Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for our free weekly newsletter to get the latest.

Clarification, Oct. 14: This story has been updated to clarify what Cleta Mitchell wants the Commerce Department to do and her role in Trump’s 2020 call to the Georgia secretary of state.

Since being released early from prison in June, former Colorado election clerk Tina Peters has been granted extraordinary access to the halls of power in Washington.

Peters said she has traveled to Washington seven times, visited the White House at least twice, and met with senior officials at the Justice and Commerce departments — remarkable access for someone on parole after a 2024 felony conviction for tampering with voting machines in an attempt to show that the 2020 election was rigged against President Donald Trump.

She’s a high-profile example of a group of Trump supporters and conservative activists trying to lay out a roadmap for the president to follow. They are urging him to take more extreme steps to try and influence the outcome of an election that many polls suggest could end Republican control of Congress. But as the election closes in, the activists are now voicing increasing concerns that the president and his administration aren’t going to act on their ideas.

Peters isn’t shy about what she wants. The 71-year-old activist is pushing the Trump administration to use emergency powers before the November election to scrutinize voting machines across America, though that’s something most experts and lawyers say it can’t legally do.

“A lot of people would say that we just need to go rogue and declare this radical emergency and we need to shut everything down,” Peters said last week on an election activist livestream on Rumble. “The encouraging part is that there are already orders and laws in place that allow them to do what they need to do.”

Other conservative activists pushing for changes to election administration include:

• Cleta Mitchell, head of the Election Integrity Network and a Trump ally, who is pushing the Commerce Department to require a partial hand count of the election results because of potential national security risks with voting machines.
• Mike Lindell, a longtime Trump ally who has spent years promoting claims that voting machines were used to manipulate U.S. elections, who wants Trump to declare a national emergency and prevent the use of electronic voting machines in November.
• Peter Ticktin, a Florida attorney representing Peters and longtime Trump friend, who said Trump might have to declare martial law if the election results are in question.
• Steve Bannon, a longtime Trump ally and former White House chief strategist who hosts the influential right-wing podcast War Room, who has repeatedly urged Trump to use emergency powers to require voter identification at the polls and send ICE agents to polling places.
• James Mills, head of the Georgia State Election Board, who sent a letter last week urging the Trump administration to compel his state to make election software updates before the November election.

A wide array of lawyers, voting rights groups, civil rights leaders, and Democrats have denounced the ideas as an unconstitutional attack on the nation’s electoral process. But such criticisms haven’t deterred Trump from trying to advance a variety of proposals to impose more federal control over elections.

Federal courts have blocked Trump from advancing key pillars of two executive orders that would have transformed the U.S. Postal Service into a ballot regulation agency, eliminated grace periods for ballots arriving after Election Day, and required all people to provide documented proof of citizenship to register to vote.

---

Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.

---

With most of his efforts at election oversight blocked, Trump has left open the possibility he might heed the calls of supporters urging him to take drastic action before November.

“Let me just say that stranger things have happened, OK?” Trump said in an August interview with Wayne Allyn Root on Real America’s Voice, responding to a question about declaring a national security emergency as a way to assert more authority over elections. “I’ll leave it at that.”

‘Sowing confusion, chaos and distrust’

The Trump administration has laid out an Election Day plan that includes dispatching 1,000 election monitors to look for any problems in key states, establishing FBI command posts across the nation, and military monitoring of potential cyber attacks from hostile nations. Pentagon officials have said they have no plans to send armed forces to polling places on Election Day. But the Trump administration has stopped short of foreclosing the possibility that ICE or armed federal agents could operate near or in polling places, a move that could cross legal lines.

Sean Morales-Doyle, senior director of the Brennan Center’s Voting Rights and Elections Program, said federal laws and precedent make it extremely unlikely that Trump would be able to take any meaningful steps to seize voting machines before the election. And that may not be the ultimate goal, he said.

“The point of this concerted campaign to undermine our elections from this administration is really not about changing the rules, because even they know the president lacks the authority,” said Morales-Doyle. “It is about sowing confusion, chaos and distrust and undermining public trust in our elections.”

Peters appears to be the person who has had the greatest access to Trump administration officials in recent months. Trump had lunch at the White House with Peters and Ticktin in late June, just four weeks after Peters was released from state prison. Peters returned for a second visit last week, Ticktin told Votebeat.

Mitchell and Peters have focused part of their efforts on persuading the Commerce Department to use what they said is existing authority over voting machines, which a letter from Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said introduces a national security risk because they contain parts from other nations, including China.

Mitchell argues that a national emergency declaration that Trump declared in 2019 gives the Commerce Department the power to compel election officials to conduct a partial hand count before certification. Earlier this year, Justice Department official Keith Olsen reportedly tried to get the Commerce Department to classify voting machine components as national security threats, which could lead to them being banned from use in the U.S. But investigators found no evidence to support the claims, Reuters reported, and the idea was scrapped.

Mitchell, in an interview with Votebeat, expressed frustration that the Trump administration has not placed enough importance on the concerns and blamed people working for the president for not doing enough to address election issues.

“I can call the president anytime I want to — and I have,” said Mitchell, who declined to say when she last spoke to Trump. “I told the president this: I wish that the people in your administration knew or cared as much about election integrity as you do.”

Neither the Commerce Department nor the White House responded to requests for comment.

Mitchell said she signs every message to administration officials with the same sign-off: Tick-tock.

That’s the same message Ticktin said he has been trying to convey.

“We are running out of time,” said Ticktin, who characterized the threat from Chinese-made parts in voting machines as akin to an act of war.

“This is getting serious enough and critical enough that it might even require, at some point, martial law,” said Ticktin. “People say: ‘Ticktin’s crazy.’ If I’m not crazy and what I am saying is true that China is attacking us in some way, well then we’re really in a state of belligerence with China and, sooner or later, it’s going to be too late to change things in a peaceful way.”

Ticktin suggested that federal forces could help seize voting machines in places where the count is in question, and potentially hand-count ballots.

Ticktin’s call represents the most extreme — and most unlikely — idea being pushed by election skeptics.

Mitchell, Peters, and others have been urging the administration to take more strategic steps to address their concerns.

A focal point for the group is Georgia, where Mills surprised members of the state elections board by sending off a letter urging the Trump administration to order major changes to the state’s voting equipment before the November election.

