Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• US Department of Justice sues California to block tabulation of ballots allegedly cast by noncitizens — The US Department of Justice filed a federal lawsuit in the Central District of California seeking a court order to prevent the state from tabulating certain ballots in the midterm elections. The suit followed a demand sent to Los Angeles County officials on Tuesday containing a thumb drive with purported names of over 20,000 noncitizens registered to vote, with a 48-hour deadline to verify citizenship. Los Angeles County Clerk Dean Logan and California Secretary of State Shirley Weber both refused to act on the unverified list, citing lack of methodology and security concerns. The DOJ seeks an injunction requiring California to set aside and independently verify citizenship status of flagged voters before tabulation.
• Justice Department Sues State of California over Voter List — The Department of Justice announced this on 2026-10-15 through Office of the Attorney General. The recorded stage is a complaint filed. The allegations are unadjudicated; this documents the announcement, not the truth of any allegation. The department's own account of it reads: "The Justice Department, working with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), today filed a complaint against the State of California over its voter list after determining that more than 20,000 people who are likely aliens are registered to vote in California. Under California law, every registered voter is mailed a ballot. It is unlawful for aliens to vote in federal elections."

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court schedules Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota for December argument — The Supreme Court agreed to hear Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota in December 2026. The case, backed by the Trump Justice Department, challenges whether Arizona may cancel voter registrations of individuals deemed noncitizens during the 90-day quiet period before Election Day. The conservative justices noted in a footnote that they will consider the scope of the quiet period in this separate case and did not need to decide it in the earlier ruling.

Supporting reports

• DNC files lawsuit challenging Pentagon's FPCA modifications — The Democratic National Committee filed a federal lawsuit in Washington DC on October 2, 2026, seeking to overturn the Pentagon's August modifications to the Federal Post Card Application. The DNC argues the government violated the Administrative Procedure Act by bypassing standard rulemaking procedures, failing to allow public comment, and implementing changes without proper deliberation. The lawsuit requests a judicial declaration that the government violated the APA and asks the court to set aside the form modifications before the 2026 midterm elections.
• Trump administration initially planned more restrictive mail-in voting requirements — ProPublica reported that Trump's mail-in voting restrictions were initially far more expansive than the final executive order. The administration had wanted to require all ballots be delivered through certified mail, which would have resulted in undelivered ballots if voters were not home to sign for them. Postal Service officials were excluded from important discussions as the Trump administration finalized its executive order on mail-in voting.
• Trump administration removed voter registration option for citizens born abroad — The Democratic National Committee sued the Trump administration after it changed a federal voter form to remove the option for U.S. citizens born abroad who have never lived in the U.S. to register to vote and request a mail ballot. The lawsuit also revealed that the Trump administration removed information from a federal voter assistance guide about which states allow "never resided" voters to register.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court schedules Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota for December argument — The U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled the case Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota for argument in December. In that case, the Republican National Committee, backed by the Trump Justice Department, argues that Arizona may cancel the registrations of voters it deems noncitizens during the 90-day quiet period before Election Day. The Trump DOJ has already signaled it will argue that the quiet period does not apply to efforts by a state to remove noncitizens, and that "systematic checks within the 90-day window are the only way" for states to keep noncitizens off the rolls.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court paused lower court order on SAVE citizenship database — The Supreme Court, over the dissent of its three liberal justices, paused a lower court order and allowed the administration to resume using its overhauled SAVE database while litigation continues. The SAVE system links Social Security data with state voter rolls for citizenship verification. A federal judge had found in June that the overhaul violated the Privacy Act and other federal laws. When Texas ran all 18 million of its voters through SAVE, the system flagged 2,724 people; nearly 20 percent were confirmed as citizens and reinstated. Federal law prohibits systematic voter purges within 90 days of federal elections. The Court's majority acknowledged this limit but stated citizenship checks remain permissible in that window and each state decides whether to use SAVE.
• U.S. Supreme Court rules Trump administration may resume voter suppression database for voter removal — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the Trump administration can resume using its voter suppression database to help Republicans remove voters from the rolls. The decision permits the federal government to conduct individualized voter inquiries using the modified SAVE program during the 90-day quiet period before Election Day, though the Court acknowledged this "limits the potential impact" of the ruling. The Court has scheduled a separate case, Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota, for December argument to consider the scope of the quiet period and whether states may conduct systematic noncitizen removal during that window.

