voting

WASHINGTON — Thousands of protesters are rallying Friday on the National Mall in support of voting rights and racial justice ahead of the midterm elections, following a wave of changes to voting laws and redistricting that civil rights groups have condemned as detrimental to Black Americans.

The 2026 “Defend the Vote” March on Washington, organized by the Rev. Al Sharpton and Martin Luther King III, echoes the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s 1963 march. The event follows the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark April decision in Louisiana v. Callais that reinterpreted key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, allowing Southern states to redraw their congressional maps in a way that erodes equal representation in Black communities.

“We’ve been doing these marches for years, but this is probably the most important because this is the first year we are marching that the voting rights bill has been nullified by the Supreme Court,” Sharpton, founder of the National Action Network, said in an interview with The Associated Press.

“Marches are designed to grab attention and then go into the trenches and organize around that,” he said.

The march opened with prayer and statements from Interfaith Alliance representatives. They spoke on diversity, equity and inclusion practices, voting rights and systemic racism.

“Creator of all, let us draw on each other, with love and mercy, and hold each other up as we march, wipe each other’s tears, heal each other’s wounds,” Ambereen Kahn, an Interfaith Alliance representative, said. “Most compassionate, protect our leaders who guide, instill in their hearts the values of our shared humanity.”

This year’s march, which Sharpton’s group is co-hosting with King’s Drum Major Institute, a progressive think tank and community action group, features dozens of speakers, including Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.

Sharpton said thousands of civil rights activists from across the southeastern U.S. were traveling to the capital by bus for the rally.

Event echoes iconic Lincoln Memorial rally

On Thursday, Courtney Pope, 48, was marching across the King Bridge to the Civil Rights Museum in Memphis. But on Friday, she and other members of the National Handmaid Army were at the Washington march with plans to travel to New York and New Jersey over the next few days.

For Pope, the rally is about finding community alongside promoting voting rights.

“I know that we’ll only be successful if we band together despite our differences,” Pope said.

Friday’s event harkens back to King Jr.’s historic March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in 1963, when more than 200,000 people gathered at the foot of the Lincoln Memorial. That march, an inflection point in the Civil Rights Movement, came at a fraught moment for the country, when economic headwinds, civil unrest, political division and the Vietnam War bitterly divided Americans.

Sharpton said the Trump administration’s immigration policy for Haitians and white South Africans, as well as cuts to social programs like Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act’s health subsidies, are unifying policies for this year’s ideologically diverse march attendees. But the redistricting efforts by Republican-led states set to reduce the number of Black lawmakers in Congress loom large over Friday’s march.

“This march is about people who refuse to be counted out. When the courts and the legislature broke apart District 6, they did not just redraw lines,” Rep. Cleo Fields, D-La., said in a texted statement. “They told hundreds of thousands of Black families from Baton Rouge up through the Delta that their voice could be taken away at any moment.”

Fields was the central character in the Supreme Court decision that hollowed out the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The court ruled that his district, created just one term ago to permit a second majority-Black district in a state where Blacks make up 33% of the population, was unconstitutional because it relied too heavily on race.

The court has held that maps can be redrawn for partisan reasons.

Louisiana’s legislature rushed to redraw the district after the high court’s decision, reshaping Fields’ district to cluster it around predominantly white communities in the Baton Rouge area and southern Louisiana.

Fields has opted not to seek reelection to Congress and instead is pursuing a seat in the state Senate.

“The people taking part in this historic march are answering back, and history will remember that they did,” Fields said.

Embattled Black lawmakers see need for continued rights push

Rep. Shomari Figures, an Alabama Democrat whose majority-Black district was targeted by the state’s Republican-led redistricting effort, said the original voting rights fight required local movements, national figures, lots of coordination and strategy. He sees this year’s march as a continuation of that legacy.

“My district includes Montgomery, which was the birthplace of it all. It started with a bus boycott in 1955 and that, ultimately, morphed into a broader struggle for civil rights and led to a more broad Civil Rights Movement,” Figures told the AP.

“It led to a Civil Rights Act, led to the Fair Housing Act, led obviously to the Voting Rights Act, and the voting rights movement,” Figures added.

Ahead of Friday, organizations participating in the march, including the NAACP, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and Black Voters Matter, filed new claims in federal court in their existing lawsuit against President Trump’s executive order restricting mail-in voting. The Supreme Court cleared a path Monday for possible implementation of the order, though it remains unclear how much can be put in place before the midterms.

“We will not stand idly by while the voices of the people are silenced,” NAACP President Derrick Johnson said in a statement Thursday. “We must protect every eligible citizen’s right to cast their ballot.”

Brown and Junkroski write for the Associated Press. AP writers Gary Fields in Washington and Kimberly Chandler in Montgomery, Ala., contributed to this report.

Judge blocks Trump’s mail voting rules for a second time, just days before ballots go out for the midterms.

A United States federal judge has for a second time blocked the Trump administration’s overhaul of election rules aimed at limiting voting by mail.

District Judge Indira Talwani late on Thursday blocked the US Postal Service’s new ballot rules for 14 days, hours after the agency said they had taken effect.

The ruling is part of an ongoing battle prompted by President Donald Trump’s bid to limit voting by mail, which is heating up as the US heads towards midterm elections in November that will decide control of Congress and the Senate.

Nearly a third of American voters cast votes by mail. The first ballots for the midterms are due to be sent out in about a week.

The new rules require states to submit approved voter lists and follow new ballot formatting before USPS can deliver voting slips. The restrictions were enacted on Thursday after the Supreme Court cleared the way for them.

Talwani wrote in a statement late on Thursday that states “have neither time nor funds” to redesign ballots, update election systems or train officials on the new USPS portal before the upcoming election.

The fight traces back to March, when Trump ordered the Postal Service to withhold ballots unless states supplied approved voter lists and new formatting rules.

Voting rights groups and democratic officials sued, arguing only states and Congress, not the president, can set election rules. Talwani agreed, blocking the rules over the summer.

On Monday, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority threw out that earlier ruling on a technicality, saying that the legal challenge on which it was based was filed too early.

Democratic officials and voting rights groups quickly refiled their challenge once the rules became official, allowing Talwani to block them once more in a late-night order.

Separately, attorneys general from 24 states filed a new lawsuit this week making the same core argument: that only the Senate and Congress, not the president, can have constitutional authority to set election rules.

A hearing on the refiled case is scheduled for September 3, just as ballots are set to go out. That timeline means whatever Talwani or a higher court decides next could take effect as voting begins, or after it is already under way.

A federal judge on Wednesday lifted a major obstacle to President Trump’s executive order limiting mail voting, even as Democratic state officials filed a new court challenge with the midterm elections fast approaching.

The fresh round of legal wrangling comes just two days after the Supreme Court handed down a procedural ruling in Trump’s favor, and could mean the issue lands before the high court again before the pivotal contests for control of Congress. The first mailed ballots are set to be sent out next week.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston agreed to lift an order prohibiting the U.S. Postal Service from carrying out Trump’s order for November’s elections. She wrote that she was “compelled” to do so after the Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled that a similar injunction she granted in a separate case was premature.

Talwani nevertheless said the executive order could unleash “chaos” and referred to it as “likely unconstitutional.”

The administration can now move forward and implement a Postal Service rule published late Friday. It would require states to follow a uniform envelope style for mail ballots and to give the Postal Service a list of voters eligible to receive them. Talwani found on Tuesday that the rule’s issuance technically violated her injunction, but she declined to penalize the administration.

The new lawsuit, filed by about two dozen Democratically controlled states against the U.S. Postal Service, marked a new phase in the high-stakes litigation creating confusion around the midterm elections.

It came after the Supreme Court ruled against them in a separate case, but did not say Trump’s order was legal.

The high court majority found the initial Democratic lawsuit was premature, but that was before the Republican administration issued a rule governing Postal Service delivery of mail ballots. Election officials warn it will be impossible to implement before the first wave of mail ballots are sent out next week.

“Across the country, states are already deep into preparations for the 2026 elections. Now, at the last moment, the federal government is attempting to meddle in those preparations and potentially threaten countless Americans’ right to vote,” New York Attorney General Letitia James, one of 25 Democratic attorneys general filing the lawsuit, said in a statement. “USPS has no authority to decide who can and cannot vote by mail.”

The Trump administration plan faces a third lawsuit originally filed in May in the nation’s capital, though judges there have so far declined to block it.

All previous challenges were filed before the administration published its mail ballot rule Friday night.

White House spokesperson Lauren Bis on Wednesday said the Postal Service’s proposals were “commonsense measures that protect the security of mail-in ballots” and that the administration would continue to work to implement them to boost “the safety and security of our elections.”

The Postal Service said it would not comment because of the pending lawsuit.

National Democrats on Tuesday cited the rule in asking the federal judge in the Washington case to block Trump’s order after he declined to do so last spring, saying the administration at the time had not taken concrete action. In Boston, Talwani also found that the administration had violated a separate injunction she had placed on the Postal Service in drafting the new rule, although she did not take any action against the government.