The letter asked the Justice Department to force state and county officials to install software updates before the November election. It also asked the Justice Department to prevent QR-code-based tabulation in Georgia and require Georgia to end its use of the codes in six months. But installing new software would require time, money and resources — all of which are in short supply for Georgia in the weeks leading up to the election.

Trump has long focused his ire on Georgia, where he lost the 2020 presidential election by fewer than 12,000 votes — less than 1% of the ballots cast. Mitchell joined Trump on a call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger after the election where the president pressed him to “find” him more than 11,000 votes, enough to change the outcome. Earlier this year, the FBI searched Fulton County’s election hub and seized more than 650 boxes, including ballots, from the 2020 election. The results in Georgia this fall will be pivotal to partisan control of the U.S. Senate.

Beyond Georgia, others like Bannon and Lindell keep pressing the president to issue a new national security declaration to prevent the use of electronic voting machines to tally votes at all.

“The president needs to completely declare a national emergency,” Lindell said. “The president can just make a national argument and say, ‘Hey, we’re going to go paper ballots, hand counting.’”

But making such a declaration wouldn’t allow Trump to ban voting machines or require states to count all ballots by hand. The Constitution grants the president limited control over elections, which are usually handled by state and local officials with direction from Congress.

At the end of the day, said Morales-Doyle, the most important thing voters can do is make plans to cast their ballots in ways they feel safe and secure.

“At this moment, when democracy has come under such unprecedented and pointed attacks, it is more important than ever that people invest in democracy and that do so in defiance of all this,” he said.

Dion Nissenbaum is Votebeat’s senior national reporter and is based in Houston. Contact Dion at dnissenbaum@votebeat.org.

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization covering local election integrity and voting access. Sign up for their newsletters here.

The post From martial law to banning voting machines, election skeptics urge Trump to take extreme action appeared first on Salon.com.

This article was originally published by Votebeat, a nonprofit news organization covering local election administration and voting access. Sign up for their free weekly newsletter to get the latest.

Since being released early from prison in June, former Colorado election clerk Tina Peters has been granted extraordinary access to the halls of power in Washington.

Peters said she has traveled to Washington seven times, visited the White House at least twice, and met with senior officials at the Justice and Commerce departments — remarkable access for someone on parole after a 2024 felony conviction for tampering with voting machines in an attempt to show that the 2020 election was rigged against President Donald Trump.

She’s a high-profile example of a group of Trump supporters and conservative activists trying to lay out a roadmap for the president to follow. They are urging him to take more extreme steps to try and influence the outcome of an election that many polls suggest could end Republican control of Congress. But as the election closes in, the activists are now voicing increasing concerns that the president and his administration aren’t going to act on their ideas.

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S.

This news analysis was originally distributed in Votebeat’s free weekly newsletter. Sign up to get future editions, including the latest reporting from Votebeat bureaus and curated news from other publications, delivered to your inbox every Saturday.

The U.S. Postal Service had enough problems even before President Donald Trump tried to transform the agency into a de facto election regulation hub that would have had the power to reject ballots heading to voters this November.

That plan was quashed by the Supreme Court after a tumultuous legal battle. But that hasn’t taken the spotlight off the Postal Service, which is still facing a lot of questions about how prepared it is to handle the massive flow of ballots moving around the country over the next four weeks.

The Postal Service has lost money for decades. Since 2007, the agency has lost $118 billion. Despite a mantra that “neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night” would keep the mail from getting through, the Postal Service is charging customers more and delivering some mail more slowly. Things are so bad that the Postmaster General has warned that the agency could run out of cash early next year.

The problems are a concern for tens of millions of Americans expected to vote by mail in this November’s elections. This year, the challenges could be compounded by belt-tightening measures that could lead to more ballots being rejected if voters aren’t paying attention.

The so-called Regional Transportation Optimization plan the agency rolled out last year has reduced pickup times at more than 15,000 post offices that are more than 50 miles from a regional processing center. That means a ballot could sit in a local post office and not get a postmark until the following day.

For people dropping off their ballots at the last minute, that could mean the difference between their votes being counted or rejected. The problems are likely to have the biggest impact on rural areas, which tend to be more likely to vote for Republicans.

Oregon has been an early case study in how the system works — or doesn’t. Oregon, which was the first state to shift to voting entirely by mail in 1998, was part of the Postal Service pilot project testing the consolidation process. The results were not encouraging. The Postal Service’s own audit found that performance declined and complaints increased.

---

Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.

---

Most importantly for voters, Oregon has seen an increase in ballots being rejected because they weren’t postmarked as required by Election Day. During the primary election this past May, more than 7,300 ballots that might have been counted when they came in after Election Day were rejected because they didn’t have a proper postmark, amounting to a 13% rejection rate, up from 9.5% in 2024.

That set off some alarm bells in Oregon, which is trying to address the problems and ensure that fewer ballots are rejected this November.

Leading the charge is Secretary of State Tobias Read, a Democrat who has worked to expand the state’s ballot drop box system, which operates independently of the Postal Service. Oregon has more than 320 drop boxes. More than 60% of all Oregon voters used drop boxes in 2024, but it’s much easier for people in urban areas to use them than those in rural areas, where it can take an hour or more to reach one. Read just got state lawmakers to add another 20 for the November election to help expand the system’s reach.

Read is so worried about postal delays that he’s encouraging people to send ballots back a week before the election or instead plan to secure a postmark or vote another way.

“We can’t count on it,” said Read, referring to the Postal Service. “It might work, but I don’t want anyone to be taking a chance with their ballot.”

Voters who send their ballots back close to Election Day should go into the post office and ask workers to manually postmark the ballot, Read said.

“It’s not that the Postal Service is something you should avoid,” he said. “Just do it early if you’re going to use the mail.”

The Postal Service itself is also encouraging voters to send their ballots back well before Election Day to ensure they are counted. The agency has a 90-second public service announcement on its website urging people to “mail early.” For some voters, the agency suggests that people send their ballots in at least a week before the deadline.

In Washington, Secretary of State Steve Hobbs is going further and urging people to send in their ballots 10 days before the deadlines to ensure that they aren’t rejected. The problem with ballots being rejected because of late postmarks skyrocketed in some Washington counties by more than 300% between the 2024 primary and the 2026 primary.

Like Read, Hobbs, a Democrat, is encouraging people to use a drop box to return their ballots – and make sure they make a plan to ensure their vote is counted.