Supporting reports

• California Supreme Court orders sheriff to return confiscated ballots — California's Supreme Court ruled that Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco unlawfully confiscated over 650,000 ballots during an inquiry into unsubstantiated fraud claims following a November 2025 special election. Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero found the seizure violated election law and created substantial risk to election integrity. Attorney General Rob Bonta had ordered Bianco to return the ballots; Bianco refused. The court rejected Bianco's argument that the AG could not direct a sheriff's investigation, affirming state authority over election materials. Governor Newsom signed legislation preventing future ballot seizures.
• California Supreme Court ordered sheriff to return confiscated ballots — The California Supreme Court ordered Sheriff Chad Bianco to return the confiscated ballots, ruling that it was Bianco, not voters, who was endangering elections. The court stated: "Allowing law enforcement unfettered access to ballots, or the ability to handle and count them in secret, based on unregulated protocols, itself creates a substantial risk to election integrity."

Supporting reports

• Complaint filed: DSCC v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (D.D.C. 1:26-cv-03330) — The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Democratic Governors Association, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries filed a federal complaint against the Department of Homeland Security, ICE, and the FBI, alleging they have adopted a policy to station armed officers at polling places during the 2026 general election. Plaintiffs claim the policy violates 18 U.S.C. § 592 and Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act, chills voting particularly among naturalized citizens, and forces Democratic organizations to divert resources to voter protection. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief barring armed officers from polling places, drop boxes, and curbside voting locations.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration proposes citizenship question on census and eliminates race/ethnicity data collection — The Trump administration issued a new proposal to add a citizenship question to the U.S. Census questionnaire and bar the Census Bureau from collecting race and ethnicity data despite the nation collecting such demographics since 1790. The citizenship question could exclude millions of people from the census count, affecting congressional apportionment, electoral district mapping, and federal funding allocation to states. The move directly contradicts the 14th Amendment's requirement to count all people living in the United States.

Supporting reports

• DOJ solicitor general appeals mail voting injunction to Supreme Court — John Sauer, the DOJ's solicitor general, filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court on September 6 seeking to lift Judge Talwani's permanent injunction and permit Trump's USPS rules restricting mail voting to take effect. Sauer argued the freeze would cause "serious, irreparable harm" and claimed the order merely imposes "reasonable preparation requirements" rather than seizing control of state election administration, contradicting the judge's findings.
• Trump administration appeals to Supreme Court to restrict mail-in voting ahead of midterms — The Trump administration filed an emergency appeal to the US Supreme Court on Sunday seeking to overturn a federal judge's injunction blocking enforcement of an executive order restricting mail-in voting. US District Judge Indira Talwani had extended the court order on Friday preventing the USPS from enforcing Trump's March executive order, which would limit ballot delivery to voters on a federal DHS-approved list. Solicitor General John Sauer argued that ballots already mailing in multiple states risked "confusion and chaos" if the injunction remained in place. This marks the third Supreme Court appeal on the matter.

Supporting reports

• North Carolina Board of Elections adopted voter-suppressing mail-ballot rules — The North Carolina Board of Elections (NCBOE), described as newly partisan, adopted rules making mail-in voting significantly more difficult. The changes include stricter envelope-sealing requirements and a new restriction limiting who may deliver absentee ballots to "near relatives" only, replacing prior practice. Democracy Out Loud's Legislative Response/Board of Elections Team filed objections to the rules, which the NCBOE disregarded. The effect is to increase the likelihood that mail ballots will be rejected for minor infractions.

Supporting reports

• Steve Bannon announced plan to deploy ICE agents to surround polling places — On his podcast, Steve Bannon stated that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents would "surround the polls come November" to prevent what he characterized as election theft, declaring "we will never again allow an election to be stolen." This public announcement of armed federal presence at polling locations preceded similar statements by administration officials and represented a coordinated messaging effort to normalize federal law enforcement at voting sites.

