disinformation to push the nearly nonexistent “threat” of voter fraud, especially in regard to mailed ballots, and noncitizens voting in US elections.
“Mail-in voting is so safe that even the president has used it twice this year,” Common Cause president and CEO Virginia Kase Solomón said on Thursday. “The Postal Service exists to deliver our mail, not to be weaponized by this administration to silence voters. Common Cause will keep fighting to protect a democracy where people choose their leaders—not the other way around.”
Trump’s March order is part of a broader attack on voting rights that includes pushing an updated version of Republicans’ so-called SAVE America Act, which would mandate proof of citizenship and strict photo ID requirements to register to vote in federal elections. The legislation, which was passed by the House of Representatives in February, is stalled in the narrowly split Senate, where it lacks the support of 60 lawmakers needed to avoid a Democrat filibuster.
"Mail-in voting gives people the freedom and flexibility to participate in our democracy, and we should be honest about what these efforts to restrict it are really doing: creating barriers to the ballot under the guise of election security," Black Voters Matter Fund co-founders Cliff Albright and LaTosha Brown said in a joint statement Thursday. "We are not fooled. This is the same old playbook—manufacture confusion, create unnecessary hurdles, and chip away at voting access."
“When the same politicians who defend their own access to mail-in voting move to restrict that access for others, the hypocrisy is hard to ignore," Albright and Brown continued. "We cannot allow voter suppression to be repackaged as voter protection or allow political interference to determine who gets to participate and whose voice counts."
"This is not about making democracy more secure; it is about reshaping who can fully participate in it," they added. "We will continue to call these efforts what they are and fight for every eligible voter’s freedom to make their voice heard.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
'I'm Going to Ask Tom': Maine GOP Nominee for Governor Calls for ICE at Polling Stations
"His plan to ask Trump’s border czar to send ICE agents to Maine polling places just weeks before Election Day is not only deeply alarming—it is likely illegal," said the head of the state Democratic Party.
Aug 27, 2026
By letting attendees at a Maine Young Republicans event in on his "secret" plan for the midterm elections, the state's Republican nominee for governor detailed a proposal that, according to one public policy think tank, is wholly illegal.
In an audio clip released Wednesday by the Bangor Daily News, Bobby Charles, a lawyer and former Reagan administration staffer, boasted about his connections to the Trump administration's border czar, Tom Homan, a key figure in President Donald Trump's mass deportation operation.
"Here's my secret. I have a friend named Tom Homan," said Charles, drawing applause from the GOP voters. "I'm going to ask Tom... three or four weeks before the election, maybe three, I'm going to make an appeal for ICE and Marshals to be at our voting booths."
🚨 NEW Audio: Bobby Charles reveals "secret" plan to invite ICE to Maine three weeks before Election Day. pic.twitter.com/nSx2o9yxjJ
— Maine Democrats (@MaineDems) August 26, 2026
Charles was referring to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the US Marshals, both armed federal law enforcement officers whose presence at polling sites to intimidate voters would be against the law, according to the Brennan Center for Justice .
Trump has also alluded to sending ICE and other armed federal agents to polling places during the midterm elections in November, saying in May when he was asked about the idea that he would "do anything necessary to make sure we have honest elections."
At the Brennan Center for Justice last month, senior counsel Hayne Yoon wrote that "despite the implied threat, the law is clear."
"Sending armed federal agents, including those from ICE, to election sites is illegal," wrote Yoon. "Federal law and many states’ laws prohibit not only armed federal agents at polling sites, but also interference in elections or voter intimidation by any officials or private citizens. More important, using these tactics would be a flagrant attempt to hold on to power through force and intimidation and an affront to free and fair elections."
In his comments at the Young Republicans event, Charles also asked rhetorically whether “illegals who are being paid money” to vote would "like" the deployment of ICE agents at polling places. The remark made the gubernatorial candidate one of several Republicans to push the baseless claim that undocumented immigrants or noncitizens have committed voter fraud in order to sway elections.
There are no documented reports of immigrants ever being paid to vote, and a 2024 American Immigration Council analysis of data collected by the right-wing Heritage Foundation found only 68 cases of proven noncitizen voting dating back to 2000, "amounting to less than 0.0001% of total votes."
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Hannah Pingree said Wednesday that Charles' comments make clear that he would push Trump's MAGA agenda, despite his recent attempts to distance himself from the president, who is unpopular with Mainers.
"He is begging Trump's ICE to come interfere with our free and fair elections," said Pingree. "I think that conduct speaks for itself and I trust the Maine people to see it for what it is."