“If you’re going to mail, you better do it right away,” he said. “Don’t wait.”

Dion Nissenbaum is Votebeat’s senior national reporter and is based in Houston. Contact Dion at dnissenbaum@votebeat.org.

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization covering local election integrity and voting access. Sign up for their newsletters here.

The post ‘Mail early’: Election officials urge people to get ballots in pronto amid Postal Service slowdowns appeared first on Salon.com.

Hello, and welcome back to The Franchise!

With just weeks until the midterm elections, the Trump administration is, unsurprisingly, still hard at work seeking evidence of widespread non-citizen voting. And it is still not finding it. 

We got new details this week about exactly what the administration has been up to thanks to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. Over the past year, ICE has reviewed millions of records and investigated hundreds of nonprofits suspected of helping noncitizens register to vote, according to internal records that were obtained by the nonprofit Democracy Forward. “The information revealed in the documents should concern all Americans and is further evidence of an alarming attempt by the executive branch to undermine our elections,” Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward, said in a statement.

The records note that these investigations were, in part, meant “to identify specific organizations that may be predatory in nature, particularly those suspected of illegal registration and voter encouragement.”

For years now, the Trump administration has been pushing the false narrative that non-citizens are voting en masse for Democrats. There is no evidence of any kind to suggest this is the case. The lack of evidence, however, has not stopped President Trump from pushing forward this lie on a near-daily basis and using the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to investigate the conspiracy theory. It functions as another way to drum up fear and distrust in our election system just in time for the midterm elections. 

The newly released records reveal that “48.4 million records were obtained by [DHS deputy assistant secretary for election integrity] Heather Honey through independent sources of information”  as part of what is described as a “strategic line of effort” to investigate instances of supposed non-citizen voting. DHS Investigators also looked at 50.6 million records from the DOJ, the documents say; those records, CNN reported, could include unredacted voter data from some states. 

The records also indicate that Homeland Security Investigation (HSI), an investigative unit within ICE, watched recent primary elections “to identify emerging trends, vulnerabilities, or indicators that may impact election integrity.”

“DHS has been incredibly transparent about the acquisition and the analysis of publicly available voter files conducted by the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate of USCIS,” the Department told CNN. “DHS and DOJ are laser focused on prosecuting and removing aliens who vote and preventing the dilution of the votes of US citizens.”

The documents also reveal that HSI considered deploying undercover agents to investigate certain non-profits that the administration suspected of having helped register non-citizens to vote, and named New Jersey and Pennsylvania as specific “areas of focus.”

The records indicate that HSI specifically investigated a branch of CAIR, The Council on American-Islamic Relations in Pennsylvania as well as the clothing company Zumiez, which were both, per the documents, “flagged for further investigation.”

As always, we have a lot more to unpack this week, so let’s dig in. 

Reminder: There are Hundreds of Election Deniers Running for Office

There are by one tally a staggering 197 election deniers on the midterm ballots next month, according to newly released research from States United Action.

We have previously highlighted some of the most prominent election deniers hoping to win elections this fall. For example, Jim Marchant is a big time election conspiracy theorist and is currently running as the Republican candidate for secretary of state in Nevada. Marchant, who has consistently repeated lies about the 2020 election for years now, also won the GOP nomination for secretary of state back in 2022, and was the founding member of America First Secretary of State Coalition. The coalition was a group of election deniers all running for secretary of state positions on 2020 election conspiracy theory platforms, intent on somehow overturning the results of that election. Marchant lost to Democrat Cisco Aguilar in 2022, and, at the time, told NBC News that if he was secretary of state he would not have certified the 2020 election results in favor of Joe Biden. 

Marchant, however, is just one of many election deniers on the ballot. More specifically, and most concerning, there are, per States United Action, at least 33 election deniers in 21 states on the ballot running for positions that would play a role in overseeing elections, including 17 election deniers running for governor, 7 election deniers running for secretary of state, and nine election deniers running for attorney general. 

“Our 2026 research shows how deeply embedded the election denial movement is, even as fewer Election Deniers are running for office than we saw in 2022,” Kelly Rader, Research Director at States United Action, said in a press release this week. “The election denial movement is showing up across every facet of our democracy — from the ballot box to the White House.” 

Todd Blanche is Doubling Down on DOJ’s Decision to Send 1,000 Election Monitors to the Polls

Attorney General Todd Blanche is defending the DOJ’s decision to send 1,000 election monitors to various polling locations throughout the country for the midterm elections. 

To jog your memory, we noted back in August that Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Harmeet Dhillon confirmed to Bloomberg News that the DOJ planned to dispatch close to 1,000 election monitors next month as a way to, as the DOJ claimed, secure the midterm elections. 

State and local election administrators have a different concern: that this onslaught of federal election monitors will be intimidating for voters. 

Dhillon has sought to play it down as business-as-usual. “The United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division has sent monitors to election hot spots, polling places to increase voter confidence to troubleshoot problems and we are doing that now. We just did it in the primary,” Dhillon said at the time. “We’re going to do it to the tune of approximately a thousand election monitors in the November election, and this is just something that DOJ does.”

More recently, on Sunday, Blanche told Fox News’s Shannon Bream that the administration’s decision to send federal election monitors to polling sites is simply to make sure “that federal law is being enforced appropriately.”

“They’re not going to Republican states, they’re not going to Democrat states,” Blanche said.”They are going to every state to make sure our elections are carried out legally, fairly and appropriately.” 

Blanche also shut down speculation that armed federal agents would be deployed at polling stations, calling the claim “completely false.”

Relatedly, the NAACP filed a federal lawsuit against Dhillon only days before Blanche’s comments, demanding records about the DOJ’s plan to deploy 1,000 election monitors for the midterm elections.

“This unprecedented deployment of federal officials stands to jeopardize the election and interfere with the right of voters to participate in the election free from intimidation,” the lawsuit reads. “Courts have recognized that unnecessary law enforcement and government presence at polling sites can cause fear, create confusion, impose burdens on election officials, and have a chilling or coercive effect on the electorate.”

In Other Election News

CNN: Inside Democrats’ efforts to secure Election Day and respond to fears of Trump interference

ABC News:Trump sows doubt about mail-in voting while encouraging it, as midterms approach 

Colorado Newsline: Tina Peters met with Trump to discuss election plans, former Trump administration attorney says

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Wisconsin’s free newsletter here.