Talwani had issued the injunction against Trump’s executive order in the prior Democratic state case, which is the one the Supreme Court overturned on Monday. She also issued a second injunction Aug. 11 in a case filed by the League of Women Voters and other voting rights groups, while the Supreme Court was considering the administration’s appeal of the judge’s first order.

Trump has long targeted mail voting, which he falsely blames for his 2020 election loss and is disproportionately used by Democrats as a result of Trump’s condemnations. Since returning to power, Trump has tried to claim authority over election rules, saying he thinks Republicans should “take over” vote counting in Democratic areas.

He issued his first election executive order just months after retaking office, attempting to require documentary proof of citizenship to vote, among other changes. He has also been pushing a sweeping election bill that has stalled in the Senate amid opposition from Democrats and even some within his own party.

Riccardi and Whitehurst write for the Associated Press.

Aug. 24 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled that President Donald Trump can begin implementing measures from an executive order intended to restrict mail-in voting in many states and Washington, D.C.

However, legal challenges to that order could still cause issues for that plan before the midterm elections in November.

The ruling Monday means that the Department of Homeland Security can begin moving forward with compiling state-specific lists of people it believes are eligible to vote in the states — all led by Democrats – that had challenged the executive order.

Another part of the executive order required the U.S. Postal Service to require states that want to send ballots through the mail to submit lists of eligible voters with information allowing those ballots to be tracked by the government. A lower court had blocked that policy nationwide in a separate case, meaning that more legal action will be needed before the postal service can continue.

The high court’s ruling did not address the overall legality of the executive order.

“If the Postal Service’s final rule harms the states, theymay challenge that rule,” the ruling said.

The postal service entered an unpublished version of that final rule into the Federal Register late Friday despite the court injunctions against it.

Trump has repeatedly and without evidence claimed that mail-in voting is “inherently corrupt” and full of fraud, although voting experts have criticized the order and say such fraud is exceedingly rare. The president himself has voted by mail as recently as this year, NPR reported.

The high court handed down the ruling in an unsigned order over the dissent of three of its members: Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

In a dissent, Jackson said the ruling “needlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections,” CNN reported.

She noted that, in the past, the Supreme Court has turned away challenges to election law because they were too close to elections. “Today’s revelation is that such claims can also come too early — never mind that an election is looming and related harms are presently occurring.”

Aug. 22 (UPI) — The United States Postal Service has prepared a final rule changing how mail voting is administered under an executive order issued by President Donald Trump despite a pair of court injunctions against it, documents show.

An unpublished version of the rule was entered into the Federal Register late on Friday, indicating the USPS intends to press ahead with implementation of a measure the administration says is necessary to prevent fraud in mail-in voting — a popular method of casting ballots that Trump has called “inherently corrupt.”

But critics contend actual fraud in mail-in voting is exceedingly rare and have denounced the measure as one of the most serious attempts by the administration to federalize control of elections in violation of the U.S. Constitution, which reserves such power for the states.

A federal judge 10 days ago expanded an earlier injunction against Trump’s executive order, under which the USPS would be required to decide who will get mail-in ballots.

The injunction blocked it from implementing Section 3 of the order for this year’s midterm elections, which most polls shows will likely favor Democratic congressional candidates.

Despite the court rulings, USPS promulgated the final rule with Friday’s filing, thus making it available to be officially published in the Federal Register on Wednesday. After that it would theoretically take effect immediately, even though it will be blocked for this year’s midterm elections unless a court decides otherwise.

The current filing is an amended version of the initial proposal which received more than 200,000 comments during its review phase.

Trump signed the order on March 31 directing the Department of Homeland Security to build a list of citizens from federal data, which would then be sent to state election officials.

The USPS would then only send absentee or mail-in ballots to people it has determined are eligible to vote, and the U.S. Attorney General would investigate and prosecute election officials who issue federal ballots to those ineligible to vote.

Twenty-three mostly Democratic-led states sued to block the order and U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani agreed with the plaintiffs.

The administration appealed the decision and failed. It appealed again on July 27 to the Supreme Court, which has yet to make a ruling.

“Yesterday’s new mail-in voting rule is an attempt to weaponize USPS as part of the Trump administration’s efforts to take over elections,” Michael McNulty of the bipartisan political reform group Issue One said in a statement issued Saturday.

“If it holds up in court, it would mean postal workers shift from neutral transporters of a state-led process to a federal gatekeeper of states’ outbound mail ballots — requiring states to provide USPS with voter-level ballot information and giving USPS authority to reject ballots that do not meet the new federal requirements.”

He dismissed Trump’s oft-stated concerns about voter fraud as “tired, debunked conspiracy theories to justify gaining control over secure, verified, and effective methods of voting, including mail-in voting, to tilt the playing field” in favor of Republican candidates.

Iceland will hold a referendum on August 29 on whether to reopen negotiations over joining the European Union, in a closely contested vote that could reshape the country’s economic and strategic direction.

The referendum, however, is not a vote on EU membership itself. Icelanders will only decide whether their government should begin accession negotiations with Brussels.

If voters approve the proposal, negotiations could last two or more years before Iceland holds a second referendum, potentially in 2028, on whether to actually join the bloc.

With opinion polls showing a near-dead heat between supporters and opponents, the vote has become an important test of Iceland’s relationship with Europe at a time of economic uncertainty and growing geopolitical competition in the Arctic.

Is Iceland Voting to Join the EU?

No.

The August 29 referendum only asks whether Iceland should begin negotiations with the European Union.

A “yes” vote would open a potentially lengthy accession process. Iceland would then negotiate the terms of membership with Brussels before citizens have another opportunity to accept or reject the final agreement.

That means the upcoming referendum is essentially a decision about whether to explore EU membership, rather than a final decision to join.

Prime Minister Kristrun Frostadottir’s government has nevertheless presented the vote as a potentially decisive moment.

What Happens If Iceland Votes No?

The government has described the referendum as a “now or never” opportunity.

Frostadottir has warned that rejecting negotiations would effectively put the EU question aside.

This makes the vote particularly important because Iceland has already attempted the accession process once.

Reykjavik applied to join the EU in 2009, but negotiations were abandoned in 2013 after a Eurosceptic government came to power.

A second rejection could therefore close the issue again for the foreseeable future.

Why Does Iceland Want to Reconsider EU Membership?

Economic concerns are among the strongest arguments for reopening negotiations.

Iceland has faced high living costs and economic volatility, while the country’s relatively small economy remains vulnerable to external shocks.

Supporters argue that closer integration with the EU could provide greater economic stability and strengthen Iceland’s position when dealing with larger trading partners.

EU membership could also eventually allow Iceland to adopt the euro, replacing the Icelandic krona.

Supporters say the euro could reduce currency volatility, help address inflation and potentially lower interest rates.

The country’s strategic environment has also changed since Iceland abandoned its previous accession negotiations.

The war in Ukraine and growing competition in the Arctic have encouraged Iceland to reconsider how closely it should align with European institutions.

What Would Iceland Gain From Joining the EU?

EU membership would provide Iceland with access to the bloc’s customs union and its wider internal market.

The customs union eliminates internal tariffs between member states while applying common external tariffs to goods entering the bloc.

Iceland would also gain a formal role in EU decision-making.

Its representatives would participate in institutions including the European Parliament, European Commission and European Council.

For supporters, this is important because Iceland would move from being closely connected to the EU economically to having a direct role in shaping policies that affect it.

The argument is particularly relevant for a small country dealing with much larger economic powers.

Why Do Icelanders Oppose EU Membership?

Opponents argue that membership would transfer too much political authority from Reykjavik to Brussels.

They also question whether joining the EU would substantially improve Iceland’s security.

The most sensitive issue, however, is fisheries.

Why Are Fisheries Central to the Debate?

Fishing is one of the pillars of Iceland’s economy and a major part of the country’s national identity.

Opponents fear that joining the EU would subject Iceland to the bloc’s Common Fisheries Policy and potentially weaken its control over fishing resources.

They worry that common European resource-management rules could eventually increase access for foreign vessels to Icelandic waters.

For a country surrounded by some of the world’s most important fishing grounds, that is not simply an economic concern. It is also a question of national sovereignty.

The fisheries debate therefore gives the opposition one of its strongest arguments against membership.

Why Does Iceland Want to Keep the Krona?

Iceland’s currency is another major dividing line.

Supporters of the euro argue that replacing the krona could reduce exchange-rate volatility and improve economic stability.

Opponents see the krona differently.

They argue that an independent currency provides Iceland with an important economic adjustment mechanism.

During a downturn, the krona can weaken against major currencies, potentially helping Iceland’s economy adjust. During periods of stronger growth, it can appreciate.

Giving up that flexibility in favour of the euro, opponents argue, could leave Iceland with fewer tools to respond to economic shocks.

Who Supports EU Membership?

The country’s centre-left government coalition has backed putting the issue to a referendum.

Vidreisn, Iceland’s most explicitly pro-EU political party, pushed for the vote.

Prime Minister Frostadottir’s Social Democrats also support EU membership, although they have taken a more cautious approach to campaigning.

The coalition’s third party, the People’s Party, opposes membership.

The political divide therefore does not fit neatly along government versus opposition lines.

Who Opposes EU Membership?