Devon Murphy-Anderson, executive director of the Maine Democratic Party, added that Charles "continues to prove that he is a MAGA extremist who will stop at nothing to put himself and his MAGA agenda ahead of Mainers. His plan to ask Trump’s border czar to send ICE agents to Maine polling places just weeks before Election Day is not only deeply alarming—it is likely illegal. This is a blatant attempt to intimidate voters and yet another reason Bobby Charles is too extreme for Maine.”
Charles' comments come six weeks after an ICE agent fatally shot Biddeford, Maine resident Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero in an incident that the Trump administration has not appeared to investigate. ICE has made more arrests in Maine so far this year than it did in all of 2024-25 combined, and out of 491 arrests made, 89% of those detained had no criminal convictions.
Homan recently told a Republican state lawmaker that the state would soon "see a lot more enforcement action" due to Trump's decision to end Temporary Protected Status for Haitians and Syrians.
The Justice Department announced this month that it would deploy at least 1,000 federal officers to polling places as people vote in the November 3 elections. The administration has suggested the public should not be alarmed by the plan because anyone who is a citizen will not be targeted by the agents, but as the ACLU noted, at least 155 citizens in eight states last year, including 32 children, were detained, targeted, or subjected to misconduct by federal immigration agents.
Keep Reading
Show Less
'Direct Violation of the Constitution': Democratic States Sue to Stop Trump Assault on Mail-In Voting
"This is yet another example of this administration’s unlawful overreach," said Rhode Island's attorney general.
Aug 26, 2026
A coalition of two dozen Democratic-led states filed a lawsuit on Wednesday challenging President Donald Trump's attempt to use the US Postal Service as a vehicle for his assault on mail-in voting, which he has targeted incessantly during both of his White House terms.
The lawsuit targets a newly finalized USPS rule under which the postal service would not deliver ballots in states that don't provide their voter data to the federal government. Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha said in a statement Wednesday that "this is yet another example of this administration’s unlawful overreach and is in direct violation of the Constitution, which makes clear that states have the primary authority to administer elections."
"Voting by mail is a tried-and-true method of exercising our most fundamental right as American citizens," Neronha added. "Indeed, it’s the preferred voting method of the president himself. I am confident that we will succeed here, as we have many times before, thereby protecting the right of American citizens, Donald Trump included, to vote without interference.”
The states' lawsuit comes days after the US Supreme Court, which includes three Trump-nominated justices, stayed a lower-court injunction that had blocked implementation of the president's March executive order instructing the US Postal Service to enact restrictions on mail-in voting to prevent "fraud," which is rare in American elections. On Wednesday, a federal judge in Boston lifted the nationwide injunction on the mail-in voting restrictions following a request from Trump's Justice Department.
The office of New York Attorney General Letitia James, who joined the new lawsuit, emphasized that states "would have just weeks to comply" if the USPS rule is allowed to take effect ahead of the 2026 midterms.
"Election officials will have to redesign ballot envelopes, obtain federal approval, and establish entirely new systems to transmit voter lists to USPS, all while preparing to mail ballots to millions of Americans," James' office warned. "If states or local election officials cannot comply in time, eligible voters could be prevented from receiving or returning their ballots."
The US Constitution does not give the president any power over elections, but Trump has spoken repeatedly of his desire to "take over" and "nationalize" voting in the wake of his 2020 loss.
As part of his scheme, Trump has focused heavily on exerting control over the US Postal Service, which is currently led by David Steiner. The postmaster general, whom Trump boosted for the role, has faced calls to resign for allowing USPS to be used as "a partisan instrument of voter suppression."
Trump is currently pushing to fill four of the five vacancies on the US Postal Service's Board of Governors. All of the president's nominees, which must be confirmed by the Senate, are Republicans. As The New York Times noted on Tuesday, "Trump's selections broke with a longstanding practice of nominating board members in bipartisan pairs."
"The quiet attempt to restructure the leadership of the Postal Service comes as the president and his allies are trying to transform the 251-year-old agency into a central player in their quest to overhaul the nation’s elections," the Times observed.
Last month, as Common Dreams reported, US Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) called for a pause on Trump's postal board nominees, warning that their confirmation would "undermine public confidence in the board’s ability to serve the public interest above any partisan political aims."
"This imbalance in representation would be unprecedented," said Peters.
Keep Reading
Show Less
The Supreme Court's Mail Voting Ruling Is Manufactured Chaos
On Monday, the Supreme Court made headlines and sowed confusion, but it did not change much. Here’s what you should know.
Aug 26, 2026
A year ago we warned that President Donald Trump had a concerted strategy to undermine the midterm elections.
