[link removed]

Welcome to the August edition of The Lever, featuring expert insights and analysis from Voting Rights Lab ([link removed]) .

In this issue, we look at President Trump’s latest attack on mail voting and highlight reactions from state officials and lawmakers nationwide. We also explore ongoing litigation over private citizens' ability to sue state and local governments under the Voting Rights Act.


** MAIL VOTING IS UNDER ATTACK (AGAIN)
------------------------------------------------------------

All 50 states and D.C. currently offer some form of voting by mail. It’s widely popular with voters from both parties. However, these facts did not deter President Trump from issuing a recent declaration of war against mail voting — again!

In our latest analysis ([link removed]) , we explain why mail voting is a safe, secure, and practical method of voting. We also argue that the White House’s quick pivot from an executive order on the issue to a legislative strategy is a key facet of Trump’s playbook — issuing marching orders to his state allies to carry out his destructive election policy agenda.
READ OUR ANALYSIS ([link removed])


** BY THE NUMBERS
------------------------------------------------------------

92%

That’s the estimated percentage of lawsuits that have been brought by private individuals and groups under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act since 1965, as cited in a recent NPR story. ([link removed]) Section 2 allows voters to sue if they believe a state or local government has interfered with their right to vote due to their status as a member of a protected class. For decades, it has been widely understood in the legal world that individuals — not the U.S. Department of Justice — would be the majority of plaintiffs in such lawsuits.

There is a burgeoning legal movement to change that. Recently, officials in 15 states ([link removed]) argued that private parties do not have the right to bring such suits, as they were not explicitly named in the law’s text. In their brief to the Supreme Court, these state officials argue that only the head of the Justice Department can bring such lawsuits.

To date, only the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals has validated this argument ([link removed]) . The Supreme Court has paused ([link removed]) further action to restrict these rights as they apply in a North Dakota redistricting case, where this change would have a disproportionate impact on Native American tribal nations. However, this and other relevant cases are still proceeding, and Supreme Court Justices Thomas and Gorsuch have expressed openness ([link removed]) to ending the individual’s right to bring these lawsuits forward in the first place.

"If there is no private right of action under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act is basically dead. I would consider it the final nail in the coffin."

— Franita Tolson, election law expert and dean of the University of Southern California Gould School of Law

READ MORE ([link removed])


** WHAT WE'RE READING: STATE LEADERS RESPOND TO PRESIDENT TRUMP’S DECLARED “MOVEMENT” TO ELIMINATE MAIL VOTING AND VOTING MACHINES
------------------------------------------------------------

As we detail in our analysis ([link removed]) , President Trump announced ([link removed]) last week plans to eliminate “mail-in ballots” and stop states from using so-called “Highly ‘Inaccurate, Very Expensive, and Seriously Controversial” voting machines ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

Lawmakers and officials representing both parties have expressed serious concerns about the president’s decree:
* Arizona: “Mail-in voting has been a cornerstone of secure and accessible elections in Arizona for years." — Secretary of State Adrian Fontes ([link removed])
* Colorado: "Look, we still have the ability to vote in person in our state, but Coloradans overwhelmingly choose to use the mail ballot because they're safe and they're secure, and if we are actually concerned about election security, well, our foreign adversaries, including Russia, cannot hack a piece of paper. That's what a mail ballot is. This isn't about election security. This isn't about accessibility. It's about a power grab." — Secretary of State Jena Griswold ([link removed])
* Florida: “We are having a harder time finding polling places…. We are having a hard time finding early voting sites. These mail ballots help us with that, because when we have fewer people who are voting by mail, it means they've got to go somewhere, right?" — Pinellas County, FL Deputy Supervisor of Elections Dustin Chase ([link removed])
* Mississippi: "I don’t see any way to completely end mail-in voting altogether, because we have members of our military overseas and people that work overseas, and we cannot just disenfranchise these citizens.” — State Senator Jeremy England ([link removed])
* Utah: “The constitutional right of individual states to choose the manner in which they conduct secure elections is a fundamental strength of our system.” — Lt. Gov. Diedre Henderson ([link removed])

READ MORE ([link removed])


** THE MARKUP
------------------------------------------------------------

The Markup is Voting Rights Lab’s weekly law and policy update, powered by our Election Policy Tracker ([link removed]) . We’re currently on a biweekly summer schedule. If you would like to receive these emails, please tick the sign-up box at the bottom of this form ([link removed]) .

Here’s an excerpt from the latest Markup:
* North Carolina faces a ban on digital voter IDs. The North Carolina State Board of Elections settled ([link removed]) a lawsuit filed by the Republican National Committee over the use of digital IDs as voter ID, such as those provided by the University of North Carolina ([link removed]) . Under the terms of the settlement, digital voter IDs may not be used as an acceptable voter ID in an election unless the legislature specifically approves their use. The North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles is exploring ([link removed]) the possibility of implementing digital driver's licenses.
* Gov. Abbott calls a second special session in Texas to enact his elections agenda. Many Democratic legislators in Texas fled the state ([link removed]) to prevent the legislature from reaching a quorum during the first special legislative session. Gov. Abbott announced ([link removed]) a second special session and has vowed ([link removed]) to continue calling legislators back until they enact his agenda. Redistricting ([link removed]) is the primary item on the agenda, but a bill ([link removed]) that would grant the attorney general jurisdiction over election offenses also passed one chamber during the first
special session.

Did someone forward this to you? Subscribe to our newsletters here. ([link removed])

Like our work, and want to help make it happen?
Make a tax-deductible contribution to Voting Rights Lab here. ([link removed])

============================================================
** Voting Rights Lab ([link removed])

611 Pennsylvania Ave SE | Suite 201 | Washington, DC 20003

We're grateful for your interest and support, but if you'd prefer not to receive emails from the Voting Rights Lab, click here to ** unsubscribe ([link removed])
.