The opposition Independence Party, led by Gudrun Hafsteinsdottir, is campaigning against reopening accession talks.

Its argument centres on sovereignty, fisheries and economic independence.

Opponents believe Iceland can maintain its existing relationship with Europe without accepting the political obligations of EU membership.

The close polling suggests neither side has yet secured a decisive advantage.

Why Is the Arctic Important to the Vote?

The referendum is taking place against a backdrop of growing geopolitical competition in the Arctic.

Iceland occupies a strategically important position between North America and Europe.

It sits along the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom gap, commonly known as the GIUK gap, a critical North Atlantic maritime corridor.

The area has long been important for monitoring Russian naval movements between the Arctic and the North Atlantic.

Iceland is also a NATO member despite having no standing army of its own.

That makes its strategic location particularly important to the security architecture of the North Atlantic.

What Would Iceland Mean for the EU?

For the European Union, Iceland’s potential membership would have significance beyond economics.

It would expand the EU’s presence in the Arctic at a time when the region is becoming increasingly important to major powers.

Russia, the United States and other countries are paying greater attention to Arctic shipping routes, natural resources and military positioning.

Iceland could therefore give the EU a stronger institutional and geopolitical foothold in the North Atlantic and Arctic region.

Its accession could also be relatively straightforward compared with some other countries seeking EU membership.

Unlike Ukraine and several Western Balkan states, Iceland already has close economic and institutional links with Europe and would require fewer major reforms to align with EU rules.

Could Iceland Join the EU Quickly?

Potentially, but the process would still take years.

A “yes” vote would only begin negotiations.

Iceland would then have to negotiate the terms of membership before citizens could vote again on the final agreement.

The second referendum could potentially take place in 2028.

This means that even if Icelanders vote in favour of talks on August 29, actual EU membership would remain uncertain.

The referendum is therefore the beginning of a political process rather than its conclusion.

Analysis: Why Does Iceland’s EU Vote Matter?

Iceland’s referendum is ultimately about more than whether a small North Atlantic country should join a political and economic bloc.

It reflects a wider debate over sovereignty, economic resilience and strategic alignment in an increasingly contested Arctic.

For supporters, EU membership offers economic stability, greater influence over European decisions and closer integration with a bloc that could provide Iceland with additional leverage against larger powers.

For opponents, the same process represents a potential loss of national control over fisheries, monetary policy and important economic decisions.

The strategic dimension is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

Iceland’s location makes it disproportionately important to North Atlantic security despite its small population and lack of a conventional military. As competition involving Russia, the United States and European countries intensifies in the Arctic, Iceland’s relationship with the EU could acquire greater geopolitical significance.

The vote also highlights a fundamental dilemma facing smaller states: whether greater integration with a larger political bloc provides more security and economic strength than the sovereignty it requires them to surrender.

The August referendum will not answer that question definitively.

It will determine whether Icelanders are willing to begin the conversation.

If voters choose “yes,” Iceland could move toward its most significant geopolitical realignment in more than a decade. If they choose “no,” the country may once again put EU membership aside and preserve its distinctive position outside the bloc while remaining closely connected to Europe.

With information from Reuters.

A judge in a Northern California county that has become a poster child for election skepticism has halted a voter-approved measure that would dramatically reshape elections there, including by eliminating most voting by mail and requiring ballots to be hand-counted.

Shasta County Superior Court Judge Benjamin L. Hanna on Friday issued a preliminary injunction that temporarily blocks Measure B, a citizens’ initiative approved by 56% of voters in the June primary.

None of the measure’s sweeping changes will be implemented for the November general election, and all active registered voters in Shasta County will receive ballots by mail, as mandated by state law, the county said in a statement.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber, the state’s top elections official, sued Shasta County in mid-June, days after the primary, arguing that Measure B violates multiple state election laws and must be struck down before the November election.

The case initially was filed in California’s 3rd District Court of Appeal, but judges there declined to review it, saying the case first should proceed through the trial court.

In his ruling last week, Hanna wrote that he was halting implementation of Measure B while the case proceeds because allowing it to go into effect now “would likely result in the disenfranchisement of many Shasta County voters who would be clearly eligible to vote under state law, but would not meet the improperly narrow criteria to vote under Measure B.”

The measure, Hanna wrote, “seeks to create a whole new electoral system that would require creation of new voter rolls and re-registration of existing voters.” Doing so “would be “difficult under normal time frames, let alone three months before the November general election.”

Hanna cited the state’s “high likelihood” of success in the lawsuit.

Weber said in a statement that the judge’s decision “made clear what we already know — creating unnecessary barriers does not strengthen our democracy, it weakens it.”

The new public observation room at the Shasta County elections office.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

The Shasta Election Task Force, the citizens’ group that wrote the initiative and collected thousands of signatures to get it on the ballot, said in a statement that Measure B “was enacted by the voters” and that they do not believe the state has established a lawful basis for blocking it “merely because Sacramento objects to the election reforms they adopted.”

The fight over election integrity in mostly-rural, deeply conservative Shasta County comes as President Trump — who remains fixated on his 2020 election loss — is calling for the federal government to “nationalize” state-run elections and fighting to restrict voting by mail.

Measure B gained popularity amid Trump’s baseless claims of cheating. California’s anticipated but painfully slow vote count after the June primary — largely the result of the labor-intensive process for tallying millions of mailed ballots — only fueled such claims. But it also prompted Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic state lawmakers this summer to allocate $40 million to help counties speed up the process.

The citizens’ initiative approved in Shasta County would limit voting by mail, the method used by an overwhelming majority of Californians, to only “the infirm, military, and U.S. citizens living overseas.”

Measure B would require elections to be held in person on a single day and create a separate county voter registration system disconnected from the state’s uniform system. It also would require residents to present government-issued photo identification to cast a ballot (as would a statewide ballot measure that voters will decide upon in November).

The measure drew steep opposition from numerous civil and voting rights organizations — including the ACLU, the League of Women Voters, Disability Rights California, the Asian Law Caucus, and Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California — who said it would disenfranchise voters.

One prominent supporter of Measure B told The Times in May that he expected the county to be sued if voters approved it.

“We don’t like the state laws,” said Richard Gallardo, a leader of Save Shasta Elections. “We want to enact our own local election reform. … There’s a lot in there, so, yes, we do expect the state to sue us.”

Gallardo, an election integrity activist who once tried, unsuccessfully, to place all of the county supervisors under citizen’s arrest during the COVID-19 pandemic, is among the “real parties in interest” named in the state’s lawsuit. He said he believed the onus was on the county to “fully and fervently” defend Measure B in court because it’s “the will of the voters.”

Richard Gallardo, a leader of the citizens’ group that wrote Shasta County’s Measure B, is blocked by a guard in November 2022 after attempting to go into a restricted area to observe ballots at the elections office in Redding. At right is then-assistant county registrar Joanna Francescut.

(Mel Melcon / Los Angeles Times)

In recent years, the election skepticism movement bolstered by Trump has found a strong foothold in Shasta County.

In 2023, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors, swept up in unfounded election fraud allegations promoted by the president, ditched Dominion voting machines and opted to hand-count ballots for the county’s more than 110,000 registered voters — quickly prompting a new state law that banned them from doing so.

Last year, the supervisors appointed Clint Curtis — a Florida-based attorney whose claims about rigged voting machines stretch back to the early 2000s — to be the Shasta County registrar of voters, a position vacated by two previous registrars who resigned for health reasons, saying they were exacerbated by the stress of the job.

Curtis promptly eliminated nine of the vast county’s 13 ballot drop boxes. He accused his predecessors in the registrar’s office, without evidence, of stuffing ballots to sabotage conservative Republicans. And he called for federal authorities to raid his office and seize ballots.

Curtis — a vocal proponent of hand-counting ballots who has worked with MyPillow Chief Executive and pro-Trump conspiracy theorist Mike Lindell — advocated for Measure B and is named as a defendant in the state’s lawsuit.

He was voted out of office in June and will be replaced in January by Joanna Francescut, the former longtime assistant registrar, whom he fired.

Kim Wyman’s phone started ringing at the end of February.

As the rapid spread of the coronavirus made it clear that the 2020 election cycle would have to accommodate social distancing, reporters and election officials across the country started reaching out to Washington’s two-term secretary of state to discuss the vote by mail system she oversees.

“From March until the end of April, every day was nonstop calls,” Wyman, 58, said in an interview this month.

More than a dozen states postponed their presidential primaries or conducted them entirely by mail, and others loosened absentee rules, allowing people at high risk of COVID-19 complications or concerned about contracting the disease to request ballots. And Congress included $400 million for states to prepare for elections amid the pandemic in its March stimulus bill.

Wyman, known nationally as an expert on mail voting, became a go-to resource for election officials scrambling to adapt. The blue state Republican was elected secretary of state in 2012, a year after the Washington Legislature voted to transition all counties to mail balloting. Before that, she spent two decades working on elections in Thurston County, home to Olympia, the capital.

“Secretary Wyman is unique among secretaries of state in that she was a local election official,” said Amber McReynolds, the CEO of the National Vote at Home Institute and the former director of Denver’s elections. “She has a very clear understanding of the needs of local election officials and she’s always very particular in her attention to that.”