Supporting reports

• USPS whistleblower reports flawed ballot mail system designed to disrupt mail-in voting — Senator Richard Blumenthal released a whistleblower complaint alleging that the U.S. Postal Service has developed a new, untested IT system for handling federal election ballot mail that is "secretive, rushed, chaotic, and fundamentally flawed." The whistleblower warns that a single barcode scanning failure in a batch of 10,000 ballots will reject the entire batch, potentially preventing millions of voters from receiving mail-in ballots. The system was developed despite a federal court injunction ordering work to stop. The whistleblower questions whether "catastrophic failure would be a feature rather than a bug."
• Federal whistleblower disclosed flaws in USPS mail-voting verification system — An anonymous federal worker filed a whistleblower disclosure with Senator Blumenthal warning that the U.S. Postal Service's new system to regulate mail voting for the midterms has been "rushed, chaotic, and fundamentally flawed." The USPS issued the rule last week, and it is currently blocked by federal court. The whistleblower alleges workers were forced to create the system in weeks when it should have taken 9 months, and that work continued on implementation even after being ordered to stop. The disclosure warns the Trump administration "has hidden the high likelihood that the new ballot mail verification processes will result in major disruptions in mail ballots ever getting delivered to voters." Specific concerns include rejection of entire batches of thousands of ballots when a problem with one voter is found, and no planning for inevitable errors. The whistleblower called one portion of internal software "garbage."
• USPS whistleblower reports catastrophic flaws in new ballot-handling system — A whistleblower disclosed to Congress that the new USPS system for handling federal election ballot mail contains "potentially catastrophic problems." The system rejects entire batches of ballots if even a single barcode fails to scan during verification, preventing thousands of ballots from reaching voters. The disclosure was made public on September 2, four days before Massachusetts began sending mail-in ballots.
• Senator Blumenthal demands USPS Postmaster General cease ballot mail project and provide records — Senator Richard Blumenthal, top-ranking Democrat on the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, issued formal demands to Postmaster General David Steiner to abandon the ballot mail IT project, cease work ordered halted by federal court, and provide by September 8 all records related to the project, including names and dates of personnel involved. Blumenthal characterized the system as designed to "disenfranchise millions of Americans," noting that one-third of all Americans cast ballots by mail.

Supporting reports

• Preliminary injunction ruling — League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump (D. Mass.) 1:26-cv-11549 — Judge Talwani found that USPS Defendants violated the court's preliminary injunction related to “initiating or completing rulemaking to promulgate” specific regulations outlined in Section 3 of EO 14399 by sending a corresponding Final Rule to the Federal Register on Aug. 22, 2026. However, the court declined to impose a remedy “other than identifying the violation,” finding that the relief requested by Plaintiffs would not remedy the past violation but noting that Plaintiffs could choose to file an amended complaint.
• Democratic attorneys general from 23 states filed lawsuit challenging the USPS mail-in ballot rule — Democratic attorneys general from 23 states filed a new lawsuit Wednesday challenging the now-final USPS rule that allows the Postal Service to police mail-in ballot eligibility. The AGs sought an emergency block on the rule, with the first mail-in ballots set to go out the following week.
• Federal judge lifted the last remaining block on Trump's plan to give the Postal Service a new role in policing mail-in ballots — Judge Talwani granted Defendants' motion to reconsider and vacated the court's Aug. 11 preliminary injunction blocking Section 3 of EO 14399 following the Supreme Court's intervening stay of a separate preliminary injunction to Sections 2 and 3 of the same EO in a different but related case, Trump v. California . The vacatur is without prejudice to Plaintiffs amending their complaint. That same day, Plaintiffs filed a Supplemental Complaint adding claims directly challenging the USPS Aug. 21, 2026 Final Rule implementing Section 3 of EO 14399 as a separation-of-powers violation and as unlawful agency action exceeding USPS statutory authority under Title 39. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief that the EO and Final Rules are unlawful and enjoinment of Defendants from continuing implementation of the Final Rule.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — State of California v. United States Postal Service (D. Mass.) 1:26-cv-13917 — A U.S. district judge reluctantly lifted the final injunction blocking Trump's plan to reshape how mail-in ballots are handled. The judge stated the Supreme Court ruling earlier in the week left her little choice. The new Postal Service rules could result in ballots being rejected from voters who do not appear on newly compiled federal eligibility lists. Democratic attorneys general from 23 states filed a new lawsuit Wednesday challenging the now-final USPS rule and seeking an emergency block before mail-in ballots begin going out the following week.
• USPS implements Trump executive order restricting mail-in ballot delivery — Judge Talwani granted in part Plaintiffs' emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO), staying implementation or enforcement of certain provisions of the USPS Final Rule for 14 days as to elections occurring on or before Nov. 3, 2026. The court found Plaintiffs likely to succeed on their claims that USPS lacked statutory authority to issue the Final Rule and that it is unconstitutional. The Court also found Plaintiff Organizations' members to be at risk of irreparable harm, facing a significant risk of disenfranchisement and interference with their rights under state laws. The Court is yet to rule on the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Twenty-four states and DC file lawsuit challenging Trump mail-voting executive order — Judge Talwani granted in part Plaintiffs' emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO), staying implementation or enforcement of certain provisions of the USPS Final Rule for 14 days as to elections occurring on or before Nov. 3, 2026. The court found Plaintiffs likely to succeed on their claims that USPS lacked statutory authority to issue the Final Rule and that it is unconstitutional. The Court also found Plaintiff States face irreparable harm as “compliance [with the Final Rule's requirements] is practically impossible as to the 2026 midterm elections.” The Court is yet to rule on the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
• U.S. District Judge Talwani temporarily blocked mail-voting restrictions — The US Postal Service announced implementation of new rules requiring the post office to withhold ballots for mail-in voting to voters deemed ineligible by Department of Homeland Security and other federal records. The rules stem from a Trump executive order issued earlier in 2026 and apply immediately to November's midterm elections. The US Supreme Court lifted a lower court injunction on Monday; US District Judge Indira Talwani lifted a nationwide block on Wednesday. Twenty-four states and DC filed a lawsuit Wednesday challenging the order as usurping state and congressional authority over elections.
• US District Judge Talwani lifts nationwide block on USPS mail ballot rule — Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit on Wednesday to block the Trump executive order restricting mail-in voting in the 2026 midterm elections. The states argue the USPS policy is part of a broader effort by the administration to "rewrite federal election law and usurp the authority of the states and Congress."
• — Late Thursday, U.S. District Judge Talwani temporarily blocked the Postal Service from enforcing Trump's new mail-voting rule, one day after USPS announced the requirements took effect. The temporary block lasts 14 days while the court considers a longer preliminary injunction, with a hearing scheduled for September 3. The case could quickly return to the Supreme Court. As of Friday morning, Trump's new mail-ballot restrictions are currently blocked.
• — US District Judge Indira Talwani lifted her nationwide injunction blocking implementation of the USPS mail ballot delivery rule, citing the Supreme Court's decision to lift the lower court injunction. The ruling clears the way for the rule to take effect for November's midterm elections.