In the run-up to the November election, federal officials have sent conflicting signals about whether law enforcement agents could show up at polling places.

FBI Director Kash Patel declined to rule out deploying FBI agents to voting sites. The Department of Homeland Security has said ICE does not plan to patrol polling places, while leaving open the possibility that agents could respond to threats or serve warrants nearby. The Justice Department, meanwhile, has said it will continue sending federal personnel to polling locations as part of its election-monitoring efforts.

The mixed messages are already shaping preparations around the country: In Wisconsin, election officials are being trained on how to respond if armed federal agents appear at polling places, while in Michigan, the attorney general’s office has prepared agents, state police officials and legal filings to respond quickly to election-related incidents.

The uncertainty has left election officials preparing for scenarios they may never face and voters unsure what federal presence, if any, to expect in November.

A recent University of San Diego poll found that 40% of Americans said they think it’s likely that ICE agents will show up at the polls, and a third said their presence would reduce their trust in elections.

Federal law sharply restricts the deployment of armed federal agents at polling places, and experts say election officials have tools to respond if agents show up in violation of those restrictions.

Federal law prohibits U.S. officials from sending or keeping “troops or armed men at any place where a general or special election is held,” with only narrow exceptions for when those people are voting or if their presence is necessary “to repel armed enemies of the United States.”

Another federal law prohibits voter intimidation, with up to a yearlong prison sentence for anybody who intimidates, threatens, or coerces somebody else with the purpose of interfering with another person’s right to vote.

“It’s low likelihood, and it’s certainly impossible that any sort of federal presence could be there at every polling site in America,” said Aaron Blacksberg, federal policy counsel at the Institute for Responsive Government. “But without knowing for certain, people are concerned.”

---

Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.

---

Blacksberg said that voters especially worried about the possibility of federal law enforcement at the polls could vote by mail, drop their ballot at a drop box or or use another alternative voting option available in their jurisdiction.

The prohibition on deploying armed federal personnel to polling places is a criminal statute, said Jonathan Diaz, director of voting advocacy and partnerships for the Campaign Legal Center. “The person who orders the agents or officers to the polls also would face criminal liability for doing that,” he said.

In most jurisdictions, Diaz added, election officials are empowered to remove people from the polls if they’re causing a disruption or violating polling place rules, and they can work with local law enforcement to enforce those rules. If a voter sees federal agents at polling places in a manner that may be illegal, Diaz said, they should alert their local election officials.

Federal agents could also end up near a polling place for reasons unrelated to the election.

That happened in May, when a traffic stop led to a car being pulled over near a polling place, and ICE agents showed up to question the driver. Local law enforcement quickly showed up to tell the federal agents to leave the premises. County officials said voters weren’t questioned and polling places ran normally despite the brief ICE presence nearby.

Courts have confronted voter intimidation before

There’s little precedent for the possibility of federal agents at the polls, but courts have addressed other efforts involving law-enforcement personnel at polling places.

For example, in 1981 the Democratic National Committee took the Republican National Committee to court for allegedly seeking to revoke the registrations of minority voters in New Jersey and enlisting off-duty officers to intimidate voters by standing at the polls in heavily Black and Latino precincts. The Republican Party entered a consent decree that lasted over three decades, heavily restricting its planned election security efforts.

The decree is no longer in effect, but it could be cited in future cases “if something really grotesque were to happen in the area of voter intimidation by people looking like law enforcement” said Lorraine Minnite, a Rutgers University political science professor who served as an expert witness in the case.

She also said voters should feel confident that election officials are prepared to respond to federal interference.

Recent Votebeat reporting illustrates that around the country, top state prosecutors, secretaries of state and local election officials are preparing for scenarios like ICE showing up at the polls and preparing legal filings in advance. Some have rehearsed how to respond if federal agents seek access to polling places, ballots or voting equipment, while others are lining up attorneys and law enforcement who could act quickly.

The prospect of federal agents at polling places is already being litigated.

In September, nine groups filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and several other agencies and officials over statements the groups say amount to threats to deploy federal agents to polling places. The groups argue such a deployment would violate federal law, including a section of the Voting Rights Act that bans voter intimidation. They are seeking an injunction blocking federal agents from being used in ways that unlawfully intimidate voters.

The Justice Department, which is named as a defendant in the lawsuit, has rejected its premise, arguing that federal officials have never said they would send law enforcement to polling locations. The Department of Homeland Security has said ICE is not planning operations targeting polling places. The case is still in its preliminary stages.

Local police have a different role at polling places.

Unlike federal law enforcement, local police routinely coordinate with election officials around polling place security.

In many cases, Diaz said, local law enforcement are at the polls at the request of election officials, who have received extensive harassment and threats since the 2020 election. Law enforcement often coordinates with election officials to keep officials and voters safe without their presence intimidating voters, he said.

“It’s far more normal for a county official or a state official from a law enforcement agency to be at or near the polls because usually they’re working with election officials, versus federal law enforcement, who have no role in the election process,” he said.

But even a lawful local police presence “can raise concerns about voter intimidation.”

In August, the Sheboygan County Sheriff’s Department in Wisconsin said they would be sending some deputies to polling locations to ensure a safe and secure election. That drew criticism from the ACLU of Wisconsin and other groups. The sheriff responded that deputies had conducted brief and routine polling place visits for years.

A few days later, legal groups sent the sheriff a letter saying that while local law enforcement can play a helpful role in elections, their presence can intimidate voters — and that intimidation may violate state and federal law.

Even when local law enforcement is working with election officials, officers are subject to the same voter intimidation restrictions as anybody else, Diaz said.

“It’s important for them to behave responsibly and transparently with election officials and with the public to reassure voters that they’ll be able to vote safely,” he said, adding that officers should carefully avoid inadvertently creating an intimidating presence for voters.

Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. Contact Alexander at ashur@votebeat.org.

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization covering local election integrity and voting access. Sign up for their newsletters here.

The post What to expect at the polling place amid uncertainty over federal agents appeared first on Salon.com.

This story is part of Gen Z at the Ballot Box, a collaboration between States Newsroom and The 19th. 

WINDHAM, Maine – As 24-year-old Maya Brooks walked winding roads in rural parts of Maine, a water bottle hooked to her fanny pack and a stack of “lit” on absentee voting and candidates her group has endorsed in hand, she was focused on reaching voters who either haven’t voted in recent years or have shown they’re willing to vote for both parties. 

