Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Latino Voters Stand to Lose the Most if Supreme Court Greenlights Trump’s Mail‑Voting Power Play

News

Latino Voters Stand to Lose the Most if Supreme Court Greenlights Trump’s Mail‑Voting Power Play

Latino voters

AI generated photo

Weeks before Americans cast their midterm ballots, President Donald Trump has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate an executive order that would sharply restrict mail‑in voting. Courts have already blocked the order, calling it an overreach that would inject federal control into state‑run election systems. But the administration is pressing ahead anyway, and the consequences — especially for Latino voters — could be profound.

Mail‑in voting is not a luxury. It is how working parents, seniors, rural voters, people with disabilities, and millions of naturalized citizens participate in democracy. It is how communities that have historically faced barriers to the ballot box finally gained reliable access. And it is how Latino voters — the fastest‑growing segment of the electorate — have expanded their political power. When a president asks the Supreme Court to take that access away, we should be clear about what is happening: this is not about election integrity. It is about power.


Voto Latino Executive Director Beatriz Lopez put it plainly in her statement responding to the emergency request: Every time the Latino electorate becomes too large to ignore, new attempts emerge to make voting harder. Her warning is not abstract. Trump is not only seeking to restrict mail‑in voting; he is simultaneously pressuring Senate Republicans to pass the SAVE Act, a bill that would impose burdensome proof‑of‑citizenship requirements and risk purging millions of eligible voters — including naturalized citizens and married women — from the rolls. Taken together, these efforts form a coordinated strategy to shrink the electorate from multiple directions.

The legal filings tell the same story. According to VoteBeat, the executive order would require states to submit federal “citizenship lists” to the U.S. Postal Service, and only voters appearing on those lists would receive mail ballots. Election officials warn that the system is untested, unworkable, and impossible to implement safely this close to Election Day. Democracy Docket notes that 23 states have urged the Supreme Court to uphold the block, arguing that the order would “implode the midterms” by forcing USPS — a mail carrier — to become a gatekeeper of voting rights.If allowed to proceed, the order would not fall evenly across the electorate. It would hit hardest where mail‑in voting is most essential: communities with long work hours, limited transportation, inconsistent access to polling places, and high numbers of naturalized citizens. In other words, it would hit Latino voters. It would hit the very communities that have spent decades fighting for equal access to the ballot.

The Supreme Court could rule at any moment. Whatever the outcome, one truth remains: democracy is not defended by silence. Latino voters have expanded their political power through persistence, organization, and the belief that their voices matter. That belief is being tested again. And as Voto Latino made clear, the community is not backing down. They are watching, organizing, and preparing to ensure that every eligible Latino voter can be heard — this November and every election after.

Latino Voters Stand to Lose the Most if Supreme Court Greenlights Trump’s Mail‑Voting Power Play was first published by the Latino News Network and was republished with permission.

Hugo Balta is the executive editor of The Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network, and twice president of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists.


Read More

Ross Perot

American businessman and politician Ross Perot, Annapolis, Maryland, 1992.

(Photo by Arnold Sachs/Consolidated News Pictures/Getty Images)

Perot 2.0

On February 20, 1992, Texas businessman Ross Perot appeared on Larry King Live and set in motion a significant challenge to the two-party status quo. I’m not asking to be drafted. But if the people want to register me in all 50 states, I’ll promise you this: between now and the conventions we’ll get both parties’ heads straight.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans responded. Volunteers put him on the ballot. By June he was leading in the polls. Even after dropping out of the race for a month (someone should write a book about why he did that), he received 20,000,000 votes.

Keep ReadingShow less
An Independent Just Broke Through in Alaska — As Republicans Try to Kill the System That Made It Possible

Bill Hill

Bill Hill Facebook

An Independent Just Broke Through in Alaska — As Republicans Try to Kill the System That Made It Possible

Independent Bill Hill is heading to the November ballot after finishing second in Alaska's Aug. 18 top-four open primary, setting up a race against Republican incumbent Rep. Nick Begich III for the state's at-large US House seat. With 396 out of 403 precincts reporting, Begich led with roughly 46.12% of the vote to Hill's 30.89%.

In Alaska's system, all candidates run in a single primary. The four candidates with the highest vote totals are then placed on the November general election ballot. Voters use ranked choice voting to rank those four candidates based on their preferences.

Keep ReadingShow less
Political Corruption Is Often Not a Voting Issue in America

electoral fraud/voter apathy/totalitarism

Getty Images - digitally generated image

Political Corruption Is Often Not a Voting Issue in America

Almost every week, there seems to be another story about the pay-to-play ethos that is dominant in Donald Trump’s Washington, DC. On July 30, the Wall Street Journal added a new one to the list.

The Journal described the president’s fervent interest in fundraising and how he checks almost nightly with his top fundraiser, Meredith O’Rourke, to find out “which companies and donors have cut checks and which haven’t, and for how much.” The story highlighted the way she channels his interest into making her pitch.

Keep ReadingShow less
Affordability Crisis - Role of Non-Popular Vote President’s  SCOTUS Appointees

Silhouette of a hand holding a vote putting in a ballot box in front of the national flag Stars and Stripes of USA.

Getty Images

Affordability Crisis - Role of Non-Popular Vote President’s SCOTUS Appointees

The 21st-century Supreme Court Justices appointed by presidents who did not win the popular vote have fundamentally reshaped the affordability crisis by dismantling federal regulatory authority, weakening consumer protections, and expanding landlords' and local governments' property rights over renters.

Specifically, five current justices fit this description: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito (appointed by George W. Bush following the 2000 election), alongside Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett (appointed by Donald Trump following the 2016 election). This conservative supermajority has heavily influenced cost-of-living metrics through historic rulings in administrative, housing, and financial law.

Keep ReadingShow less