Supporting reports

• US Supreme Court lifts injunction, allows Trump mail-in voting crackdown to proceed — The US Supreme Court voted 6-3 along ideological lines to lift a June injunction from a Massachusetts federal judge that had blocked Trump's March executive order targeting mail-in voting. The order directs the government to create a "state citizenship list" restricting mail-in ballot delivery and instructs the DOJ to prosecute state and local election officials deemed to have issued ballots to ineligible voters. Democratic-led states and voting rights groups challenged the order as unconstitutional; a second injunction remains in place. The ruling allows implementation to move forward while litigation continues ahead of November midterm elections.
• Supreme Court eased restrictions on Trump's mail-in ballot executive order — A divided Supreme Court lifted one of two injunctions blocking Trump's March executive order restricting mail-in voting, ruling the states' challenge was premature rather than deciding the order's merits. The unsigned opinion held that agencies had not finalized implementation rules when the challenge was filed. The USPS published final rules Friday and plans to make them official Wednesday. Legal analysts note the ruling is narrow and technical, with additional litigation expected as lower courts may issue new injunctions against the finalized rules before the November elections.
• Supreme Court releases opinion in Trump v. California (26A124) — The Supreme Court released an official slip opinion in Trump v. California. Docket number(s): 26A124.
• Supreme Court gave Trump procedural victory on mail-voting restrictions — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states challenging Trump's executive order restricting mail voting sued too early, granting the administration a procedural victory. The Court explicitly stated its decision did not mean the administration's implementation would be lawful. The Postal Service subsequently issued rules implementing parts of the order, including new voter-list and mail-ballot-processing requirements. New lawsuits followed, and on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Talwani temporarily blocked the Postal Service from enforcing the new mail-voting rule for 14 days pending further court consideration.

Supporting reports

• FBI requested voter's IP address as part of voter fraud investigation — Axios reported that Trump's FBI requested and received the IP address of an individual who registered online to vote in South Carolina as part of a new strategy by the administration to investigate alleged voter fraud. A former senior Justice Department official said it is both "not typical" and "not appropriate" for the FBI to conduct a "fishing expedition to see private voter data."