Here’s news you can use: That effort is failing so far. For every move, there’s a countermove from voting rights groups, local and state governments, and more. In November, we should be able to have elections that are free, fair, and secure. But it will take a lot of work between now and then.
We saw that for sure this week. On Monday, the Supreme Court made headlines and sowed confusion, but it did not change much. Here’s what you should know.
Earlier this year, Trump signed an executive order to upend mail voting. That is the way 1 in 3 Americans vote. Trump purported to order the US Postal Service to refuse to deliver lawfully cast ballots unless the voter is on a list—which doesn’t exist yet—created by each state and sent to the post office for checking against mail ballots. It’s absurd. And, no surprise, it’s illegal.
Trump’s executive order is not in effect. Mail voting continues as before. There have been no changes to the Postal Service practices.
Earlier this summer, in a lawsuit brought by 23 states, a federal court blocked the executive order in part of the country. The judge also blocked the order nationwide in a lawsuit the Brennan Center and others brought on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts.
On August 24, the US Supreme Court jumped into the states’ case. It issued an unsigned order holding that the states did not yet have legal standing to sue. In particular, it concluded the states had not suffered an injury, because the Postal Service had not implemented the policy. In other words, the trial court had ruled too early.
This made big news, understandably, but those headlines confused matters a bit.
This was a procedural vote that let the Trump administration continue working on its plan to have the Postal Service decide who receives a ballot.
As the court itself explained, “The Court’s disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful.”
And in fact, late last Friday, under pressure from the administration, the Postal Service published a “Final Rule” to implement Trump’s scheme. The agency explained that it had the power to set rules for mail ballot delivery because ballots are like “animal remains” or “replica explosives” and deserve special treatment.
Both the states’ case and the case brought by the Brennan Center and other voting rights groups remain ongoing. The Supreme Court’s Monday ruling is not the final word. Our attorneys are assessing next steps, and things will no doubt move quickly in this complex legal back-and-forth.
But a few things are as true today as they were before the court’s order.
This executive order is still illegal and unconstitutional. The Constitution’s Elections Clause is clear, as courts have ruled over and over: States run elections. Congress has a legitimate role in passing national legislation and can override states. You know who has no role in elections, under the Constitution? The president.
And the Supreme Court? This is the “shadow docket” at work. Rather than letting the legal process unfold, the justices jumped into the litigation to help Trump. Justices like Samuel Alito bristle at the ominous phrase “shadow docket” and complain it should be called an “emergency” order instead. Here, the only “emergency” would be that Trump could not move forward with his push to restrict voting, just weeks before an election.
It’s hard to avoid noticing that, while the order is unsigned, it was backed by the Republican-appointed justices. Democratic-appointed Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote dissents. Trump has repeatedly said, as he wrote in June about the SAVE Act, that without voting restrictions, “The Republican Party will never win another Election.” The Supreme Court, already at record lows in public trust, will further bleed credibility if it is seen as a partisan electoral actor.
And as for voters—what should we know?
This legal fracas is happening so close to the election that, however it turns out, it is highly unlikely that changes will affect voting this year. Federal law requires that the first mail ballots be sent to military voters starting September 4. We cannot let chaos engulf our elections.
All of which means that, in one sense, this is a lot of noise and manufactured chaos. Trump’s executive order is not in effect. Mail voting continues as before. There have been no changes to the Postal Service practices.
You know who knows that? Someone who voted by mail this month from his house in Mar-a-Lago: Donald Trump.
His campaign to undermine the midterm elections is losing. The only way it wins is if people stay home.
Keep Reading
Show Less
'Painful Setback': Supreme Court Lets Trump Enforce Mailed Ballot Rules—But Punts on Their Legality
“It’s a disgrace that the highest court in the nation is allowing Trump to stab a dagger into the heart of our democracy," said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.
Aug 24, 2026
The US Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for the Trump administration to proceed with sweeping new restrictions on mail-in voting, removing a major legal obstacle just weeks before states begin sending ballots for the 2026 midterm elections and prompting two of the high court's liberal justices to warn that the ruling will sow “chaos and uncertainty."
Contrary to social media posts from supporters of President Donald Trump, the court's right-wing majority did not rule in Trump v. California that the president's March executive order directing several federal agencies to change how elections are administered is constitutional. Instead, the justices concluded in the 6-3 unsigned order that the states challenging the order had not demonstrated sufficient standing to sue at this stage and stayed a lower court injunction blocking its implementation.
Monday's ruling came after the justices' June rejection of a Republican-backed challenge to state laws permitting election officials to count certain mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day.
“The court’s disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the government to implement the order will necessarily be lawful,” the majority wrote in Monday's decision. “On that score, time will tell.”