Mainers frequently cross party lines, as evidenced by the fact that U.S. Sen. Susan Collins is the only GOP senator running for reelection in a state Donald Trump lost in 2024. Maine consistently ranks among the highest in the country for voter turnout, even among young voters, despite having one of the oldest populations in the country. 

That’s led Maine to be viewed as the top state where young voters could sway Senate outcomes in 2026. 

While Brooks canvassed for the state’s largest progressive community action organization, she thought about one of her first interactions knocking doors this cycle. A woman — not much older than herself— told her she probably wouldn’t vote. Whoever she voted for, whatever their party affiliation, she felt it would not make a difference, Brooks recalled.

“I don’t blame her,” she said. While a registered Democrat, Brooks would rather do away with the two-party system altogether. “Politicians aren’t delivering.” 

Generation Z, now roughly 14 to 29 years old, is a growing portion of the electorate with about 50 million eligible voters in the upcoming midterm elections. But these young voters have soured on both parties. 

Younger people have long been more likely to identify as independents, but Gen Z is doing so at a significantly higher rate than any previous generation at the same age. 

---

Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.

---

Being independent does not mean being moderate. Gen Z’s ideological gender gap is driven more by women moving further left than men moving further right. 

“Really, what’s notable is that Gen Z women are the distinct group compared to both their young male counterparts but also to other American women,” said Melissa Deckman, a political scientist who studies the impact of gender, religion, and age on public opinion. “Simply put, Gen Z women are the most liberal and progressive group of voters in America today.” 

A unifier among Gen Z is a belief that the government is failing to protect and address their needs, notably the high cost of living. 

Trump capitalized on that discontent in 2024, making gains with young voters, particularly young men. Now, Trump’s net approval rating is underwater, especially among Gen Z, with 31 percent of young people who voted for the president saying they regret it, according to an August Navigator poll. 

Both parties are trying to remedy mistakes of elections past in the hopes of winning over the Gen Z vote, launching targeted recruitment efforts, hiring more young people and leaning into social media.

     

No longer taking the youth vote for granted

At a time when many young people were running away from the Democratic Party, Anderson Clayton, chair of the North Carolina Democratic Party, ran to it. 

That is not to say Clayton, who at 25 became the youngest state party chair in the country in 2023 when she ousted an establishment-backed incumbent, has not at times been disappointed.

She wants to see Democrats embrace progressive candidates who win primaries. She wants to get rid of the churn-and-burn cycle of campaigns prioritizing immediate national victories over long-term local sustainability. And she was “so pissed” after Democrats left 44 North Carolina legislative seats uncontested in 2022 that she decided to run for her current role. 

“If you don’t like a party right now, you’re the only one that can change it,” she said in her high-energy cadence.

Clayton got hooked on political work a decade ago, when her county party pushed back on Republicans trying to eliminate the voting site on her college campus. She’s up against similar issues now, after a federal judge ruled against restoring early voting sites on several college campuses in her state earlier this year. 

She has fellows on those campuses to try to turn out the student vote, part of the party’s broader voter protection program, which is in addition to 30 active college chapters and a 100-county, year-round organizing operation. 

“When people look at me and they’re like, ‘Well, young men are leaving the Democratic Party,’ I’m like, ‘Well, let me introduce you then to the leadership that I have right now leading my young Dems, because they are young men,’” Clayton said. “I think that the ability to organize and to help other people see themselves in the party is to also give them that representation.” 

North Carolina Democrats collaborated with Voters of Tomorrow, an entirely Gen Z-led organization seeking to promote political engagement among that demographic, for its national summit in August. Communications director Jessica Siles, 26, said she has seen state parties in particular having more success appealing to young voters. 

“I think in some ways that’s because obviously those ties to the direct local communities are stronger,” Siles said. 

That is borne out in research, which shows relational organizing works because young people trust their neighbors or community networks far more than national parties. Siles sees a sweet spot in engaging Gen Z in events that offer in-person connection in a more social, cultural setting.

That’s an approach being used by the Community Organizing Alliance in Maine, a civic group focused on engaging Black and immigrant voters. Executive director Safiya Khalid, 30, said young people are leading voter registration and education efforts, which include more traditional methods like canvassing, but also events to strengthen community, such as an upcoming concert featuring Somali music, where the alliance will share election-related information to attendees outside the venue. 

The alliance is based in Maine’s 2nd Congressional District. One of the most rural areas east of the Mississippi, it’s an open seat being eyed as consequential for the balance of power in Congress since moderate Democrat Jared Golden is not seeking reelection. 

Another youth-led group in that district, Maine Youth Power, started in 2021 to offer young Mainers clearer paths to engagement in a state with one of the highest median ages. 

“All of our politicians and parties cater towards old people, which is not a bad thing,” said Phoebe Dolan, 28, co-director and one of its founding members. “But it does leave young people often with not a clear sense of a county party that they can join and take leadership in.” 

The nonpartisan organization now reaches roughly 200 young people annually and ahead of the midterms is launching a series of hubs across the state for members to make regional connections. Continuing year-round, the hubs will offer lessons on political history and organizing training, Dolan said. 

In Alabama, GOP chair Scott Stadthagen brought on Brilyn Hollyhand, a 20-year-old content creator from Auburn, who previously advised Trump on youth strategy, to launch Project Future Generation in late July.

The statewide effort to engage teens and young adults in the conservative movement “is not a separate auxiliary group,” Stadthagen said. “We’ve got the young Republicans, the college Republicans. This is creating new Republican members to our county parties.” 

It is a three-pronged approach: a “student strike force” focused on door knocking and registering GOP voters in purple districts, “semester summits” where the party meets with student leaders on campuses, and tours of colleges and high schools. Hollyhand and Stadthagen have ambitions to expand the model to other red states, and eventually swing states.

Comparing the Grand Old Party to a Southern Baptist church, Hollyhand said that without a thriving youth ministry, “when the good ol’ Southern church’s congregation inevitably passes away, the church passes with it.”

     

The social media factor

When Hollyhand worked for Trump’s campaign, he led the initiative that brought content creators to the 2024 Republican National Convention and urged Trump to make appearances on podcasts and TikToks to reach young people. 

That’s being mimicked by Democrats now. The Democratic National Committee is investing in thousands of content creators to aid wins in 2026 and beyond. Former first lady Michelle Obama launched a “Voting Squad” made up of popular content creators to try to encourage young people to get to the polls. 