Supporting reports

• Trump administration and states urge justices to allow full implementation of executive order on mail-in voting — The Trump administration, along with several states, has petitioned the Supreme Court to permit the complete enforcement of an executive order concerning mail-in voting. This request seeks to implement new restrictions on mail-in voting, which have been contested in lower courts. The administration argues that these measures are necessary to ensure election integrity, while opponents claim they could suppress voter turnout. The Supreme Court's decision on this matter will have significant implications for the upcoming elections and the broader debate over voting rights.
• Trump administration files emergency appeal to restrict mail-in voting — The Trump administration filed an emergency appeal asking the Supreme Court to allow the president's March executive order restricting mail-in voting to move forward ahead of November's midterm elections. The move came two days after a federal appeals court upheld a block on the order, writing that allowing it to take effect for the midterms "would sow confusion and threaten disenfranchisement of many eligible voters."
• Trump administration sought Supreme Court review of mail voting restrictions — The Trump administration petitioned the Supreme Court to allow enforcement of Trump's mail voting order, which directs Homeland Security to compile state citizenship lists and requires Postal Service rules limiting mail ballots to voters on those lists. Twenty-three states and Washington, D.C., had successfully challenged the restrictions, and the First Circuit declined to revive them. The petition seeks to overturn lower court decisions blocking the order's implementation.

Supporting reports

• House approves $73bn budget for Iran war without Senate Democratic input — House Republicans approved a budget plan allocating $73 billion for the ongoing war with Iran on July 23, 2026, using reconciliation procedures to circumvent the Democratic filibuster in the Senate. The authorization falls short of the Pentagon's original $350 billion request needed to reach the administration's $1.5 trillion overall defense spending target for fiscal 2027. The move reflects Republican efforts to fund military operations without requiring bipartisan Senate approval.
• House passes $1.15tn defense bill with partisan voting and embedded voting restrictions — The Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed a $1.15 trillion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) by a 216-212 vote on July 23, 2026. The bill includes military pay raises, codifies renaming the Pentagon the "Department of War," and allocates funds for the ongoing war with Iran. Democrats largely opposed the measure, citing Trump's unilateral decision to attack Iran without congressional authorization, the inclusion of the Save America Act (banning mail-in ballots and imposing voter ID restrictions), and provisions deepening US-Israel defense cooperation. The bill now proceeds to the Senate.
• House passed National Defense Authorization Act with Section 219 — The House passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which includes Section 219, a controversial provision requiring the U.S. military to share sensitive technology with Israel. Six Democrats voted for the bill: Reps. Henry Cuellar (TX), Donald Davis (NC), Jared Golden (ME), Vicente Gonzalez (TX), Adam Gray (CA), and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (WA). Seven Republicans voted against it: Reps. Josh Brecheen (OK), Tim Burchett (TN), Elijah Crane (AZ), Harriet Hageman (WY), Anna Paulina Luna (FL), Thomas Massie (KY), and Chip Roy (TX).
• Rep. Lauren Boebert missed NDAA vote citing Section 219 concerns — Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) told TMZ she missed the NDAA vote because she was waiting for a call from Secretary Hegseth and the vote was closed before she could participate. She stated she opposed Section 219 because her constituents do not want the military technology swap with Israel and said she was trying to avoid reporters due to recent Botox injections.
• Rep. Thomas Massie opposes NDAA Section 219 — Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) stated that Section 219 of the NDAA "tragically merges our military technology and supply chains with Israel's" and called it "a betrayal of our sovereignty," expressing hope the provision would fail in the Senate.
• House Republicans merge NDAA with voting restrictions (Save America Act) — House Republicans, bowing to pressure from rightwing lawmakers and Trump, merged the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) with the Save America Act, legislation that would ban mail-in ballots and impose new voter identification requirements at registration and ballot-casting. Democrats objected to the $1.15tn NDAA cost and halted advancement of the Senate version in protest of renewed Iran hostilities, complicating the defense budget's Senate passage.
• House Republicans pass $95bn Iran war spending and voting restrictions before summer recess — House Republicans, led by Speaker Mike Johnson, passed a $95bn budget blueprint for Iran war spending and a super-sized military budget (NDAA) merged with voting restrictions (the Save America Act) during their final week before summer recess. Four dissident Republicans joined Democrats to pass a symbolic war powers resolution mandating Trump withdraw troops from Iran. Senate Republican leader John Thune signaled he would place the budget on "hold" as leverage in funding negotiations, raising the likelihood the Iran spending question remains undecided until September.

Supporting reports

• House Republicans pass Save America Act linked to spending bill — On Wednesday, July 16, 2026, the House of Representatives passed a combined measure linking the Save America Act—which would ban mail-in ballots and impose voter identification requirements—to an unrelated State Department spending authorization bill. The vote was 217–209, largely along party lines. The bill faces certain opposition in the Senate, where Democrats control enough votes to filibuster. Trump administration officials framed the measure as necessary to prevent non-citizen voting; voting rights advocates warn it could disenfranchise eligible voters ahead of November midterm elections.