As the pandemic rages on and some in her party attack mail voting, Wyman has become a vocal supporter of the system in interviews, opinion pieces and as co-chair of the circle of advisors for the National Vote at Home Institute.

For voters, the main appeal prior to the pandemic had been convenience, Wyman said. “In Washington state, we haven’t had lines on election day in 10 years, 15 years, for a reason,” she said.

In her attempts to maintain voters’ confidence in the system and to win a third term, her biggest hurdle on both fronts may be President Trump.

During one June speech, Trump claimed with no evidence that states like California wouldn’t send ballots to some Republican voters, that ballots could be stolen from mail boxes, postal service workers could be robbed, signatures could be forged and foreign nations could create falsified ballots. “Mail-in ballots is a disaster for our country,” he said.

Wyman’s top rival in her reelection bid, Democratic state Rep. Gael Tarleton, has tried to tie her to Trump and accused her of not defending the state’s voting system against Republican attacks.

The secretary of state said she hasn’t shied away from her party identity during her statewide runs, but she’s avoided partisanship. “What I learned in my years in the county is that the job is more important than partisan politics,” she said.

Wyman, who grew up in California, cast her first vote in 1980 for Ronald Reagan. “It’s why I’m a Republican to this day, because Ronald Reagan was very inspiring to a young kid from Long Beach,” she said.

She voted in every election until one day in Germany, where her husband was stationed with the Army, she received a mail ballot for an election that had taken place the day before.

“I didn’t realize the significance of it until I started overseeing elections,” she said. “Then you realize how important being able to have your voice heard is and when you’re disenfranchised because somebody makes an error that’s inexcusable.”

From Germany, the couple moved to Washington, where Wyman served as Thurston County’s election manager from 1993 to 2001 and auditor from 2001 to 2013. Her time there overlapped with the state’s transition from the early stages of widespread absentee voting to a virtually all-mail system, and she experienced firsthand the obstacles election officials face as they transition.

During the 1994 primary, her office sent notices asking voters if they wanted to permanently receive absentee ballots ahead of the general election. About 10% said yes — far more than election officials were expecting.

“What we didn’t factor in was, ‘Oh, God, we have to enter all of those in and issue all those people a ballot in the next two weeks.’ We became very aware the hard way that you have to be mindful of that expansion and what that looks like,” she said.

Washington isn’t alone in conducting all elections almost exclusively by mail; Oregon, Colorado, Hawaii and Utah do as well. And every state offers at least some voters the option to request an absentee ballot. Nearly 21% of ballots cast in the 2016 presidential election were mail votes, up from 8% in 1996, according to the Pew Research Center.

Although millions of voters will have greater access to mail voting in November, there’s only so much states with historically low absentee balloting can do in a few months to get to where Washington has arrived over several years. Wyman’s calls with election officials have focused on the logistics of scaling up, she said.

“It’s a whole gamut of how do we gear up, how do you make the transition from going from 3% ballots returned by mail to 50% or 75% or 100%,” Wyman said.

Louisiana’s Republican secretary of state, Kyle Ardoin, said he started talking to Wyman in late February, weeks before the state delayed its April 4 primary. Ardoin said Wyman was an “absolute wealth of information” but was clear about the challenges expanding absentee ballots would pose.

“I think it really confirmed my fear of it,” he said in an interview after the state’s July 11 primary. The state increased mail voting from less than 4% in past elections to 18% in July after adding new coronavirus-related reasons for voters to request absentee ballots, he said.

Now election officials are preparing for the challenges of running the general election during a pandemic that has killed more than 150,000 people in the U.S. In addition to expanding absentee balloting and educating voters, election officials face a campaign against mail voting from the president and his allies.

Trump’s critics have suggested he is setting the stage to reject the results of the election. The president — who falsely claimed that millions of people voted illegally in 2016 — has refused to say whether he would accept a loss.

There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud, by mail or otherwise. Election officials, including some in red states, have pointed to expanded absentee voting as a secure option to keep voters safe, at times facing pushback from state legislatures. At the same time, public health officials have urged voters to use mail ballots when possible and asked Congress to help states fund efforts to increase mail voting.

“This year round there’s a much bigger pro on the side of vote by mail than there has been in most years, where the argument has been about the benefits and convenience and easier access,” said Brian J. Gaines, a political science professor at the University of Illinois. Gaines said the downside of voting from home is that ballots aren’t secret and voters risk being coerced by roommates or family members.

Supporters of mail voting say that states’ ability to discover cases — such as attempted ballot fraud in a North Carolina congressional election in 2018 or a local election in Paterson, N.J., in May — show that security measures work. “Those were bad actors doing something to voters that they should not be doing, and the system caught it,” McReynolds said.

Wyman compared running an election to running a bank. The state has built in measures to prevent and detect fraud, “but ultimately if someone wants to walk into a bank and rob it, or if somebody really wants to try to perpetrate voter fraud, I imagine they can,” she said.

“And then we have ways to detect it and prosecute it on the back end.”

Signature verification is the “linchpin” of Washington’s election security, Wyman said. Julie Wise, the top election official for King County, where Seattle is located, said her own signature has been challenged twice, including once while she held her current position. Voters have 21 days after the election to verify their signatures after a challenge.

The state is also a founding member of the Election Registration Information Center, a group of 30 states and the District of Columbia that shares voter registration and motor vehicle license lists to help maintain voter rolls.

With the help of the partnership, Wyman’s office announced in May that it had found 142 potential voter fraud cases — out of more than 3.1 million ballots cast in the 2018 general election — involving individuals who may have voted in more than one state or on behalf of a deceased person. Wyman’s office plans to prosecute the cases if counties don’t.

“Is it rampant fraud? No,” Wyman said of the 0.004% of ballots flagged for potential fraud. “Is it acceptable? No.”

Despite the president’s growing attacks on mail voting, the country is likely to see a massive increase in the number of ballots sent to voters this fall. Wyman said the lasting result of the 2020 election cycle might be an increase in the number of states following in Washington’s footsteps: from no excuse absentee voting to permanent absentee ballots to statewide vote by mail.

“When people vote by mail they love it,” she said. “I think you’re going to see a natural migration.”

A lower court blocked the mail-in ballot restrictions, ruling Trump lacked authority to change state election rules.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has asked the Supreme Court to allow it to move ahead with sweeping restrictions on mail-in voting ahead of November’s midterm elections, as it continues its push to reshape how federal elections are run.

In an emergency filing on Monday, the Justice Department asked the country’s highest court to pause a lower court ruling that blocked parts of Trump’s March executive order in 23 Democratic-led states and Washington, DC. The pause would remain in effect as the legal challenges play out, per the request.

The executive order directed federal agencies to help create state lists of eligible voters and required the US Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to people on those lists. It also instructed the Justice Department to prioritise investigations into election officials accused of issuing ballots to ineligible voters.

US District Judge Indira Talwani blocked the order in June, ruling that Trump lacked the authority to unilaterally change how states administer federal elections. She noted that under the Constitution, states oversee voter-eligibility requirements.

Over the weekend, the First US Circuit Court of Appeals declined to pause that ruling, prompting the administration to take the issue to the Supreme Court.

In its request to the top court, the administration argued that the order amounted to “general policy guidance” rather than a directive dictating how states should administer elections.

Solicitor General John Sauer wrote: “The injunction is especially indefensible because the agencies are still deliberating over how (if at all) to implement the Order, yet the district court preemptively decided that whatever the agencies may choose to do will necessarily be unlawful.”

He urged the Supreme Court to act quickly as the new policy would have to be in place by August to be effective by the midterm election in November.

Trump has long claimed, without evidence, that widespread voter fraud undermined the 2020 presidential election and has repeatedly questioned the security of mail-in voting, despite studies showing that such fraud is rare.

He has promised to end the widespread use of mail ballots before the midterms, which will determine which party takes control of the US House of Representatives and Senate.

Voting rights advocates say restricting mail-in voting could disproportionately affect Democratic voters, who have historically been more likely than Republicans to cast their ballots by mail.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration urged the Supreme Court on Monday to lift a judge’s order and clear the way for state-by-state lists of citizens who are eligible to vote by mail.

Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer filed an emergency appeal and said judges in Boston had wrongly intervened too soon.

In March, Trump ordered the U.S. Postal Service to direct states to compile a list of citizens who are eligible to vote. This list would limit who may receive a mail ballot.

He also ordered the Department of Homeland Security to “compile and transmit state-specific lists of individuals who are citizens and will be 18 years of age or older at the time of an upcoming election,” Sauer said.

Lawyers for California and 22 other Democratic-led states sued, arguing the states, not the federal government, have the constitutional authority to set the rules for voting and elections.

In June, they won before a federal judge in Boston who blocked Trump’s order from going forward, at least in the 23 states which had sued. Her decision was upheld over the weekend by the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals.

In his appeal, Trump’s solicitor general focused on a procedural question, not the issue of whether the president has the legal authority to impose national rules on state-run elections.

Sauer said the U.S. Postal Service and the Department of Homeland Security had not issued final specific plans to comply with Trump’s directive.

