States Must Hold The Line Against Trump's Election Subversion

I Voted Sticker On Finger Held Toward Camera — Source: grandriver / Getty

Amid increasing hostility and threats of emergency takeover from the Trump administration, states have a duty to step up and protect voters and the electoral system. Responding to concerns about the Trump administration using ICE or other armed agents at the polls, New Mexico passed a new law that would ban such activity.

While federal law already prohibits such actions, the current leadership has shown it can’t be trusted to follow and uphold the law. The Brennan Center has also released model legislation for states seeking to protect voters from intimidation.

With voting rights reforms stalled at the federal level and the Trump administration opting for outright subversion, states can safeguard against escalating attacks on our communities and elections. Just as we’ve seen states enact policies that further Trump’s anti-democracy agenda, states can also be a force for good, creating policies that protect and uplift.

Legislative guardrails at the federal level have provided a framework and baseline support. But as New Mexico demonstrated this week, states must act when the safeguards fail or are being manipulated and misused.

Pro-democracy state action offers protection against disenfranchisement

An October 2025 Brennan Center analysis found that since 2021, “The pace of democratic progress in many states has slowed just as democratic backsliding has accelerated in others.” The review outlined major shifts in state voting laws, with more states enacting restrictive than expansive laws between 2021 and 2025.

Absent a restored and updated federal voting rights legislation, state VRAs offer the greatest protection for ballot access. According to the Legal Defense Fund, a 2024 survey showed that 78% of voters supported a state voting rights act.

Surveyed voters supported clear, fair guidelines regardless of race or party affiliation. Eight states have enacted VRA laws that often go beyond the limitations of federal law. California, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, and Connecticut are among those that have taken a step forward. Several other states have introduced state VRA legislation in recent years, including Texas, Arizona, and Missouri.

In the past two months, advocates in Mississippi and Georgia introduced state VRA legislation. Both the Robert G. Clark Jr. Voting Rights Act and the Henry McNeal Turner Voting Rights Act would extend protections to Black voters and others who have been increasingly targeted by restrictive laws since 2020.

While neither bill is expected to pass this year, the proposals offer hope and clear guidance on what reforms people should demand. State voting rights acts will become even more necessary if the Supreme Court delivers the final blow to the VRA’s last core enforcement mechanism.

At issue in Louisiana v. Callais is Section 2 of the VRA, which has offered some support for piecemeal enforcement through litigation. April England-Albright, National Legal Director at Black Voters Matter, previously told NewsOne that Section 2 has been a crucial stopgap.

“The only check against these states from drawing rogue maps and drawing us out of political power representation is Section 2,” she said. “It is the only thing standing between them, creating a map where we have zero opportunities in these southern states, and in other places, to have representation because political gerrymandering is no longer unlawful.

State voting rights legislation can safeguard against election subversion

LDF outlined several elements of strong legislation, including bans on vote dilution and suppression, language access, and guidance concerning judicial interpretation of laws. State laws should also provide strong protections against intimidation and attacks on voters at the ballot box, as well as those working our elections.

An often-overlooked component of voter discrimination, language access offers states an opportunity to address barriers faced by eligible voters who are non-native English speakers. Kat Roblez offered a striking provocation in a recent interview with NewsOne on in-language comprehension and meaningful ballot access.

“Do you really have your constitutional right to vote if you don’t understand the paperwork or the ballot?” she asked.

Roblez, the senior voting rights counsel and litigation manager at Forward Justice, explained that coverage under Section 203 applied to “localities where more than 10,000 or over 5% of the total voting age citizens are members of a single language minority group, have depressed literacy rates, and do not speak English proficiently.”

Providing official election information, signs, and other related notifications in the appropriate language is also important. Official materials in the language can counter targeted disinformation for non-English speakers.

The federal threshold relies on census data to determine where Section 203 applies. But Roblez said states could act rather than let communities go unserved.

“The current list of covered jurisdictions is based on data from 2021 and won’t be updated again until the next census results come out in 2031,” she said. “This means we’ll have several more election cycles before the North Carolina State Board of Elections would be legally required to provide ballots and other voting forms in another language. However, the State Board of Elections could choose at any time to provide this access voluntarily.”

Our sustained engagement serves as a check on otherwise unaccountable power

State election administrators, lawmakers, and other elected officials have a duty to do more than just make statements, give vibes, and rant about the rule of law.

Now, don’t get me wrong. The lawsuits and decisive action we’ve seen from state attorneys general like Letitia James of New York, Aaron Ford of Nevada, and Andrea Campbell of Massachusetts have helped slow or block harm caused by the current administration.

We need more vigilance, clear communication, and policies from state legislators, governors, and other elected officials. State election boards and secretaries of state can enact measures that protect and expand ballot access and election administration.

But that requires us, the people, to stand up and demand the actions. Also, living in a state that isn’t actively denying ballot access isn’t an automatic guarantee that your rights are being protected.

The passage of state VRAs didn’t just happen out of the goodness of the state legislatures. It was the result of the advocacy and engagement of pro-democracy organizers and other concerned citizens.

Unlike Congress, local and state officials are always in their districts and cannot hide on Capitol Hill. They need to hear from us about our values and priorities.

Not sure what to do or say? Check out organizations in your area and follow their legislative updates and other calls to action.

And then make sure you share that information with others in your network. We can’t assume that just because we found something, our friends and family will see it as well.

Look for others in your community, get together, and start tracking issues, votes taken, and official actions and their impacts. It’s up to us to keep these people from playing in our faces.

SAVE And MEGA Acts Could Help Trump Take Over Our Elections

States Must Hold The Line Against Trump's Election Subversion was originally published on newsone.com

States Must Hold Line Against Trump's Election Subversion