Indivisible Fair Oaks-Carmichael provides information about local, state and federal current events.

We believe it is important to be informed about current issues.

Supreme Court Allows Trump Administration to Advance Mail‑Voting Restrictions (Emergency Ruling)

In an unsigned 6–3 ruling, the Court lifted a lower‑court injunction that had blocked parts of President Trump’s executive order aimed at tightening mail‑in voting procedures. The Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the order — only that states sued too early because the policies were not fully implemented yet.

Key elements of Trump’s order that may now move forward:

• DHS must create lists of eligible U.S. citizens and share them with states.

• States must give USPS lists of voters approved to receive mail ballots.

• USPS would be barred from delivering ballots to anyone not on those lists (though a separate injunction still blocks USPS from enforcing this part).

• DOJ must prioritize prosecuting officials who issue ballots to ineligible voters.

Impact:

• Mail‑in voting remains available where state law allows it.

• States warn the ruling could create uncertainty and administrative chaos ahead of the midterms.

• Many states (including Minnesota and Oregon) say nothing will change for now because implementation is not feasible before November.

Information summarized using Copilot (AI)

The Rights of Undocumented People

Undocumented people continue to have the right to: 

Legal counsel

Due process

Protection from illegal search or seizure

Federal minimum wage for work

Access to education

SAVE America Act (H.R. 7296)

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, commonly referred to as the SAVE America Act, is proposed federal legislation intended to amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.

Key Concerns

1. Proof‑of‑Citizenship Requirements

• Requires documentary proof of citizenship (e.g., passport, birth certificate) to register to vote in federal elections.

• Over 21 million eligible Americans lack immediate access to these documents.

• Disproportionate impact on young voters, voters of color, low‑income voters, and married women with name changes.

• Critics warn this would disenfranchise millions despite noncitizen voting already being illegal and exceedingly rare.

2. Administrative and Legal Burdens

• Imposes strict ID rules and mandates that states submit voter rolls to the Department of Homeland Security.

• Election officials warn of unfunded mandates, increased bureaucracy, and potential civil or criminal penalties for clerical errors.

• Could create confusion and delays in election administration.

3. Federal Overreach

• Shifts significant authority over elections from states to the federal government.

• Opponents argue this conflicts with long‑standing constitutional norms that assign election administration to states.

• Raises concerns about nationalizing elections and undermining federalist principles.

4. Unrelated Political Add‑Ons

• Public debate around the bill has included demands to add provisions unrelated to election security, such as:

  • Restrictions on transgender participation in sports

  • Bans on gender‑affirming care for minors

  • Limits on mail‑in voting

• These additions are widely criticized as culture‑war riders that distract from the bill’s stated purpose.

5. Lack of Evidence for Widespread Fraud

• Studies and state‑level investigations consistently show no evidence of widespread noncitizen voting.

• Critics argue the bill creates barriers to voting without addressing a real, documented problem.

6. Legislative and Political Feasibility

• The bill faces steep challenges in the Senate due to the 60‑vote threshold.

• Some lawmakers view it as more of a political messaging tool than a viable policy proposal.

Citizens United

1. The Citizens United v. FEC ruling in 2010 allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited money on political campaigns, viewing such spending as a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment.

2. This decision led to the creation of super PACs, which can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money from various sources to influence elections, often without disclosing their donors.

3. The ruling has significantly increased the influence of wealthy donors and special interest groups in American politics, overshadowing the voices of average citizens.

4. Critics argue that Citizens United has undermined the integrity of elections and contributed to a political landscape where money plays a dominant role in determining election outcomes.

5. Despite widespread concern over its impact, the Citizens United decision remains a central part of the campaign finance system in the U.S. today.

(pac.org; rooseveltinstitute.org)