“Courts cannot enjoin implementation of Executive Orders that leave open material issues that still need to be resolved by agencies,” he wrote.

He asked the court to lift or stay the “premature injunctions.”

Time is running short, he said.

“Absent a stay … there will not be sufficient time to obtain appellate relief before the November election,” Sauer said. “That is especially true because implementation efforts for any USPS rule or DHS policy will need to begin well before November … particularly given that absentee and mail-in voting begin (in some States) several weeks prior to Election Day.”

The justices asked for a response from the 23 Democratic states by Aug. 3.

July 25 (UPI) — A federal appeals court ruled that the Trump administration cannot implement tighter rules for mail-in voting in the mid-term elections this November.

The ruling, handed down by the First U.S. Circuit of Appeals on Saturday, will prevent his administration from creating a list of eligible voters and from requiring the U.S. Postal Service to refuse to deliver ballots to people who are not on the list, The Hill and Bloomberg News reported.

The three-judge panel rejected the administration’s appeal of lower court rulings in late June and early July that an executive order issued in April to expand the federal government’s role in managing elections could not be put into effect.

The April 1 executive order was condemned by critics at the time as an attempt by President Donald Trump and the administration to interfere with the mid-term elections, and led to 23 states and the District of Columbia to file suit to stop it.

The appeals court said in its ruling that the federal government failed to make its case for lifting the federal government’s injunction, which was partially based on the lower court preventing the executive order from going into effect.

“To be sure, the injunction prevents the federal Defendants from enforcing the EO in the Plaintiff states’ upcoming primary and general federal elections in September and November,” the judges wrote.

Trump, who continues to falsely claim that he won the 2020 election, signed the order under the guise of election integrity based on his also false claims of widespread voter fraud.

The fraud allegations center on ineligible people casting mail-in ballots, of which Trump and his administration have not shown happened in significant numbers during the 2020 election.

The order directs the Department of Homeland Security to build a state citizenship list based on federal date, to send the lists to state elections officials to verify mail-in ballots go to eligible voters and for the USPS not to send out absentee or mail-in ballots to people who do not appear on the lists.

The US says it has spent more than $37.5 billion on the Iran war so far, and the Secretary of Defense is requesting an additional $67 billion more. One analyst tells Al Jazeera’s ‘This is America’ that Congress may face political trouble voting against it.

Thirty years ago this fall, a Republican politician cried electoral fraud after losing a close race.

Orange County Rep. Bob Dornan couldn’t accept the most logical explanations for why Loretta Sanchez beat him in a historic upset: that voters had tired of his polarizing politics. That his Latino-majority district wanted one of their own to represent them. That he was an ideologue who never brought anything back from D.C. for his constituents.

Instead, Dornan and his supporters settled on the craziest excuse of them all: Illegal immigrants.

California voters were passing anti-immigrant laws by the boatful, so Dornan’s fevered tales about nonprofits registering noncitizens to vote and take him down landed with Republicans. A compliant Congress investigated Dornan’s claims, while local lawmakers proposed bills that would force voters to show government-issued identification every time they cast a ballot — a voter suppression tactic going back to the segregationist South.

The congressional investigation flopped like a soccer player fishing to draw a red card, finally concluding in 1998. Yes, noncitizens did vote for Sanchez, but only an infinitesimal number — less than 1% of the total votes tallied and not enough to overturn the results. No one was charged for illegally voting on purpose or improperly registering noncitizens to vote.

When Dornan ran again in 1998, with volunteers vowing to pursue any election irregularities, Sanchez walloped him, and he was swept into the dustbin of political history.

I teach this episode in my O.C. history college classes as a case study in what happens when political parties succumb to the spell of a vindictive demagogue who blames everyone for their failures except themselves. I also point out that Dornan had the last laugh: the idea that illegal immigrants regularly vote in elections, throwing them toward Democrats, has become gospel for many Republicans.

And here we are.

Republican U.S. Congressional candidate Bob Dornan speaks to a group of young adults at the Orange County Conservation Corps. in Anaheim, California in 1998. He was seeking to regain his old seat from Democratic incumbent Loretta Sanchez, who beat him in a historic 1996 upset.

(John Hayes/Associated Press)

On Thursday, President Trump’s obsession over losing to Joe Biden in 2020 reached a phlegmatic nadir with a speech on debunked election fraud theories that weaved in everything from communist China to deposed Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro to — who else? — alleged noncitizen voters.

The tirade was so pathetic and noneventful that most networks didn’t bother to air it. Even Fox News host Sean Hannity — whose tongue is probably two parts shoe polish after spending the last decade as Trump’s personal spit shine — moved on just minutes after Trump finished.

The president insisted that the U.S. Senate pass a bill ahead of this November’s midterms, mandating in the name of election integrity that voters show proof of citizenship before casting a ballot.

In California, a clown car of MAGA loyalists — state Assemblymember Carl DeMaio, state Senator Tony Strickland, wannabe Southern California U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli — are pushing something similar. Proposition 39 would require California election officials to verify the citizenship of registered voters and require voters to show government-issued identification when they cast a ballot.

By law, voters in federal elections must be U.S. citizens. Only a handful of municipalities allow noncitizens to vote in local elections. Despite Trump’s trumpeting of supposed evidence that 278,000 noncitizens are registered to vote in California, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Nevada, actual instances of them casting a ballot are as rare today as in Dornan’s time.

That hasn’t stopped Trump and his lackeys from claiming, as Dornan and his supporters did, that they are trying to restore faith in a system corrupted by liberals and their undocumented puppets. But, just like back then, this amounts to a dog whistle for people freaked out about changing demographics and massive GOP midterm losses.

It’s the last, most dangerous gasp of a wheezing political movement whose supporters are clinging to power at all costs and just can’t understand why more and more voters are tired of Trump’s flailing foreign policy and failing economy.

These people are so delusional that they point to last month’s California primaries as proof of election fraud, arguing that the results in two prominent races should have been different.

No Republican has won a statewide election in 20 years, so it’s not surprising that Republican Steve Hilton finished second to Democrat Xavier Becerra in the gubernatorial primary, with both advancing to the general election. Nor was it a shock that in the primary for Los Angeles mayor, progressive incumbent Karen Bass and democratic socialist City Councilmember Nithya Raman finished first and second over Republican reality television star Spencer Pratt.

That didn’t stop Trump from insisting that both Republicans should have won outright and crying conspiracy when they didn’t. The president continued his laughable tune in his White House speech.

“Took a month to count the votes,” he whined about California’s sloth-like approach to counting ballots. “I wonder what they were doing. This is worse than any third world country. There’s no third world country that has elections like we have.”

Actually, many third world countries elect despots like Trump — but that’s neither here nor there.

A May poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found that Prop. 39 was in a statistical dead heat, with 49% of voters favoring it and 51% opposed. All Prop. 39’s opponents have to do is cite Trump’s stark-raving mad comments about electoral fraud, and support for the ballot initiative will melt faster than the Sierra snowpack.

The Republican crusade against imaginary noncitizen voters may pay off in the short run but will inevitably, spectacularly backfire.

Look at what happened in my native Orange County. Sanchez’s victory was the first ripple in a blue wave that eventually turned O.C. purple. Our once-mighty GOP is now increasingly isolated to wealthier pockets of the county and no longer commands national attention — hell, they couldn’t even deliver O.C. to Trump in any of his elections.

The crazy thing is, when Republicans put in the work to appeal to immigrant and Latino voters instead of obsessing about how they’re supposedly anti-democracy invaders, it pays off. Just look at 2024, when a record number of Latino GOP legislators won seats in California and Trump won a larger share of the national Latino electorate than any Republican presidential candidate ever had.

That happened because the party largely stayed quiet on noncitizen voting and focused on what swing voters wanted to hear: a promise to clamp down on unchecked migration and too much wokeness, while fattening average Americans’ pocketbooks.

Trump’s success with Latino voters seemed to represent a tectonic shift in American politics. Now, it feels like an aberration.

Trump still doesn’t seem to get how desperate the situation is for Republicans, just four months before Election Day, and how much of it is of his own making.

Near the end of his speech, he sputtered, “The only reason you wouldn’t do [mandated voter ID] is you want to cheat because your policies are so bad, and your candidates are so pathetic that you can’t get away or can’t get elected any other way.”

Paging Bob Dornan …

In a speech to the nation Thursday evening, President Trump said Americans deserve secure elections, and he claimed to be using federal authority to prevent them from being “stolen.”

In fact, one of the strongest security features of U.S. elections is the fact that they aren’t conducted at the federal level. America votes in more than 10,000 different election jurisdictions, each with different rules set by state and sometimes local governments.

That structure makes the nation’s elections extraordinarily complicated — and also safe from widespread fraud. And when misconduct does happen — rarely — security protocols frequently catch it.

Decentralized elections date back to the nation’s founding

America’s highly decentralized system of voting exists because the nation’s Founding Fathers gave authority over elections to the states, rather than the federal government. While Congress has the power to regulate elections — and has used that authority to pass such laws as the Voting Rights Act — the Constitution makes clear that states have primary authority to set the “times, places and manner” for elections.