More locally, too, campaigns have been leaning on influencers. Independent of Brooks’ job as a senior canvass manager for the Maine People’s Alliance, she regularly posts political content for her more than 85,000 followers on TikTok, an account initially spurred as an outlet to air political rage when Trump got reelected. She was invited as an influencer to one of Maine Democratic gubernatorial nominee Hannah Pingree’s events.

Despite this focus, research on the effectiveness of influencers is limited. While some studies find that influencers may help boost political awareness among young people, that doesn’t necessarily translate into action. 

“The sort of influence of influencers, if I can be redundant, has been a little bit overstated,” said Alberto Medina, communications manager at Tufts University CIRCLE.

Less than 1 percent of young people said an influencer had been one of their top three motivations to cast a ballot in CIRCLE’s 2024 post-election youth poll. And in its national pre-election poll this year of 5,549 young Americans aged 18–29, social media posts from influencers or celebrities ranked last for the sources of information they turn to for learning about politics and elections.

Most Gen Z voters do get their news on social media, but mostly through posts from advocacy or news organizations, according to the latest survey. 

“Social media algorithms tend to send young men and young women to different places,” said Deckman, who is CEO of the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute. 

She attributes some of the gender divide to the fact that the two demographics are often presented with different informational realities, though it is difficult to quantify. Overall, Gen Z women have been raised with a greater sense of agency, she said, and were brought up politically amid the #MeToo movement and the first Trump presidency, during which his sexist comments shaped public discourse.

In addition to being ideologically divided, young men and women have vastly different beliefs about religion and gender. While young women, and Americans overall, have been shedding religious labels, young men have seen essentially no change in Deckman’s research. Young men are also far more likely to support pronatalism, which the Trump administration has embraced in encouraging families to have more children. 

“No generation is monolithic,” Deckman said. “There definitely are conservative young women. There’s lots of liberal young men. But the trends are such that you’re seeing this gap emerging.” 

     

Not party but issue motivated

Nelson Dorsey, 20, voted for Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris in 2024. Now, the Bowdoin College student is campaigning for Collins, explaining in Brunswick after his early morning football practice that her pitch as an independent voice for the state resonates with him. 

“I’m not necessarily afraid to go across a party line if that means doing what I think is best for the country,” said Dorsey, a registered Republican. “At the time, I was drawn to [Harris’] campaign because she really was drawing on the whole idea of ‘Let’s put politics aside, let’s put our parties aside.’”

Dorsey’s refrain from party loyalty is common among his generation, which is continuing to identify as independent at relatively high rates as they have gotten older, a contrast to older generations who had been less likely to identify as independents over time. 

“You have really a story where Gen Z is really put off by party,” Deckman said. “It’s part of a larger distrust of institutions in society.” 

As Gen Zers struggle to make ends meet, a point of common ground regardless of political leanings, they are seeing the rich get richer and the powerful gain more control. They are united in their concern about the abuse of political and economic power, including the United States’ role in foreign wars and lack of accountability for bad actors named in the Epstein files. 

“Growing up in America at this time, there is a significant lack of hope,” said Katya Fromouth, a 17 year old from Yarmouth, Maine, who thinks she will likely never be able to buy a house and questions what her future will look like because of climate change. “That is the sort of thing that young people need — hope when we are envisioning our future.” 

Fromouth was one of the young Mainers who initially saw hope in former Democratic nominee for Senate Graham Platner, who energized voters with a pitch to rally against corruption regardless of their party affiliation. Platner won over many young people by embracing some of the most polarizing issues at the center of the widening generational divide, such as calling to abolish U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Seeing a candidate for national office with those values was “refreshing and frankly exhilarating,” said Cheyenne Hunt, who had initially endorsed Platner while leading the group Gen Z for Change. 

But after several women came forward alleging sexual misconduct, which he denies, Hunt withdrew her support. She helped support his exes in speaking with media, leading to the publication of an assault allegation in Politico that ultimately ended his campaign. 

While Hunt, founder of Reckoning Action, a nonprofit aiming to combat misogyny, said she received pushback because of the hope Platner inspired, she ultimately sees his swift downfall as evidence of the new kind of politics he had tapped into. 

“Young voters are routinely disappointed with the quality of representation that we’ve been offered,” Hunt said. “They are really ready for a class of representatives that across the board — whether it’s with issues of violence against women, with issues of corruption in general — do not believe that they are above the law and that they deserve special treatment.”

Tufts University CIRCLE has found some links between the issues young voters are focused on and their shifting politics. Those moving to the left care most about healthcare and abortion. Those shifting more conservative are prioritizing immigration and housing.

But regardless of whether their politics are shifting, young people are prioritizing economic issues.

“The centrality of economic issues and of those economic struggles that youth are experiencing is one of the big changes that we’ve been tracking in the last couple of election cycles,” Medina said. 

Young people on both sides think their party needs to change how they talk about the economy. Hollyhand said he wants the GOP to outline solutions, not just offer speeches blaming Democrats. And Clayton said Democrats can’t just rely on the buzzword “affordability.” 

“It’s got to be ‘Here is why the minimum wage is set at $7.25 and here is who’s doing that and who can help make it better,’” she said.

Young people are motivated most to cast a ballot in order to take action on issues they care about. In the Tufts University post-election youth poll from 2024, 46% said that was their top motivator. 

Issues are what Brooks starts with when she speaks to voters canvassing across Maine. As she tries to beat the sun knocking doors into the evening, she asks what matters most to them before sharing what she likes about particular candidates, starting with a local race and not mentioning political affiliations. 

After nearly 40 doors, more than 10,000 steps and three hours, mostly what she’s done is listen. 

“People don’t want to be talked at,” she said. That’s also her message for how the party could improve its chances of courting her generation: “I wish they would just ask.” 

The post Gen Z isn’t choosing a political party. They’re choosing issues appeared first on Salon.com.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court blocked an executive order from President Donald Trump restricting voting by mail in ways that could have thrown the upcoming midterms into chaos. But the White House originally had far more disruptive plans, ProPublica has learned. 

According to several people knowledgeable about the discussions, the administration initially floated an idea that would have virtually shut down mail voting: requiring all ballots to be delivered exclusively through certified mail. The proposal — which would have required voters to be home and sign for delivery of their ballots — was ultimately abandoned, after vehement Postal Service objections that it would have been impossible to execute. 

