吃瓜大本营

JACKSON, Miss. 鈥� A federal court denied an effort to block DeSoto County鈥檚 majority-Black judicial subdistrict from being used in the November election, preserving the only judicial district in the county that gives Black voters a meaningful opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. Following a four-day preliminary injunction hearing last week, U.S. District Judge Sharion Aycock of the Northern District of Mississippi ruled that the plaintiffs 鈥渨holly failed to carry their burden鈥� to obtain preliminary relief and could not overcome the Supreme Court鈥檚 Purcell v. Gonzalez decision, which cautions courts against making disruptive changes to election rules close to an election. The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Mississippi, Legal Defense Fund (LDF), and NAACP represented the DeSoto County NAACP and Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. to intervene in the case last month to defend the majority-Black judicial subdistrict. The groups intervened to stop the plaintiffs who sought to eliminate the district. 鈥淭he court鈥檚 decision protects DeSoto County voters from this unfounded, last-minute attempt to take away their only meaningful opportunity to participate in judicial elections,鈥� said Ming Cheung, senior staff attorney with the ACLU鈥檚 Voting Rights Project. 鈥淐allais is not a license for politicians to disempower Black voters.鈥� 鈥淭oday's ruling protected DeSoto county voters' constitutional right to fair judicial representation for this year's elections,鈥� said Brenda Wright, Special Counsel at the Legal Defense Fund. 鈥淭hose voters deserve nothing less than free and fair elections, and it was unfortunate that the opponents of these districts would try to change the rules so late in the process.鈥� 鈥淚n one of the fastest growing counties in Mississippi, where black residents make up over 30% of the county and have largely driven the population increase, black DeSoto Countians deserve like all voters a chance to elect candidates of their choice including to the Circuit and Chancery Courts,鈥� said Joshua Tom, legal director at ACLU of Mississippi. The ruling comes as DeSoto County prepares for the November midterm elections. Black residents make up approximately 36% of the county鈥檚 population, and the county has a longstanding pattern of racially polarized voting. Most judgeships in DeSoto County are elected countywide, meaning that without the majority-Black judicial subdistrict, Black voters would lack a meaningful opportunity to elect their preferred candidates to the circuit and chancery courts. While the court鈥檚 ruling addresses the request for preliminary relief, the underlying litigation remains ongoing. The civil rights groups will continue defending the judicial district and the voting rights of DeSoto County residents.

BOSTON 鈥� A federal court today issued a preliminary injunction blocking the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) from implementing President Trump鈥檚 2026 executive order restricting mail voting, in a case brought by a coalition of nonpartisan voting rights groups. 鈥淭he court saw what we've said from the beginning: this executive order is causing real harm right now," said Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project. "Today's ruling sends another necessary message to an administration that continues to weaponize portions of the government to sow chaos into our elections at the expense of eligible voters. The president does not get to rewrite the rules of voting, and he certainly does not get to treat voters as collateral damage in his campaign to control state-run elections. Every last-minute disruption, every manufactured obstacle, and every attempt to seize control of election administration puts real voters in the crosshairs. But this ruling protects voters as we head into the November midterms." Today鈥檚 ruling blocks USPS from implementing Section 3 of the executive order for the November 3 midterm elections and any earlier federal election. The court held unequivocally that 鈥渢he executive branch has no authority to regulate elections鈥� and recognized that the executive order is currently causing "irreparable harm鈥� to both voting rights groups and voters by creating confusion about the mail ballots that millions of voters rely on. In June, the same District Court ruled in a separate case brought by 23 states and the District of Columbia that key parts of the executive order were unconstitutional and legally void. In that ruling, the court barred both federal agencies and USPS from using the executive order to interfere with voter rolls or mail ballots in the plaintiff states and D.C. The Trump administration has made an emergency