There also is no national election agency that administers the presidential contest, something that’s different from many other countries. And when it comes to doing the day-to-day work of running an election, the responsibility falls to officials at the local level — usually a clerk or election supervisor — with help from staff and volunteers.

While differences in election laws can get confusing, election security experts say this structure is a strength. That’s because to pull off stealing a presidential election — as Trump falsely claims was done to him in 2020 — it would require large numbers of election workers in the most competitive counties across the country who are willing to risk prosecution, prison time and fines while working with officials from both parties willing to look the other way. And everyone somehow would have to keep quiet — a highly unlikely scenario.

There are also shared practices and security measures in place across the country that together work to ensure that only eligible voters can cast a ballot and only one ballot is counted for each.

Voter fraud can happen, but it’s rare and there are safeguards to catch it

Most Americans by now have probably heard stories about someone casting multiple ballots, or voting in the name of dead relatives, or stealing mail ballots from mailboxes.

When these incidents happen, they are often caught and prosecuted.

Voting more than once, tampering with ballots, lying about your residence to vote somewhere else or casting someone else’s ballot are crimes that can be punished with hefty fines and prison time. Non-U.S. citizens who break election laws can be deported.

For anyone still motivated to cheat, election systems in the United States are designed with multiple layers of protection and transparency intended to stand in the way.

For example, for in-person voting, most states either require or request voters provide some sort of identification at the polls. Others require voters to verify who they are in another way, such as stating their name and address, signing a poll book or signing an affidavit.

For absentee voting, all states require a voter’s signature, and many states have further precautions, such as having bipartisan teams compare the signature with other signatures on file, requiring the signature to be notarized or requiring a witness to sign.

That means even if a ballot is erroneously sent to someone’s past address and the current resident mails it in, there are checks to alert election workers to the foul play.

AP review found there was too little voter fraud to tip the 2020 election

Trump has spent six years insisting he won the 2020 election, a campaign he lost to former President Joe Biden.

An Associated Press review in 2021 dug into every potential case of voter fraud in the six battleground states that Trump disputed. It found fewer than 475 cases — a number that would have made no difference in that race.

Allegations from Trump of massive voting fraud have been refuted by a variety of judges, state election officials and an arm of his own administration’s Homeland Security Department. In 2020, then-Attorney General William Barr, a Trump appointee, told the AP that no proof of widespread voter fraud had been uncovered. “To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election,” he said at the time.

Swenson writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump used a rare prime-time address Thursday night to renew his attacks on the security of U.S. elections, telling Americans that the nation’s voting system is “so broken” that “no one can possibly defend it,” an unprecedented effort by a sitting president to undermine public confidence in domestic elections.

Many of the claims he made, which echo those he made after he lost the 2020 election, have been debunked by investigations, audits and court proceedings. Trump did not claim that vote counts were changed or election systems were hacked, and his warnings that the nation’s elections could be vulnerable to foreign influence have long been made by members of both parties.

But the president amplified those claims and others in an effort to cast fresh doubt over what he said was a “stolen” and “rigged” election and renew calls to pass a federal voting law ahead of the November election.

“Addressing this crisis of elections security demands that Congress will pass the SAVE America Act,” Trump said. “How easy is that to do? Unless you want to cheat.”

Trump said he directed the White House to release a tranche of heavily redacted documents that purport to show “vulnerabilities” in the nation’s voting system, with the goal of “correcting them very, very quickly.”

The 26-minute address to the nation — a platform traditionally reserved for rare moments of national importance — was the latest effort by Trump to attempt to assert more federal control over state elections.

Major broadcast networks declined to air Trump’s speech in full, instead reporting on it. Trump complained about NBC and ABC as he spoke, saying they should lose their broadcasting licenses. He falsely claimed that “they and others in the media are part of a plot” to “continue this fraud.”

In his remarks, Trump alleged China carried out what is believed to be the “largest compromise of election data history” starting during the 2020 election cycle and claimed that “members of the deep state” in the American intelligence community covered it up.

He directed the FBI, the director of national intelligence and other agencies led by some of his loyalists to investigate and prosecute the people responsible for the cover up.

Democrats swiftly condemned Trump’s claims as baseless and rehashed ideas that have little to do with actual election administration.

“Donald Trump is releasing unverified, meaningless documents to appease his own delusions about an election he lost resoundingly, all while continuing to withhold 3 million pages of the Epstein files,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on X.

Multiple reviews of the 2020 election have concluded that Democrat Joe Biden won legitimately, and election experts say there is no evidence that widespread fraud affected the outcome of the election.

“It’s been more than half a decade, with numerous audits, recounts, and more than 60 court cases, each finding no evidence of widespread voter fraud,” Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said in a statement. “Clearly, this is no longer about an election Donald Trump lost six years ago. It’s about him laying the groundwork to try to ‘take over the voting’ in the upcoming midterm elections.”

Ahead of the speech, elections and democracy experts had cautioned that the president may attempt to sow doubt in the security of the nation’s election system or bolster debunked fraud claims.

Trump has taken a series of steps since retaking office aimed at exerting control over elections. Some experts said Thursday’s address could be interpreted as a sign that Trump is running out of moves in the lead up to the midterm elections, where Republican control of the House is at stake.

“The fact that they’re throwing everything up on the walls at this point demonstrates panic,” said David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation and Research. “They are not operating from strength right now. They are operating from weakness.”

Trump delivered the address with his approval rating stagnating at 37%, according to a Washington Post-Ipsos poll released Thursday, with weakening enthusiasm among Republicans.

This is a breaking news story and will be updated.

The housing legislation will become US law at midnight with or without President Donald Trump’s signature.

United States President Donald Trump says he will not sign a bipartisan housing affordability bill in protest at the Senate not passing the controversial SAVE America Act voting legislation.

In a post on Truth Social on Friday, Trump said he would not support signing the unrelated housing bill, which would speed up environmental reviews for construction projects, expedite development, and limit the number of single-family homes institutional investors can buy.

The bill will become law with or without the president’s signature. Once a bill reaches the president’s desk, the officeholder has 10 days to either sign it into law or veto the legislation. If he does neither, it becomes law at midnight.

House Speaker Mike Johnson said the president is unlikely to issue a last-minute veto.

The housing legislation, known as the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, which Trump called a “yawn” on June 29, was a rare moment of bipartisan agreement in a starkly divided US Congress. It passed the Senate by a vote of 85-5 and the House by a vote of 358-2.

The provisions included in the legislation are popular. A Bipartisan Policy Center poll suggested that 70 percent of Americans support banning institutional investors that own more than 350 homes from buying additional single-family homes.

The legislation would also establish incentive programmes for communities to build more housing and encourage the development of modular homes. It also includes provisions that would make it easier for communities to convert underutilised land into residential housing.

Housing remains a major pressure on Americans, with 79 percent saying the cost of housing is either “an extremely important” or “very important” issue, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center.

The US median home price hit a record $440,600 in June, while mortgage rates remain elevated. The average 30-year fixed mortgage rate is currently at 6.49 percent.

Voting act pressures

Trump cancelled the original signing ceremony for the housing legislation on June 24 in an effort to pressure Republicans to pass the SAVE America Act. Among its provisions, the bill would require proof of citizenship to register to vote and create a national voter database using state records.

It would also impose new limitations on mail-in voting, even though roughly one-quarter of Republicans voted by mail in the 2024 presidential election, according to an MIT survey.

A version of the voting legislation passed the House but failed to clear the Senate’s 60-vote filibuster threshold.

Under current election law, states administer elections, not the federal government.

The White House did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

President Trump has ousted members of a bipartisan federal election commission that resisted his efforts to require would-be voters to document their U.S. citizenship before registering.

The White House on Friday confirmed the executive action against members of the Election Assistance Commission, which distributes federal grants to states, oversees the testing of voting systems and maintains the national voter registration forms.

It’s the latest move in the Republican president’s effort to expand White House influence over how U.S. elections are conducted and comes after a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that gave the president new personnel authority to fire members of independent agency boards.

“The President, and head of the Executive Branch, reserves the right to remove individuals that may not be totally aligned with the important task of securing America’s elections and ensuring every legal vote is counted. The Slaughter decision gives the President precedence to do so,” said a White House statement to AP.

The president removed the commission’s two Democratic members, Thomas Hicks and Benjamin Hovland. The panel’s Republican member, Christy McCormick resigned. Former Republican commissioner Donald Palmer already had left his post voluntarily earlier this year.

The changes were first reported by VoteBeat, a news outlet that covers elections and voting across the U.S.

While the White House statement did not offer a specific reason for Trump’s action, the commission has previously declined to change the national voter registration form to require documentation of an applicant’s U.S. citizenship, as Trump’s urged in a sweeping March 2025 executive order on U.S. elections. A federal judge blocked the order, ruling it exceeds the president’s authority since the U.S. Constitution grants authority over elections management and oversight to Congress and the states. The administration has indicated it will appeal.

It was not clear whether Trump planned to nominate new members immediately or leave the positions vacant — a move that, months ahead of midterm elections, could prevent the agency from distributing new grants to state or local elections offices and, at the least, complicate its role in overseeing testing and certification of voting systems around the country.