Even after the idea fizzled, Postal Service officials were cut out of crucial conversations as the Trump administration moved forward with what became the final executive order, two people familiar with the matter said. Issued in March, its contents came as a shock even to the Postal Service’s lawyers.

Trump’s order would have forced postal workers to serve as gatekeepers, deciding which ballots would be delivered and which wouldn’t. Beyond that, it would have inexplicably handed authority over the plan’s execution to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who has no formal oversight over the Postal Service. 

Inside the Postal Service, which is overseen by a bipartisan Board of Governors, deliberations on whether to comply with the order stretched on for weeks. Some board members found it alarming but feared Trump would respond to a direct challenge by trying to fire them, sources familiar with their concerns told ProPublica. Instead, they remained silent, counting on the courts to block the measure. 

“The board was being careful how or when it took action, knowing that it might be its last action,” one source said. 

ProPublica previously detailed postal officials’ deep concerns with the Trump order. Now our reporting reveals how the order came to be and who was involved in crafting it, as well as the extent to which the White House tried to dictate how mail-in ballots would be processed.

The White House team leading the mail-in voting discussions included J. Brian Sikma, a special presidential assistant who has been involved in other administration election initiatives,

including identifying noncitizen voters for prosecution and seeking to ban voting machines. (Sikma didn’t respond to a request for comment.)

---

Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.

---

The commerce secretary, Lutnick, served in “an advisory and coordination capacity” in drafting the order, a department spokesperson confirmed to ProPublica.

“President Trump values Secretary Lutnick’s advice on many matters,” the spokesperson said.

In an emailed statement, White House spokesperson Lauren Bis denied the administration had interfered improperly with the Postal Service, an independent agency whose governance structure is specifically designed to protect it from political influence. She said the executive order “added important safeguards to vote-by-mail. These were commonsense measures to protect the security of mail-in ballots and to ensure only Americans vote in American elections.” 

Bis also rejected the idea that the certified-mail proposal was “unworkable,” saying this played no part in the administration’s decision “to go in another direction.”

A Postal Service spokesperson declined to comment on the agency’s internal deliberations about the executive order and said it was the Board of Governors’ policy not to discuss them.

He referred ProPublica to an earlier statement by Postmaster General David Steiner that said: “Postal employees take great pride in their responsibility to support the democratic process. We will continue to approach that responsibility with the care, professionalism, and dedication that voters and election officials expect from the United States Postal Service.”

In an interview, Jonathan Smith, president of the American Postal Workers Union, called the Trump administration’s push to revamp mail voting problematic and baseless. 

“The ultimate goal was to create chaos and doubt in the vote-by-mail process,” he said. “You’re creating a rule to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.” 

---

The White House first reached out to the Postal Service in the fall of 2025, saying the administration wanted to explore how to improve mail voting. 

Trump has long claimed without evidence that mail voting is riddled with fraud, though he frequently votes by mail himself. He’s said the process is “inherently corrupt” and contributed to his defeat in the 2020 presidential election.

Postal Service leaders responded to the administration’s late 2025 overture with recommendations they had been making to local election officials for years. Nearly a third of all ballots in the 2022 and 2024 elections were cast through the mail. Mostly, independent audits showed, the system worked reliably. But at times, ballots got lost or delayed. 

Officials with the Postal Service had long wanted election offices to use standardized ballot envelopes with scannable barcodes, logos and other features that would make it easier to separate election mail from other first-class mail. In 2024, a bipartisan bill to turn those recommendations into requirements stalled in the Senate.

When Trump retook the Oval Office, it soon became obvious the White House had other ideas, including requiring ballots to be sent by certified mail.

Doing this could, in theory, erase some security concerns, but local governments would have to pay a higher fee to send each envelope and postal workers would have to conduct millions of identity checks, crippling timely delivery. 

“It was just, for many reasons, a terrible idea,” one top Postal Service official said.

The White House backed down, but when the final order was unveiled, postal officials said they were surprised to see it demanded that they implement the envelope changes and ballot-tracking measures they’d recommended in time for the midterms.

The directive also required states to provide the Postal Service with lists of eligible mail voters, which workers would then try to match with ballots before sending them out. Designing a new ballot-tracking system would normally take about a year, postal officials said.

They were particularly concerned with the order’s requirement that Postal Service workers reject ballots for an array of reasons, ranging from outdated voter information to unscannable bar codes. All mail ballots from a state could be rejected if the state refused to provide its voter list. 

“That’s not what we do,” a former official involved with the discussions said. “We deliver mail. We don’t decide what goes and what doesn’t.”

Postal Service officials were taken aback that the final order put Lutnick in charge of coordinating with other agencies and the postmaster general in “effectuating all relevant aspects of the implementation.”

Lutnick’s involvement came after Trump had discussed putting the Postal Service under the Commerce Department. At Lutnick’s February 2025 swearing-in, Trump said he thought Lutnick’s “great business instinct” was just what the Postal Service needed. (The postal board fought back, and Trump’s idea of merging the agency into the Commerce Department is apparently no longer on the table.)

Almost immediately after the executive order became public, four separate lawsuits challenging it were filed by states led by Democrats and political and civil rights groups. Democratic members of Congress and postal union leaders urged the Postal Service and its Board of Governors, which had long defended the agency’s independence, to resist. A June 2026 Supreme Court decision allowing Trump to remove leaders of many agencies long considered independent gave the governors pause, however.

Steiner, appointed at Trump’s behest in mid-2025, directed Postal Service leaders to prepare to implement the order. In public statements, he defended the measure and said he would leave it for the courts to decide. At his direction, postal officials began establishing procedures to comply with Trump’s order. 

As they started to craft rules, career postal officials, concerned about voter privacy and disenfranchising legitimate voters, attempted to do as little as they could to comply, three people knowledgeable about their deliberations said. They looked for ways to protect workers from having to step out of their traditional lanes.

For example, they proposed having states turn over their voter lists but not requiring Postal Service workers to use them to decide which ballots to send out. When the Postal Service’s lawyer took the idea to the White House counsel, however, it was rebuffed as “not enough,” the former official said.

The White House team made clear that if even one ballot envelope in a batch mailing didn’t match the state list, the entire mailing should be rejected and election officials should be notified. “That means if four addresses don’t align in a mailing of one million, 999,996 other people don’t get their ballot tomorrow,” the former official said.