Supporting reports

• Trump ousts three members of independent election administration commission — President Trump removed three members from an independent federal commission that works with states on administering elections. The removal occurred last week and sparked concern among Democrats about election integrity ahead of the November midterms. Senate Intelligence Committee ranking Democrat Mark Warner characterized the action as an attempt to "rig" the upcoming elections and called for Republican opposition to Trump's dismantling of election administration processes.

Supporting reports

• Trump refused to sign housing bill, conditioning it on passage of voting-restriction legislation — President Trump announced he would not sign a bipartisan housing bill designed to address housing affordability, which had passed Congress with strong majorities. Trump stated he would not sign it "in PROTEST" unless the Senate passed the SAVE AMERICA ACT, which observers agree is designed to suppress voting. The bill became law without his signature at 11:59 PM on July 10, 2026.
• Trump declined to sign Housing Bill, allowing it to become law without signature — Trump announced via Truth Social that he would not sign the Housing Bill, citing protest over the Senate's failure to pass the SAVE Act. However, he also stated he would not veto the bill, knowing Congress would override a veto. House GOP leadership had spent ten days persuading Trump not to veto and conveyed they had override votes. The bill became law at midnight without Trump's signature.

Supporting reports

• California appeals court rules Huntington Beach photo ID requirement unlawful and preempted by state law — In November 2025, a California appeals court ruled that Huntington Beach's photo ID voting requirement was unlawful and preempted by state law. The court sided with California's argument that voting rights and election rules are matters of statewide concern and that local governments cannot impose voting restrictions that conflict with state law. The California Supreme Court later declined to hear the city's appeal, leaving the ruling in place.
• Cochise County, Arizona Republican supervisors attempted full hand count audit of early ballots in 2022 — In 2022, Cochise County, Arizona Republican supervisors attempted to launch a full hand count audit of early ballots, despite warnings from state and county officials. A judge blocked the plan, and an Arizona appeals court later affirmed that the county could not conduct a full hand count of all early ballots. After losing the hand count fight, county supervisors also delayed certification of the 2022 election results before complying with a court order.
• U.S. Department of Justice sued Thornapple, Wisconsin over removal of accessible voting machines — The U.S. Department of Justice, under President Joe Biden, sued Thornapple, Wisconsin after the town stopped using accessible voting machines. The DOJ argued that the move violated the Help America Vote Act, a federal law requiring polling places to give voters with disabilities the same opportunity to vote privately and independently as other voters. The town eventually agreed to bring accessible machines back.
• Huntington Beach, California passed local photo ID voting requirement for municipal elections in 2024 — In 2024, Huntington Beach voters approved Measure 1, a local charter amendment that would have required voters to show photo ID at the polls for municipal elections beginning in 2026. The measure became a test case for whether a charter city could impose voting restrictions that state law does not permit. California argued that voting rights and election rules are matters of statewide concern and that local governments cannot create conflicting rules.
• Luzerne County, Pennsylvania county manager removed all ballot drop boxes ahead of 2024 election — In 2024, the Luzerne County manager moved to remove all ballot drop boxes ahead of the election, citing security concerns. The decision came after the county board of elections had already approved using the drop boxes. Voting rights groups sued, arguing that the manager lacked authority to override the board's decision. The drop boxes were later restored following legal action.
• North Carolina Republican-controlled county election boards advance plans to cut early voting locations — Ahead of the 2026 primary, Republican-controlled county election boards in North Carolina advanced plans to cut early voting locations, remove campus polling places, and eliminate Sunday voting in several counties. In Guilford County, local Republicans targeted early voting sites at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro and North Carolina A&T State University, the nation's largest historically Black university. In Jackson County, Republican board members moved to remove a longstanding early voting site at Western Carolina University. The Republican-controlled state election board later rejected campus voting sites in those counties and cut Sunday voting in others.
• Nye County, Nevada county officials moved to count ballots by hand after fraud claims — Nye County, Nevada officials moved to count ballots by hand after false claims about widespread fraud fueled distrust of voting machines. The Nevada Supreme Court limited parts of the plan before the 2022 midterms, the secretary of state's office halted the count after a legal challenge, and the county ultimately used machines as its primary vote-counting method while running a parallel hand count.
• Otero County, New Mexico Republican commissioners refused to certify 2022 primary results — In Otero County, New Mexico, Republican commissioners refused to certify 2022 primary election results, claiming they did not trust the county's vote tabulators despite offering no evidence of problems. The commission also voted to discontinue secured drop boxes and state voting machines, even after being told it lacked legal authority to do so.
• Wausau, Wisconsin mayor removed city's ballot drop box in September 2024 — In September 2024, Wausau Mayor Doug Diny removed the city's only ballot drop box from outside City Hall, posing for photos in a hard hat and work gloves as he removed it. The box was later returned, and the city's ethics board found that Diny violated Wausau's ethics policy. Prosecutors declined to charge him criminally.