“The Administration from the start has been working across all agencies and local partners to safeguard elections from fraud and abuse, and investing in a strong infrastructure to sustain that mission especially in the midterm elections,” the White House said.

Congress created the four-member commission as part of the Help America Vote Act, a bipartisan law signed by Republican President George W. Bush in 2002. The act requires the commission to include two Democrats and two Republicans, nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Hicks and McCormick were appointed by President Barack Obama. Trump appointed Hovland during his first presidency.

According to VoteBeat, Hicks and Hovland were notified of their removal by an email signed by Morgan DeWitt Snow, the deputy director of presidential personnel in the Executive Office of the President.

Barrow writes for the Associated Press.

Syria regains voting rights in the OPCW as new leadership makes progress in addressing chemical weapons issues.

The global chemical weapons’ watchdog has announced it has handed voting rights back to Syria because “concrete steps” have been taken to address outstanding issues since the fall of the Bashar al-Assad regime.

In a statement published on Thursday, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) said the decision follows a “significant change” in circumstances since Syria was suspended in 2021. That was due to the former government’s failure to declare the full scope of its chemical weapons programme and the repeated use of poison gas during the civil war.

Since a lightning offensive ousted long-time ruler al-Assad in 2024, “the new Syrian authorities committed to fulfilling Syria’s obligations under the Convention and have since taken concrete steps to cooperate with the Technical Secretariat to achieve this goal”, read the statement.

Actions taken by the new government of President Ahmed al-Sharaa include facilitating verification activities and taking initial steps in destroying identified remnants.

“These decisions reflect the tangible progress achieved through continued cooperation and constructive engagement between the Technical Secretariat and the Syrian Arab Republic, with the support of the wider community of States Parties,” said OPCW Director-General Fernando Arias.

In 2013, Syria joined the OPCW and agreed to the destruction of its weapons to be supervised by the watchdog. Back then, Syria was believed to possess about 1,000 tonnes of toxins and had agreed to destroy them under a joint Russian-US proposal designed to avert a US military strike on its territory.

Syria’s decision followed a global outcry over a suspected chemical attack that same year in Ghouta, an eastern suburb of the capital Damascus.

US intelligence estimated that at least 1,400 people, including 426 children, were killed in that attack which it attributed with “high confidence” to the Syrian government. Al-Assad denied involvement and blamed rebels.

According to OPCW, while Syria submitted an initial declaration of its chemical weapons programme, the former government did not declare all its chemical weapons programme and attempted to mislead inspectors about its overall scope and scale.

It was a traumatic moment for much of Southern California, as federal immigration agents snatched undocumented workers from car washes, garment factories and Home Depot parking lots.

Angelica Salas, who heads one of Los Angeles’ most influential immigrant rights groups, met regularly last summer with City Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez — himself the son of Mexican immigrants — as they formulated a response. The two kept circling back to a singular issue: the lack of political power wielded by noncitizens.

“A lot of this is happening because immigrants don’t have the right to vote,” said Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights.

Those conversations helped fuel Soto-Martínez’s decision in late April to push for a ballot proposal aimed at giving noncitizens the right to vote in city and school district elections. The proposal quickly gained momentum, with two-thirds of the council voting in mid-June to draft a measure for the Nov. 3 ballot.

Los Angeles City Council member Hugo Soto-Martínez attends a City Council meeting following elections at City Hall June 3.

(Etienne Laurent / For the Times)

But the effort collapsed on Tuesday, with the council reversing course and sending the proposal to a committee for more study. Before the vote, Soto-Martínez acknowledged that he had not performed sufficient outreach, particularly to the city’s Black community leaders.

By then, critics were accusing the council of failing to do its homework, leaving voters to fill in the blanks on such questions as whether undocumented immigrants would be covered by the expanded franchise. Some worried the proposal would endanger the very people it was designed to help, making them a fresh target for the Trump administration.

Even community leaders who have worked on civil rights issues were urging the council to slow down.

Mobilizing Preachers and Communities, a national nonprofit that represents clergy and civil rights advocates, asked for a delay, citing concerns about President Trump. Rev. K.W. Tulloss, the group’s western regional director, said he was also hearing concerns from Black residents and their religious leaders about the potential for weakening Black voting representation.

That, in turn, could reduce the overall number of Black elected officials in Los Angeles, he said.

“That’s a major concern among our community,” Tulloss said. “And we can’t be afraid to have that dialogue.”

In L.A., Black residents make up about 8% of registered voters, according to the Sacramento-based firm Political Data, Inc. That figure has been gradually declining over the past few decades. An influx of noncitizen voters — Latinos, Asians and others — could cause it to shrink even more.

At the end of the year, L.A.’s 15-member City Council will have two Black representatives, down from three, all in South L.A.-based districts. Two Latinos are running in this year’s election to replace Councilmember Curren Price, who is Black and retiring after serving the maximum three terms.

The county’s five-member Board of Supervisors has one Black member. Voters have given the go-ahead to add four more members, which some fear could leave the board with one Black member out of nine.

Tulloss said his organization supports creating a pathway to citizenship for the city’s undocumented immigrants. At the same time, he worried that Soto-Martínez’s proposal could in the short term divide Black and brown residents, who share a common struggle on a wide range of issues.

“At the end of the day, we don’t want any type of deal that will be divisive in the community,” he said.

Soto-Martínez, who represents an Echo Park-to-Hollywood district, said in an interview Wednesday that noncitizen voting was part of his platform when he first ran for City Council in 2022. He said he first thought about the issue seriously a decade ago, when San Francisco voters passed a measure allowing noncitizen parents to cast ballots in school board elections.

Since its formation, the United States has repeatedly redefined the right to vote, broadening it to include women, Black people and other groups, he said.

“To me, it just seemed very natural to expand it,” he said. “It’s part of our history.”

The idea of noncitizen voting has been circulating in L.A. for years. School board member Kelly Gonez persuaded her colleagues to begin exploring it in 2019. But the effort was set aside after the onset of COVID-19, which caused massive disruptions across the Los Angeles Unified School District, said Michael Trujillo, a political strategist for Gonez.

Last summer, as the Trump administration was launching immigration raids across Southern California, the city was convening a 13-member citizens commission to come up with proposals for rewriting the City Charter, L.A.’s governing document.

The commission took up noncitizen voting in March, narrowly rejecting it. Several commissioners said they were worried about unintended consequences, like the Trump administration taking aim at newly registered voters, said Raymond Meza, who served as the commission’s chair.

“I thought those concerns were not fully addressed,” Meza said, “so I actually switched my vote” and opposed the proposal.

A month later, with the deadline for placing items on the Nov. 3 ballot fast approaching, Soto-Martínez introduced a motion calling for a two-step process for expanding voting rights. First, voters would be asked to give the City Council the authority to grant noncitizens the right to vote.

The council would then examine the details surrounding the change before passing an ordinance expanding those voting rights.

Soto-Martínez said his motion was based on a simple idea: Those who live in the city, raise their families there and pay taxes “deserve to have a voice” in local decision-making. He did not offer many specifics, saying those would be worked out at a later date.

Critics, and even some supporters, said Soto-Martínez was making his move at the wrong time. Councilmember Monica Rodriguez, who voted against the proposal in mid-June, voiced fears that the list of noncitizen voters would immediately be seized by federal immigration authorities.

Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said he opposes noncitizen voting in city elections. He does favor it for L.A. Unified — but only for parents of children attending those schools.

Villaraigosa, who led the city from 2005-13 and recently ran for governor, argued that this is not the right time to make even that change.

“With Trump ferreting through every record he can find looking for undocumented people, I just think it’s the wrong time,” he said. “I think these people would be exposing themselves to deportation, and the well-intentioned would be exposing them as well.”

Soto-Martínez portrayed such arguments as “fear mongering,” saying undocumented immigrants take risks every day in their quest to create a better future for their families.

Salas, the head of CHIRLA, echoed that idea.

“At end of day, we are already targets,” she said. “This is not going to make it worse. Don’t tell me voting against this was for the protection of immigrants.”

The Trump threat was not the only reason council members hesitated.

Rodriguez, who has expressed some interest in the proposal, said city leaders had not determined how county election officials would issue separate ballots for voters who would be barred from state and national contests. They also had not determined the cost of such a service, she said.

Twenty-two local jurisdictions across the country have approved and implemented noncitizen voting, according to Megan Dias, who is co-author of “Immigrant Voting and the Movement for Inclusion in San Francisco,” a report examining that city’s push to allow immigrants to vote in school board elections.

Dias said that backers of noncitizen voting need to build a broad coalition — grassroots organizations, election officials, lawyers for the city — before taking the proposal to voters.

Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson said he is confident that noncitizen voting will get a much more extensive review in the coming months, and make the ballot in 2028. First, he said, the council will need to provide voters with specifics on how the changes would work.

Harris-Dawson said he heard from people who wanted more time to understand the proposal, to “make sure that it was done in a way that protected Black voting districts in particular.”

During the deliberations on the proposal, it also was not clear whether the change would apply to green card holders, recipients of Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals or other categories of noncitizens.

“When something goes to the ballot, we need the details to be figured out — like how much something is going to cost, exactly how it’s going to work, and what the parameters are,” Harris-Dawson said. “All of that needs to be defined.”

