Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

FEC chairman's new target outside his job duties: mail voting

Federal Election Commission Chairman Trey Trainor

FEC Chairman Trey Trainor has published an attack on mail-in voting — a topic outside his agency's jurisdiction.

Ralph Barrera/Austin American-Statesman

Apparently Trey Trainor has ample time on his hands, even though he's become the nation's top money-in-politics overseer as the new chairman of the Federal Election Commission.

How else to explain Trainor's latest foray into providing commentary on something having nothing at all to do with his duties as head of the agency that regulates the campaign finance rules governing presidential and congressional contests. (Truth be told, the FEC is without enough members to form the quorum required to conduct meaningful business — which does not touch election administration.)


Last month it was Trainor calling out the nation's Roman Catholic bishops for their unwillingness to violate federal law governing tax-exempt organizations and endorse candidates in an election he likened to a "spiritual war" — starting with his political mentor, President Trump for reelection.

In that case, Trainor was responding to an interviewer's questions. But now he's written a piece for the National Review, one of the nation's premier conservative journals, echoing Trump in railing against the evils of absentee ballots as the gateway to voting fraud — claims for which there's a complete absence of evidence.

In the column, published Monday, Trainor sought to somehow connect his views to his new job with this opening sentence: "As chairman of the U.S. Federal Election Commission, I've read with growing concern the recent number of stories concerning 'vote-by-mail.'"

Confirmed in May after a career as an election lawyer in Texas, which ranks among the most restrictive states for voting remotely, Trainor warns mail-in ballots could be the focus of litigation challenging the outcome of the presidential race because they will foment "fraudulent elections on a massive scale." The simple prescription for a clean contest, he argues, is "Americans simply showing up at the polls and voting in person."

Apparently, he missed that memo about the coronavirus pandemic — or else subscribes to the view of the infected president, who before his discharge Monday night from the hospital tweeted "Don't be afraid of Covid."

His first stumble was when he attempted to make a distinction between absentee ballots (good, he says) and mail-in ballots (very bad, he says). There is not any. Trump and other allies have sought to draw a distinction between mail-in ballots that are requested and those that are being proactively delivered to all registered voters in 10 states this fall.

His first example of the evils of the mail-in ballot was the delayed results this summer of two congressional primaries in New York. The problem there had nothing to do with fraud; officials were overwhelmed by 400,000 ballots statewide, more than 10 times the usual number, and a decent share arrived too late to be counted or were completed improperly and got discarded.

He disparaged the "all or mostly 'vote-by-mail' " elections as resulting in a "lengthy and chaotic mess," when almost totally smooth sailing has been seen in the states that conducted all their elections by mail before this year: Colorado, Oregon, Utah and Washington.

He brought up the case of a former Philadelphia congressman who was charged with bribing an election judge — a case that had nothing to do with mailed votes.

He cited this summer's case of a West Virginia postal carrier, saying he pleaded guilty to voter fraud after changing the political affiliation on multiple mail-in ballots. In fact, he altered eight applications from people hoping to vote absentee in the primaries.

Another example was the infamous voter registration form sent to a cat. Funny, yes, but not connected to voting by mail.

His examples that may actually involve absentee ballots — nine discarded envelopes in Pennsylvania and several hundred being investigated in New Jersey — only make the point that this form of election fraud is extremely rare.

There's one thing Trainor gor totally correct: "As chairman of the Federal Election Commission, I take this seriously, even though it falls outside the jurisdiction of the agency to enforce."


Read More

Typing on a computer
person using laptop

America Needs a Digital Equity Policy, Not Just Tech Innovation

The United States invests billions in artificial intelligence research and development‚ semiconductor fabrication‚ and next-generation connectivity. Yet millions of Americans cannot consistently access the internet or afford the devices needed to submit an online application for social services or a job application․ This is not an oversight․ It is a policy choice that is costing the country dearly․

Connectivity is a floor, not a ceiling:

Keep ReadingShow less
The election voting process, bidding, hands raised up with papers

Confidence in U.S. elections has fallen to 55% ahead of the 2026 midterms. The real risk isn't who wins — it's whether the loser accepts it.

Svetlana Shamshurina/Getty Images

The Real Test of the 2026 Midterms Comes After the Vote

Less than three months before Americans vote in the 2026 midterms, a federal judge on August 11 blocked the U.S. Postal Service from implementing part of President Donald Trump’s executive order tightening mail-in voting rules. The ruling came amid an intensifying fight over how November’s elections will be administered. That fight underscores a deeper problem: the real question in American politics is no longer simply who wins the next election, but whether large numbers of people will still accept the result when their side loses.

Elections in the United States were supposed to settle arguments. One side wins, the other accepts defeat, and the country moves on. That quiet agreement is under growing pressure as the midterms approach. Control of Congress still matters, but beneath that contest lies a more consequential question: if the outcome goes against one of the two major political camps, will that camp still trust the process that declared it the loser?

Keep ReadingShow less
 Unrecognizable doctor prescribing pharmacy to patient.

After a 30-year decline, U.S. abortions are rising again. Texas data suggests bans may shift where abortions happen — not whether they do.

Natalia Gdovskaia/Getty Images

Pro-Life and Pro-Choice: Bridging the Gap

Introduction

We have spent decades arguing about abortion policy on ideological grounds. I think we now have an opportunity to step back, look at what actually happened, and ask a more fundamental question: What policies actually reduce the number of abortions?

I believe that is a question on which pro-life and pro-choice people should be able to agree. Whatever our differences about abortion itself, surely, we can agree that fewer abortions would be a good outcome.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol.

A rundown of the House bills most likely to become law this week — from seafood fraud enforcement to a sanctions bill critics call a tariff bill.

Photo by Andy Feliciotti on Unsplash

Both Chambers in Session this Week

Last Minute Rush

We’re not going to describe every bill the House aims to take action on this week because there’s lots. Instead, we’re going to focus on the ones that will become law if passed by the House and pull a few notable bills at the beginning of the legislative process. We’ll use the same level of discretion at the end of this week when we review what actually happened between today, Monday Sept. 14 and Friday, Sept. 18.

Probable New Laws

In addition to the bills listed below are also a couple of park renamings. All of these will, if passed, then go to the President for signing and once that’s done, become law.

Keep ReadingShow less