As ProPublica has reported, staffers found these issues highly troubling. A whistleblower complaint released in August warned that the system designed to carry out the executive order was rushed into being, untested and error-prone. 

The final rule — 95 pages spelling out how the agency would carry out Trump’s order — was issued on Aug. 21, less than a month before the first mail ballots were due to go out.

It left many questions unanswered: How would lists of voters be kept updated? How would the Postal Service ensure local officials were able to upload voter information to the agency’s new portal? How could postal officials approve the new ballot envelope designs required by nearly 10,000 voting jurisdictions in just weeks? 

“This was going to be a disaster,” the former postal official said.

The Sept. 14 Supreme Court ruling provided a reprieve, but Smith, the postal union president, criticized agency leadership for not stepping in more forcefully. Counting on the courts to halt the order, said Smith, was “a dangerous calculation, and showed a clear lack of courage and integrity.”

The post The untold origins of Trump’s plan to sharply restrict mail-in voting appeared first on Salon.com.

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for our free weekly newsletter to get the latest.

For years, Khalwinder Singh Bhengura lived an unassuming life in Arlington, Texas, where the 69-year-old Indian immigrant works a graveyard shift preparing passenger meals for an airline catering company.

Bhengura moved to the U.S. and spent 18 years working toward becoming a legal resident, securing his green card in 2022. It was a cause for celebration in the Bhengura family. Then things took an unexpected turn.

In 2024, according to a federal indictment, Bhengura registered to vote and cast a ballot in the November presidential election, even though he’s not allowed to do so without being an American citizen.

Bhengura’s case is part of a Trump administration campaign to prioritize prosecuting noncitizen voters.

On Sept. 10, federal authorities arrested Bhengura and charged him with voting as an alien in a federal election and making a false statement about being a U.S. citizen in order to register to vote. That makes him one of 70 people the Trump administration has charged in voting fraud cases this year, according to Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter.

The list includes noncitizens from all corners of the globe, residing in all corners of the U.S. It features everyone from a 20-year-old college student from the Philippines accused of voting in Hawaii to a 39-year-old New Jersey restaurant owner from France. And an examination of the defendants and the filings in their cases found no sign of any organized efforts to cheat the American electoral system.

Votebeat reviewed Justice Department press releases and news accounts since June 1st and identified 41 recent cases involving noncitizens accused of voting. At least 23 defendants are legal residents holding green cards. Those charged range in age from 19 to 73 and come from at least 18 different countries, including Russia, Mexico, Australia, Israel, and Nigeria. Eight of the cases involved undocumented immigrants. About half of the cases come from Texas and New Jersey, with others popping up in a dozen other states, from Alaska to Louisiana.

Lawyers for most of the defendants did not respond to requests for comment. The list contains an eclectic assortment of alleged voter fraud cases. For example, one suspect in Massachusetts is accused of falsely impersonating his landlord to vote as part of a long-running feud between the two Chinese nationals.

The Justice Department has also charged American citizens in connection with the crackdown on fraudulent voting. One Pennsylvania man is accused of voting in both Alaska and Pennsylvania in the November 2024 presidential election. A city manager in Oklahoma is accused of signing voter registration forms for 11 residents.

But most of the cases involve immigrants like Bhengura who were on the pathway to U.S. citizenship when they voted in elections over the past decade. Bhengura’s lawyer says he acknowledged voting, but many of the cases involve nonresidents who secured their green cards, voted in elections, and then denied doing so when they were filling out paperwork or doing interviews to get their American citizenship, according to the legal filings.

---

Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.

---

Joshua Ferrer, an assistant professor of government at American University, said many legal residents charged with improperly voting don’t realize they weren’t supposed to do so.

“It’s likely most of this is the result of confusion on the part of voters or election officials,” Ferrer said.

The fact that there are no indications that these voters were connected as part of any larger scheme “is another sign that the president’s claims of widespread voter fraud aren’t true,” he added.

Bhengura’s case raises a number of unanswered questions. Federal prosecutors said Bhengura registered to vote in 2024 when he applied for a driver’s license. But Texas law requires proof of citizenship or lawful presence to get a license, so it’s unclear how he could have been registered to vote if he had provided the documentation.

Knox, Bhengura’s attorney, defended him as “an honest, hard-working taxpayer and proud U.S. resident. He is terrified to face the government of the same nation that promised liberty and freedom. He prays that justice will prevail.”

Carol Lam, who served as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of California under President George W. Bush, questioned the Justice Department’s choice to prosecute these people. In her opinion, the government shouldn’t try to deport green card holders who didn’t know they couldn’t vote until they became American citizens.

“Our justice system was not created to terrorize people,” she said. “I think voting in national elections when you are not a citizen is a bad thing, but how you deal with these things is the question. If there is good evidence that the person didn’t intend to vote, that would be a slap-on-the-wrist kind of situation, and it’s instead being used to leverage people to be deported.”

Lam acknowledged that every administration has the leeway to decide what crimes to prioritize. But she questioned the Trump administration’s decision to devote so much time and energy to cases like Bhengura’s.

“Taking a 69-year-old grandfather with a green card with no apparent intent to violate the law who may have voted based on bad information and using it as a jumping-off point to deport a person would be at the bottom of my pile,” she said. “We had suspects who actually committed acts of violence, so there were so many more cases where life and limb were actually at stake.”

Dion Nissenbaum is Votebeat’s senior national reporter and is based in Houston. Contact Dion at dnissenbaum@votebeat.org.

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization covering local election integrity and voting access. Sign up for their newsletters here.

The post Alleged noncitizen voters targeted by feds from 18 different countries, mostly green card holders appeared first on Salon.com.

This article was first published by ProPublica, a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive their biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

This week, the Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration’s plans to impose new rules for mail-in voting for the midterm elections in November. 

This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis. It was originally published at Balls and Strikes.

For months, President Donald Trump has been coping with his myriad failures and plummeting approval ratings by trying to make it harder for people to vote his party out of power in the 2026 midterms. To that end, in March, he issued an executive order that would require the U.S. Postal Service to draft a rule that would upend vote-by-mail procedures in dozens of states, and effectively block the agency from processing ballots that do not comply with the rule’s exacting requirements. Trump did not attempt to hide his motives for doing so: Legal restrictions on mail-in voting, he told Republican lawmakers, would “guarantee the midterms” for a party that is otherwise in danger of losing them badly.