Supporting reports

• Shasta County, California approves Measure B restricting mail-in voting, early voting, and voter registration — Shasta County voters approved Measure B on June 15, 2026, with 56% support. The measure would end most mail-in and early voting, require strict photo ID for voter registration and voting, mandate hand-counting of ballots, and disconnect the county from California's statewide voter registration system. California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced the state would sue to block the measure, arguing that counties cannot unilaterally rewrite statewide election rules that apply uniformly across all 58 California counties.
• California Attorney General announces lawsuit to block Shasta County Measure B — California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced that the state would sue to block Shasta County's Measure B, arguing that no county can unilaterally rewrite statewide election rules. The lawsuit challenges the measure on the grounds that election protections and voting rules are matters of statewide concern and that local governments cannot create conflicting election rules that contradict state law.

Supporting reports

• Trump and GOP allies promote baseless election fraud claims about California primary results — President Trump and Republican allies used California's ongoing primary ballot count to falsify claims of election fraud after Los Angeles mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt (R) slipped to third place. Trump posted on Truth Social that Pratt's loss was "not possible" and called California a "3rd World Nation" with "Rigged Elections." The article explains California's extended count results from pro-voting policies requiring ballot verification and mail-in ballot processing, not fraud.
• Conservative commentators promote unsubstantiated voter-fraud allegations in California primary — As vote-counting continued in California's governor's primary, some conservative commentators promoted unsubstantiated allegations of voter fraud, specifically targeting mail-in ballots that tend to skew Democratic. Trump had previously issued a national executive order aimed at curbing mail-in ballot use. The California secretary of state urged patience and reaffirmed the state's commitment to balancing voting rights with election security.
• Ron DeSantis amplified unsubstantiated claims about California vote counting — Ron DeSantis, seeking a position in the Trump administration, posted on social media suggesting that California's vote counting process was fraudulent, stating "California keeps dumping votes. Odds are shifting because the vote dumps always seem to go one way. Count until you get the result you want?" His remarks echoed Trump's earlier unsubstantiated claims about election fraud in California.
• Trump posted unsubstantiated claims about California election fraud at 1:00 AM — Trump posted multiple messages on Truth Social claiming widespread fraud in California's primary elections, alleging that vote counting was being delayed and that Democrats were "stealing" races for governor and Los Angeles mayor. He claimed the situation was "under investigation by the US Attorney's Office in Los Angeles." The posts were made during a 1:00 AM posting rampage while Trump had fallen asleep earlier that day during an EPA Administrator's remarks at a press event in the Oval Office.
• Trump declares election rigging in California without evidence — President Trump publicly accused California of "cheating" and election "rigging" on Thursday and Friday, claiming mail-in ballots were being found "shockingly" and stating the DOJ would open an investigation. He congratulated his favored candidate Steve Hilton despite ongoing ballot counting. State officials and Democratic lawmakers rejected the allegations as baseless and characterized Trump's statements as deliberate election misinformation designed to undermine voter confidence in democratic processes.

Supporting reports

• United States Postal Service proposed mail-in ballot restriction — The United States Postal Service proposed a rule that would send mail-in ballots only to voters registered with the federal government. The proposal would represent a massive expansion of federal control over voting without congressional authorization. The proposal reflects the Trump administration's ongoing efforts to gain control over state voter lists and election administration, efforts that have been repeatedly rejected by courts on the grounds that the Constitution establishes that states run elections.
• Federal judge in Massachusetts blocks USPS mail ballot restriction — A federal judge in Massachusetts issued an order in June 2026 blocking the Trump administration's directive to the USPS to restrict mail ballot delivery to voters on federal pre-approved lists. The block applies to the 23 blue states and Washington, D.C. that challenged the order.
• Trump orders DOJ to investigate California elections — Trump ordered the Department of Justice to investigate California elections after his preferred candidate trailed in the state's June gubernatorial primary. The order relied on conspiracy theories to justify the investigation.