request to the U.S. Supreme Court to lift that injunction; that request is pending. The suit from voting rights groups was filed by the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, the League of Women Voters, Association of Americans Resident Overseas (AARO), U.S. Vote Foundation, OCA - Asian Pacific American Advocates (OCA), and Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. They are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU of Massachusetts, Brennan Center for Justice, Legal Defense Fund (LDF), Asian Americans Advancing Justice (Advancing Justice-AAJC), and LatinoJustice PRLDEF. Plaintiffs and counsel in the case issued the following statements: Attorneys representing the plaintiffs: 鈥淭his ruling reinforces the clear language of our Constitution: The president plays no role in our elections and he cannot turn the U.S. Postal Service into a tool for disenfranchising voters. Millions of citizens rely on mail voting, and USPS has no authority to determine which of them should receive ballots. Voting rights groups and state and local officials are already deep into preparation for ongoing primaries and the November 2026 midterms, and the president鈥檚 executive order has created chaos and harm. We welcome this ruling as an important step to preserve free and fair elections. We will continue to vigorously defend the fundamental right to vote and protect the integrity of our elections.鈥� Celia Canavan, Executive Director, League of Women Voters of Massachusetts: 鈥淭he League of Women Voters of Massachusetts commends the court for upholding one of our most sacred constitutional rights: the right to vote. We are pleased to see this ruling and are committed to remaining in the fight to protect voting rights 鈥� not just for the Bay Staters who rely on mail voting, but for every American who utilizes this safe, secure, and trusted tool.鈥� Marcia Johnson, chief of activation and justice, League of Women Voters: 鈥淭his ruling is a victory for voters and for the Constitution. Neither the president nor the U.S. Postal Service has the authority to rewrite election rules. Millions of Americans, including seniors, military voters, voters with disabilities, rural voters, and citizens living overseas, rely on voting by mail to participate in our democracy. Today鈥檚 decision reaffirms that the rules governing our democracy must be set by the Constitution and the law, not by executive overreach. The League of Women Voters will continue fighting to ensure that every voter can cast a ballot and have that ballot counted.鈥� Doris Speer, president of the Association of Americans Resident Overseas: 鈥淎ARO is extremely pleased with this decision. The executive order threatened chaos, confusion, and disenfranchisement of Americans living overseas. The president cannot make rules for federal elections, and certainly should not place new obstacles in the way of exercising the most fundamental right and responsibility of citizenship 鈥� the right to vote. We are gratified that this order has been stopped.鈥� Susan Dzieduszycka-Suinat, President and CEO, U.S. Vote Foundation: 鈥淲e are relieved that the courts have halted this executive order and reaffirmed the roles of states and Congress in setting election rules. Absentee and mail voting have long provided a secure and reliable way for eligible voters, including military and overseas citizens, to participate in elections. We remain committed to protecting access to these proven voting processes.鈥� Thu Nguyen, Executive Director, OCA 鈥� Asian Pacific American Advocates: 鈥淎sian American voters often rely on translators to help comfortably cast an informed ballot. And voting by mail is an indispensable tool that allows us to better access translators of choice using various communication tools like the phone. Without it, we鈥檇 be reliant on translators who are available to go to the polls with us or hope to find one there. We applaud the court decision enjoining the USPS because this means our communities will have fewer hurdles to overcome in the upcoming primaries and the November general election.鈥� Cheryl W. Turner, international president of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc.: 鈥淭oday鈥檚 ruling affirms a foundational promise of our democracy: Every eligible voter must be able to participate freely, fairly, and without unnecessary barriers. Delta Sigma Theta will continue to stand against any effort that threatens access to the ballot and undermines the rights of voters, particularly in communities that have too often been excluded from full democratic participation.鈥� Read the order here. Find more information about League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump here.