That was little consolation to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned a dissent joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
“Today’s decision does not address whether the president’s attempts to interfere with states’ administration of the November 2026 elections are lawful,” Sotomayor wrote. Instead, the majority punted the matter even as states face a “concrete and imminent injury” from Trump's executive order.
"This ruling violates well-established precedents concerning this court’s equitable discretion and needlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections," the dissenters asserted.
Trump and Republicans have used fearmongering disinformation to amplify the nearly nonexistent "threat" of voter fraud—especially in regard to mailed ballots—and noncitizens voting in US elections. This, even as Trump has repeatedly voted by mail.
The Trump administration is trying to move control over key parts of federal election administration from the states to the federal government. The president's executive order instructs the Department of Homeland Security to create federally verified lists of citizens eligible to vote, requires states to provide voter information to the federal government, and directs United States Postal Service to condition delivery of mail ballots on compliance with its edicts.
Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia sued, arguing that the president cannot unilaterally rewrite their election procedures—especially so close to the 2026 midterms—when the Constitution gives states primary responsibility for administering elections and grants Congress, not the executive branch, authority to set election rules.
“This decision is a painful setback, but it will not be the final word," Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement. "The right to vote is sacred, and no administration should be allowed to put that right in jeopardy by making it harder for eligible voters to cast their ballots."
“This fight is far from over," she added. "We are exploring our legal options.”
Democratic Association of Secretaries of State chair Cisco Aguilar of Nevada said that "today's news is disappointing, but we will continue challenging this executive order and using every tool available to defend voting rights and the constitutional authority of states to administer elections."
"The Supreme Court should protect those fundamental principles," Aguilar asserted. "Instead, it has allowed a president to reshape the electorate for his own political benefit. Every Republican running for secretary of state should tell voters where they stand: Will they defend the people’s right to choose their leaders, or support Donald Trump’s attempt to choose which Americans get to vote?”
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, also a Democrat, said on social media: "Another day, another Trump attempt to rig elections and destroy democracy. We can stop this. VOTE this November."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said, “It’s a disgrace that the highest court in the nation is allowing Trump to stab a dagger into the heart of our democracy."
“Trump’s effort to turn the Postal Service into a voter suppression machine is blatantly unconstitutional—yet his MAGA Supreme Court is refusing to stop it from going forward," he added. “Trump’s malicious effort to stop mail-in voting is nothing but election interference in broad daylight. He wants to make it harder for Americans to vote so they don’t hold him accountable for the skyrocketing costs, illegal war, and rampant corruption that are a hallmark of his administration."
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) posted on social media that "Trump is desperately trying to rig the rules for the 2026 election."
"He is rushing through an unconstitutional order to limit mail voting before the midterms and the Supreme Court isn’t stopping him," the senator added. "States—not Trump—run our elections and the rule of law MUST be upheld. This fight is not over."
Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) called the ruling "shameful."
"While Donald Trump votes by mail, his allies on the Supreme Court are letting him take that right away from everyone else," she said. "This far-right majority court is once again complicit in Republicans' assault on our democracy."
Virginia Kase Solomón, president and CEO of the Washington, DC-based watchdog group Common Cause, issued a statement blasting Monday's decision as "an absolute outrage."
"Vote-by-mail isn’t a political bargaining chip—it is a vital lifeline for our seniors, service members, busy parents, rural voters, and voters with disabilities," she said. "Restricting that right is an unacceptable, deliberate power grab designed to manufacture chaos and silence voters."
“The Trump administration can try to override state laws and control our elections, but they do not get the final say—the people do," Kase Solomón added. "We refuse to back down. Common Cause will continue to challenge any illegal attempt to limit vote-by-mail or nationalize elections.”
Trevor Potter, president of the Campaign Legal Center, a litigation and policy advocacy group, lamented "yet another example of the highest court in the country granting the current administration undue latitude to engage in anti-democratic actions."
"However, this decision is purely about the timing of court challenges—not the merits of the president’s case," Potter stressed. "Americans everywhere should know that the president still has no constitutional or legal power to change our election rules, nor does this ruling mean that his second executive order on voting will ultimately be held lawful by the courts."
At the grassroots advocacy group Stand Up America, executive director Christina Harvey argued that “the Supreme Court should be putting limits on executive overreach, not helping Donald Trump push the boundaries of presidential power, undermine the Constitution, and disenfranchise voters."
"With today’s decision," she added, "the MAGA majority on the Supreme Court is bolstering Trump’s scheme to protect his allies in Congress by taking over our elections and restricting how we exercise our freedom to vote."
Keep Reading
Show 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