Supporting reports

• Tennessee repealed 1972 law prohibiting mid-decade redistricting — To enable the new congressional map, Tennessee lawmakers repealed a 1972 state law that prohibited mid-decade redistricting. Gov. Bill Lee signed the repeal approximately one hour after it cleared the Republican supermajority. The repeal was necessary to make the rapid redistricting legally possible and was enacted during a special session whose stated purpose did not include redistricting reform, according to legal challenges filed by the NAACP Tennessee State Conference.
• Tennessee repealed law prohibiting mid-decade redistricting — As part of the special legislative session, Tennessee's Republican supermajority repealed the state's longstanding law that prohibited redistricting between census cycles. The legislature also removed the requirement that election officials notify voters by mail if redistricting changed their polling places or precincts.
• Tennessee legislature enacts new congressional map eliminating majority-Black Memphis district — Tennessee's Republican-controlled legislature enacted a new congressional map on May 7, 2026, that carves up the state's only majority-Black congressional district centered in Memphis, splitting it across three Republican-leaning districts. Gov. Bill Lee called a special session on May 5, the legislature repealed a state law prohibiting mid-decade redistricting since 1972, drew the new map, and passed it on May 7. Lee signed it into law the same day. The action followed the Supreme Court's April 29 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, which weakened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act protections for voters of color in redistricting cases.
• Tennessee Republicans approved congressional map dismantling majority-Black district — On May 7, Tennessee Republican lawmakers approved a new congressional map that splits Black voters in Memphis and Shelby County across three majority-white districts stretching hundreds of miles into central Tennessee, dismantling the state's only majority-Black congressional district. The map was unveiled only 24 hours before the vote. To enable mid-decade redistricting, lawmakers first repealed a 1972 state law prohibiting it; Gov. Bill Lee signed the repeal within an hour. The ACLU and civil-rights groups argue the map constitutes intentional racial discrimination and dilutes Black voting power, though Republican leaders defend it as partisan rather than racial redistricting.
• Tennessee Republicans passed new congressional map carving majority-Black Memphis into three Republican districts — On May 7, Tennessee's Republican supermajority passed a new congressional map that splits Shelby County (majority-Black Memphis) across three Republican-controlled districts, weakening the political power of the state's only majority-Black congressional district. The legislature also repealed its longstanding law prohibiting mid-decade redistricting and removed the requirement that election officials notify voters of redistricting changes. Gov. Bill Lee signed the map into law the same day. Protesters filled the state Capitol; state troopers cleared the House gallery; Democratic lawmakers walked out. The NAACP Tennessee State Conference filed an emergency lawsuit in Davidson County Chancery Court within three hours to block the map.
• Tennessee weakened voter-notice requirements for redistricting changes — The redistricting package weakened direct voter-notice requirements. County election officials will no longer be required under state law to directly notify voters by mail when redistricting changes affect their polling-place assignments, though separate funding was included to reimburse counties that choose to send notices. The Secretary of State's office announced a special qualifying period for U.S. House candidates through noon on May 15, and local reporting indicates the new districts bring changes for some voters and candidates.
• Tennessee legislature cracked Memphis into three districts, diluting Black voting power — The Tennessee legislature, in emergency special session called by Governor Bill Lee, repealed its own law prohibiting mid-decade redistricting and then cracked Memphis—where 60 percent of residents are Black—into three districts. This diluted Black voting power by swamping Black voters with white suburban voters. The action targeted Tennessee's only Democratic member of Congress, who represented Memphis.
• Tennessee legislature redraws congressional maps to eliminate majority-Black 9th District — The Tennessee state legislature voted to redraw congressional district maps, cracking the city of Memphis into three pieces and joining them to white suburbs, thereby converting all state districts to Republican seats. This action directly eliminated the majority-Black 9th Congressional District, stripping Black voters of effective representation. The redistricting followed the Supreme Court's April 29 decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which struck down race-conscious district creation under the Voting Rights Act, triggering a wave of Republican-led redistricting nationwide to eliminate Democratic representation.
• Tennessee governor signed new congressional map into law — Gov. Bill Lee signed the new congressional redistricting map into law on May 7, the same day the Republican supermajority passed it. The map redraws the state's only Democratic-held U.S. House seat (Tennessee's 9th District, held by Rep. Steve Cohen and rooted in majority-Black Memphis) by splitting Shelby County across three Republican-leaning districts.
• Tennessee Republicans redrew congressional maps eliminating Democratic district — Tennessee Republicans redrew the state's congressional maps behind closed doors with the explicit goal of eliminating the single Democratic congressional district in the state. The new map breaks up the state's only Black-majority district. Democratic Representative Justin Pearson confronted the Sergeant at Arms who was blocking the door during the redistricting process and was ultimately escorted out by state troopers.