Happy Friday! This week a federal judge put a nationwide block on the Trump administration’s anti-mail voting executive order. Of course, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is begging the Supreme Court to intervene; reporter Jim Saksa breaks down what you need to know.
I lived in and reported on Texas for many years, yet somehow Republicans still astound me with the shenanigans they try to pull there. You’ll see what I mean in reporter Jen Rice’s coverage of Galveston County planning to swap voting maps between its March primary and the November election.
Sally Holtgrieve · Senior Editor, News and Operations
MAIL VOTING
Trump admin begs Supreme Court to quickly unblock anti-mail voting executive order
By Jim Saksa
· Reporter
The fate of President Donald Trump’s executive order attacking mail voting — and, with it, the potential that the midterms will be absolute bedlam — is now in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court. And the justices appear to be taking their sweet time deciding.
The full story of how we got here is complicated, so here are the CliffsNotes: In March, Trump signed an executive order that, among other requirements, told the U.S. Postal Service to only deliver mail ballots if states first sent in a list of pre-approved absentee voters. A bunch of blue states sued to block the order in them (the “States case”), while the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts led another lawsuit to stop it nationwide (the “LWVMA case”). It also sparked other legal challenges, but let’s set those aside for now.
In June, a federal judge granted a permanent injunction in the States case, which was upheld on appeal. The government then asked the Supreme Court for emergency relief, arguing it is too soon to say whether Trump’s not-yet-fully-implemented order is constitutional (even though it obviously isn’t).
The issue was fully briefed as of last Tuesday. But since then: silence. That is somewhat unusual, leading to speculation that the justices are closely divided.
Then on Tuesday, the same judge issued another injunction — this time in the LWVMA case — which blocked the order nationwide. That led the Trump administration to practically beg the Supreme Court to grant them relief in the States case and make it apply to the LWVMA case, too. And last night, the Democratic states responded, politely reminding the justices that they’re not really supposed to weigh in on cases not before them. Like I said, it’s complicated. But we’ll see if the justices listen.
BEHIND THE STORY
Sally: If readers remember one thing from this story, what should it be?
Jim: The stakes are huge. Roughly one out of every three voters cast their ballots by mail. If Trump wins, there’ll be mass confusion as this rule gets rushed into effect. Many voters might first vote by mail and then — concerned it won’t count — cast a provisional ballot – that’ll delay vote tallies massively. Worse, there’s potential here for millions of mail ballots to go uncounted.
Texas county defends plan to swap voting maps between March primary and November election
By Jen Rice · Reporter
We’re closely watching a case in Texas where one Republican-led county is trying a novel way to override the will of voters: switching out their district maps between the March primary and November elections. Galveston County’s GOP officials are attempting to open a real Pandora’s box of election chaos here.
But it’s not just about one county’s local races — the county is represented by the Public Interest Legal Foundation, a right-wing national law firm based in Washington, D.C., that files voter purge lawsuits across the U.S.
Pro-voting plaintiffs are asking the Texas Supreme Court to block Galveston County from changing the maps last minute. But if the plan moves forward, what’s to stop officials across Texas from looking at primary voter turnout and continuing to tweak the maps in their favor right up until the general election?
As federal protections dwindle, more states pass their own voting rights acts
By Natalie Hausmann · Reporter
The Voting Rights Act (VRA) is a shell of its former self. That’s thanks to the Supreme Court and its decision to carve out key portions of the law that, in the past, prohibited racial discrimination in electoral maps. And while the decision was a catalyst, states have been thinking about how to safeguard voting rights since Trump took office for the second time.
One way they’re doing it is through statewide versions of the VRA. In total, 12 states have enacted voting rights acts. And half of all state VRAs have passed under the second Trump administration.
Democratic states are leading the charge, with New Jersey and Delaware both passing state VRAs in the past month. But legislators in red states are taking action, too, passing VRA bills between 2025 and 2026.
So what exactly do state voting rights acts do? While they’re not all identical, many share Democratic-led initiatives to protect minority voters through:
Providing ballots in multiple languages
Prohibiting vote dilution
Criminalizing voter intimidation
Establishing preclearance requirements
Delaware’s bill specifically calls out the Supreme Court’s retreat from protecting Black voters, ensuring that voter suppression — whether proven to be intentional or not — is illegal.
But progress isn’t going unchallenged. Illinois, which passed its VRA in 2011, now faces a GOP-led lawsuit to overturn it. It’s likely states will continue to face these contests as the push for VRAs ramps up.
Join the March on Washington: Defend the Vote Aug. 28, the 63rd anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington.
“This is not only about one election,” the National Action Network said. “This is about whether our democracy will protect all of us. This is about whether the promises of 1963 will finally be made real. This is about standing together, across generations, to say we will not go backward.”
Marchers will gather at the Lincoln Memorial on the National Mall.
Can’t make it to Washington, D.C.? Consider sponsoring a bus to provide transportation for those who can!
.png?upscale=true&height=50&upscale=true&name=Bluesky_Logo-grey%20(2).png){kind=logo}