COLUMBIA 鈥� Two groups representing military veterans are seeking to keep South Carolina鈥檚 primary elections open to all registered voters. As the new motion to intervene highlights, a large share of military veterans identify as politically independent. Forcing party registration to vote in primaries could lock many independent voters, including veterans, out of a key part of the election process. Veterans for All Voters and The Chamberlain Network, nonpartisan groups representing some of South Carolina鈥檚 400,000 military veterans, have filed a motion to intervene on the side of the state defendants in the ongoing federal lawsuit South Carolina Republican Party v. Bolchoz. The veterans are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of South Carolina. South Carolina鈥檚 semi-open primaries are publicly funded and administered by state and county election officials. Under the current system, any registered voter may choose to vote in one major party鈥檚 primary or another during an election cycle, but not both. On July 6, after failing to close primaries via Statehouse legislation, the South Carolina Republican Party sued State Election Commission Chairman Robert Bolchoz and other election officials in federal court. The state GOP, which holds a supermajority in both chambers of the Statehouse, is asking the court to grant the party control over who is allowed to vote in taxpayer-funded primary elections. 鈥淓lections belong to the people,鈥� said Allen Chaney, Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina. 鈥淕ranting private political parties the power to exclude eligible voters from decisive, state-run elections is unfair and undemocratic.鈥� 鈥淥nce again, we鈥檙e witnessing politicians attempt to choose who gets to participate in our democracy,鈥� said Adriel Cepeda Derieux, Deputy Director for the ACLU's Voting Rights Project. 鈥淚n South Carolina, where deeply gerrymandered districts means many races are effectively decided in the primary, closing those state-run elections would silence hundreds of thousands of independent voters.鈥� 鈥淢y first duty station was in South Carolina, and I called the state home for my first two years on active duty. This case is about whether eligible voters can continue participating in publicly funded primaries without giving up their political independence,鈥� said Alberto Ramos, Chief Executive Officer of Veterans for All Voters. 鈥淢y brothers and sisters in arms who call South Carolina home today deserve a meaningful voice in the elections that often decide who represents them. South Carolina鈥檚 elections belong to South Carolina voters, and we are stepping into court to defend their voice.鈥� "More than half of post-9/11 veterans do not identify with either party,鈥� said Peter Lucier, Research and Advocacy Manager of The Chamberlain Network. 鈥淭hose independent veterans deserve a voice in the democracy they served to defend." Thanks to a pattern of extreme gerrymandering that has made most Congressional and Statehouse districts politically non-competitive in the general election, primary elections are often the decisive contests in South Carolina elections. If the state Republican Party gets its way in court, independent voters who do not register with a party will be robbed of the opportunity to cast a meaningful ballot. In some races, the primary election is the only chance to vote. In the 2026 election cycle, for example, data from the South Carolina Election Commission identifies 56 elections where the primary is the only contested election. In those races, exclusion from the primary means complete disenfranchisement. Open primaries are especially important to veterans, who are more likely than the general population to identify as political independents. For example, in a 2024 survey of veterans conducted by Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, 55% of veterans said they did not identify with either the Democratic or Republican party. The South Carolina Republican Party has tried suing the state to exclude voters from state-run primaries before. In 2011, the state party was a plaintiff in the case Greenville County Republican Party Executive Committee v. South Carolina. But the party eventually abandoned the case after a federal court upheld the facial constitutionality of the state鈥檚 primary laws. In the 2025-2026 legislative session, lawmakers considered bills to amend the semi-open primary system (including H. 3310 and H. 3396, H. 5183, S. 109, and S. 113). Despite the Republican Party holding a supermajority in both chambers of the state legislature, none of these bills passed. As noted in today鈥檚 legal filing, a similar case unfolding in Texas may give South Carolinians a preview of what the South Carolina Republican Party will try next. After proposing legislation to close primaries and then amending party rules, the Republican Party of Texas sued the state in Hunt v. Texas, filed in September 2025. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, representing the state as a defendant in the lawsuit, made no defense and instead sided with his own political party attempting to overturn the state鈥檚 open primary system. South Carolina Republicans have followed a similar path so far. South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, who may be called on to defend the State Election Commission in this case, has already appeared at a press conference alongside his party鈥檚 leaders aiming to close primaries. If the attorney general is not interested in defending voters鈥� rights, then South Carolinians will mount their own defense.

The South Carolina Republican Party has sued state election officials seeking to close South Carolina鈥檚 primary elections, excluding independent and unaffiliated voters from participating in what are often the only meaningful elections in their communities. Veterans for All Voters and The Chamberlain Network, two nonpartisan veterans鈥� organizations, have moved to intervene as defendants to protect their members鈥� right to vote in the primary of their choice and to ensure the State does not settle the case in a way that extinguishes those rights.