The Los Angeles City Council voted Tuesday to pull a measure from the Nov. 3 ballot that would have created a pathway to allow noncitizens to vote in local elections.

The council, on a unanimous vote, sent the draft ballot language to a committee for additional study after several councilmembers said it had not been properly vetted.

Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez acknowledged that he had not done enough outreach on the proposal, and had received letters from members of the Black community voicing concerns.

“I grew up in South Central Los Angeles. The Black and Brown solidarity is deep to me, and means something to me, and I don’t want this to be something that gets pushed through that is seen as a negative, something negative for the city of Los Angeles,” he said.

Soto-Martínez said he would keep pursuing the proposal in a future election so that when it passes, the city can have a “big celebration.”

The noncitizen voting proposal was not the only one dropped by the council at the 11th hour.

In a separate vote, the council scrapped plans for a Nov. 3 ballot measure that would have given council members power over policy at the Los Angeles Police Department. The Board of Los Angeles Police Commissioners, whose members are appointed by the mayor, currently have that responsibility.

The council voted 8-6 to further study the ballot proposal after the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the union representing rank-and-file members, threatened to sue the city, saying labor negotiators failed to meet and confer with them over the proposal.

The plan for expanding voting rights for noncitizens was unveiled by Soto-Martínez two months ago, It would have authorized the City Council to pass an ordinance allowing noncitizens to cast ballots in L.A. city and school board elections.

But many of the details had not yet been worked out, such as which groups would receive the franchise and whether Los Angeles County election officials would be capable of adopting such a system.

These questions were raised again Tuesday by Councilmember Traci Park, who voted “yes” on the proposal two weeks ago, but said this time that too much is still unknown about how it would work. She voiced fears about the city’s ability to protect noncitizen voters if federal immigration agents show up at polling places.

“My concern here is that if this goes to the ballot, the voters won’t really know what they’re voting for, because we don’t really know either,” she said. “These are things that should be figured out well in advance before we put anything in the charter at all.”

Councilmember John Lee held up a print-out of a warning on the San Francisco elections website. San Francisco allows noncitizens to vote in school board elections, and the website includes a notice stating: “Any information you provide to the Department of Elections, including your name and address, may be obtained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other agencies, organizations, and individuals.”

“Given the experience of the only California city that currently allows noncitizen voting, it is not fear mongering to raise these concerns,” he said. “They are real issues that must be addressed before Los Angeles asks voters to approve a similar system.

Soto-Martínez said he viewed the warnings from Lee and Park as fear mongering, noting that immigrant rights groups were ready to move forward with his proposal.

“This country was created by people taking courage and pushing so that everyone can have the right to vote,” he said.

ATLANTA — President Trump has tried many ways to tighten his grip on U.S. elections, from signing executive orders to pushing restrictive legislation in Congress. Monday’s Supreme Court ruling siding with states that accept late-arriving mail ballots was the latest example showing the limits of his reach.

It followed back-to-back rulings last week that barred his two sweeping executive orders seeking to change national election rules, more court rulings preventing his Department of Justice from obtaining detailed state voter data and his stalled attempts to get the Senate to pass the SAVE Act. That measure would eliminate nearly all absentee voting, require citizenship documents to register to vote and impose photo identification requirements nationwide right before the midterm elections.

“It’s been a mixed bag for Republicans,” said University of Notre Dame law professor Derek Muller. But the president, he added, “has come up mostly empty-handed.”

Trump’s efforts have not been entirely fruitless. Republican-run states have satisfied his demands to redraw congressional district lines, efforts buoyed by the Supreme Court striking down a key section of the Voting Rights Act, and he has been directing his Department of Justice to investigate voting and election operations, which Democrats see as a possible prelude to their involvement in November.

All the activity around how the nation votes and runs its elections is a reflection of the Republican president’s long fixation on his false claim that his 2020 election defeat was rigged. He has been so frustrated by the inability of the Senate to pass the SAVE Act that he has refused to sign a bipartisan housing bill.

He weighed in again Monday after the Supreme Court’s decision in the mail ballot deadline case, saying on his social media account that he is trying to “save America from crooked elections.” Voting rights groups and Democrats see him abusing power and attempting to suppress legal voters to gain an advantage in the midterms, when control of Congress is at stake.

Regardless, Muller said Trump faces legal and political realities: The Constitution gives the states and Congress authority over elections while providing no such role for the president.

“That’s how federalism works,” Muller said.

Here’s a look at Trump’s efforts to reshape election rules and what options he might have left for the November midterms.

Focus on noncitizens and voter data has met roadblocks

The president has repeatedly said U.S. elections are riddled with fraud in part because of noncitizen voting. Research shows the problem to be rare, accounting for a minuscule percentage of fraud cases. Convictions are measured in the hundreds over periods in which tens of millions of ballots are cast.

Trump’s view resulted in a multiagency push to nationalize voter data and use federal resources to help states remove voters from the rolls. The Department of Justice has sought detailed voter files from multiple states, data that would include dates of birth and partial Social Security numbers. Democratic and some Republican secretaries of state balked, and federal lawsuits followed. The administration has lost every case so far.

Homeland Security citizenship check rejected in court

Trump’s Department of Homeland Security, with help from the DOGE effort led by Elon Musk, revamped a government tool called SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements). The program has been a key pillar of his efforts to cull potentially ineligible voters from state rolls.

Last week, a federal judge blocked its use as a mass citizenship check.

The administration, according to its own news releases, had allowed local election administrators to search users by the thousands, using a wider range of metrics rather than DHS-issued identification numbers. At least 67 million registrations, primarily in Republican-controlled states, were analyzed. Tens of thousands were flagged as potential noncitizens or people who have died, but some voters were wrongly identified as ineligible.

U.S. District Court Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan ruled that Trump’s changes aggregated Americans’ sensitive personal data in a way that could result in voters being wrongly purged from the rolls.

“All in all, the federal government has knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens in a manner that threatens the sacred right to vote,” Sooknanan said in her order.

Executive orders used in place of legislation

As presidents before him, Trump signed executive orders when Congress would not enact his policy preferences.

Trump’s first order reflected his emphasis on noncitizens. Like the SAVE Act pending on Capitol Hill, it sought to require would-be voters to document their citizenship to be able to register to vote.

U.S. District Court Judge Denise Casper put a temporary block on the order last year as she considered the case and last week made her decision permanent. The Constitution, Casper wrote, “does not grant the President any specific powers over elections.”

Trump issued a second order in March, as the SAVE Act’s rough path in Congress became obvious. He called for a national voter list using data from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Social Security Administration. Further, the order would have empowered the U.S. Postal Service to determine who gets an absentee ballot and threatened local elections officials with prosecution.

Absentee voting is a staple of U.S. elections, but Trump describes the practice, incorrectly, as allowing fraud — even as he has used it himself. A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution found that mail voting fraud occurred in only 0.000043% of total mail ballots cast.

Democratic secretaries of state sued, and U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani made the same legal assessment as Casper. The provisions, she wrote last week, “unconstitutionally violate the separation of powers.”

The White House has indicated it will appeal.

Even Trump says the SAVE Act has long odds

Trump on Monday called the Senate logjam “crazy” and one of the holdouts, Republican Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, “Trump-deranged.”

It’s the latest legislative tussle that prompted Trump to demand Republicans scrap the filibuster, which requires most major legislation to get support from 60 of the 100 senators. But that likely wouldn’t matter in this case, with four of the Senate’s 53 Republicans declaring their opposition to the bill itself: Murkowski, Susan Collins of Maine, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Thom Tillis of North Carolina.

The president acknowledged Monday that the SAVE Act is “probably not going to happen.”

Trump still has options for the November elections

Both major parties have national operations to monitor elections, including legal teams ready to file challenges.

Despite the Republican National Committee losing the mail ballot case, Chairman Joe Gruters on Monday alluded to those efforts: “We are not going to be deterred by this decision, and the RNC will keep fighting to have elections end on Election Day,” he said.

Meanwhile, Trump has been developing a possible roadmap for more aggressive actions.

His U.S. attorney in Los Angeles said in June that he had opened multiple election fraud investigations, and he sent a prosecutor to the county’s vote-tabulation center after California’s June primary. Six months earlier, FBI agents executed a warrant and seized ballots and other records from the 2020 election in Georgia’s Fulton County, which includes Atlanta.

Muller, the law professor, said local elections officials “already are having conversations about chain of custody disputes” for ballots as they are cast, collected, counted and stored.

He and UCLA law professor Rick Hasen noted that judicial warrants are required for the kinds of actions that happened in Fulton County. Muller predicted “the bar would be even higher” for any warrant the administration requests during a live election.

Hasen added that he’s working to educate judges around the country on the importance of chain of custody for ballots.

“Republicans believe him when he says the election is rigged. And then when Republicans try to change voting rules to tighten things up, that causes Democrats to also think that the election system is being rigged,” Hasen said. “So, if what he’s trying to achieve is undermine voters’ confidence in the election process, he seems to have succeeded spectacularly.”

Barrow writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Ali Swenson in New York contributed to this report.