WASHINGTON – Suddenly, evidence is emerging that noncitizens were on New Jersey’s voter rolls, and fresh questions are emerging about the reliability of Alaska voter data. Republicans say it’s a large deal and an critical boost for their so-far stalled election integrity efforts.

But take a closer look. Congressional lawmakers and independent experts said this week that none of these disclosures are sufficient to significantly support the Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to purge noncitizens from the voter rolls.

New Jersey found In 2023 and 2024, there will be 6,600 foreigners on the voter lists, of which less than 400 people actually vote. Alaska officials are asking questions about several thousand voters even though it has not been proven they were ineligible to vote. President Donald Trump won Alaska in 2024 by 44,000 votes.

“The answer is no,” said David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan organization Center for Innovation and Electoral Research, when asked if this news would enhance support for the SAVE America Act.

“They just don’t have the votes in the Senate,” Becker said. “Even if that happened, there are less than three months left until the election.”

House it passed the SAVE America Act in April and last week approved legislation that would give states $10 billion to tighten voting laws.

But any effort to advance the measures is stalled in the Senate, where most measures will need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. There are 53 Republicans in the Senate, but not all of them support Trump’s plan.

Majority Leader John Thune saw a arduous path forward.

The South Dakota Republican said Monday that it would be up to Trump to convince hesitant senators to agree. “If he can change the facts and start convincing some senators from ‘no’ to ‘yes,’ then we will have a different conversation. That’s just reality,” Thune told reporters.

The SAVE America Act, arguably Trump’s top legislative priority this year, would require voters to show proof of citizenship when registering and a photo ID when voting. Foreign citizens can no longer vote in state, federal and almost all local elections.

Problems with New Jersey and Alaska

What sparked the latest Republican action was New Jersey Governor Mike Sherrill last week it was revealed that about 6,600 foreigners were registered to vote in the state because of a software problem with the state Motor Vehicle Commission’s automatic voter registration system.

About 400 people actually voted. Sherrill said the bug started in 2023 and took a year to fix. She stated that there was no evidence that it influenced the election results. Sherrill took office in January 2026.

“It is unacceptable that a vendor released software with such an egregious bug. It is unacceptable that it took MVC a year to fix this problem, and it is unacceptable that no one in the previous administration disclosed this and demanded accountability,” she said. The New Jersey Monitor reported.

Last week, Alaska also reported registration problems with its Department of Motor Vehicles. Officials said the state had removed 3,048 people from voter rolls, saying they may not be citizens.

Carol Beecher, director of the Division of Elections, told state lawmakers that a person identified as a non-citizen should contact her agency and ask whether he or she is a citizen or not. – reported the Alaska Beacon.

“It’s not a burdensome request for the department to just contact us and confirm, and that’s what we asked them to do. We don’t require documentation. We don’t require documentation. Nothing like that,” she said.

Auto Voter Law

Federal car voters law in 1993 was largely considered a bipartisan success as a way to make it easier for citizens to register to vote.

Requires states to offer registration with their motor vehicle agencies, including by mail. Registration applications must be attached to applications for renewal and fresh driving licenses.

The 1993 law applies in 44 states, and Washington, Idaho, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming are exempt because there were no registration requirements in place when the law went into effect or voter registration took place at the polls on the same day.

Act of 2002 requires voters to show identification, usually a driver’s license, before they can register.

Non-citizens cannot vote in federal or state elections, but they can apply for a driver’s license.

It is unclear why foreigners appeared on the ballots in New Jersey and possibly Alaska. Was it a software bug? Were the officials negligent? Is there an issue that other countries should know about?

“We don’t know much about it yet,” Becker said.

Evidence of fraud?

The Trump administration earlier this month claimed that as many as 250,000 foreigners were registered to vote in New Jersey, California, Pennsylvania and Nevada.

Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin stated that as many as 35,152 “prospective noncitizens” could be registered to vote in New Jersey.

No concrete evidence has emerged to support this figure voting rights analysts questions have arisen about how this number was calculated.

For SAVE Act supporters, last week’s disclosures in New Jersey and Alaska were finally solid evidence that things are going wrong. The following changes have occurred since disclosure:

• The Department of Justice wants names and other information of incorrectly registered people. Sherrill said will not disclose data.
• U.S. Rep. Jeff Van Drew, a Republican from New Jersey who heads the House Judiciary Subcommittee, and 18 other House Republicans sent a letter to Sherrill demanding details of what happened. They want to know by August 21 why the state failed to identify the error and why it took so long. “New Jersey should end automatic voter registration with the Motor Vehicle Commission, clean up its voter rolls, and require proof of citizenship to register to vote. These are basic protections that should already be in place,” Van Drew – wrote in the statement.
• Trump and some Republicans called on the Senate to continue session. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, wants to keep senators in Washington after summer recess begins behind schedule next week so they can work on election reform. “The Senate doesn’t need a vacation as much as the country needs the SAVE America Act. Let’s cancel the recess,” he wrote on Twitter on Sunday. He was joined by Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla. and Jim Banks, R-Ind.
• Republicans blamed Democrats. In the Senate, Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, D-Wyo. he linked the mess to Democrats’ views on illegal immigrants. “Democrats cannot open the border, hand illegal immigrants driver’s licenses, and then act shocked – shocked (as Democrats claim) when these illegal immigrants ultimately vote. Illegal immigrants must not be allowed to vote in American elections,” he said.

Democrats ridiculed such rhetoric.

“Give it up, Donald. The SAVE Act will not become law,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said this week in a speech to Trump.

For Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the situation is tinged with sadness.

“All of this makes me more suspicious that there are problems with the mail-in ballots. I’m sure there are, based on anecdotal information,” he said on the news from New Jersey. “The more the validity of the voting system is questioned, the more people are discouraged from participating.”

Asked if these reports changed the Senate’s votes on the SAVE America Act, he replied categorically: “No.”

On Monday, the Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay a district court ruling that blocked President Donald Trump’s sweeping March 31 order limiting mail-in voting.

The decision came just two days after a federal appeals court rejected the administration’s request to revive a controversial plan that would have imposed significant restrictions and requirements on states collecting voter information for absentee voting.

It also sets off a high-stakes confrontation in the Supreme Court between the administration and the 23 states that sued over Trump’s executive order, just over three months before midterm elections that will decide control of Congress.

“The district court issued an emergency injunction prohibiting federal agencies from applying an executive order promoting election integrity in the upcoming federal election in November,” wrote Solicitor General D. John Sauer in his application to the Supreme Court.

Sauer argued that the executive order should not be blocked because, among other things, the U.S. Postal Service has not yet issued final regulations on how it will be implemented.

Ruling of the court of appeal

A three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed a lower court ruling last month which blocked the order because the U.S. Constitution gives states – not the president – ​​the power to administer elections.

The executive order “orders an unprecedented level of involvement by federal officials in the way states administer elections,” wrote the two appellate judges, Gustavo A. Gelpí and Julie Rikelman. order for Saturday. Both were appointed by President Joe Biden.

Gelpí and Rikelman considered and rejected the administration’s argument that states could not challenge the order because Postal Service regulations had not yet been finalized.

The order directed the agency’s final rule to include a requirement for states to begin filing voter rolls 60 days after the general election on Sept. 4 of this year. Allowing the order to go into effect would force states that have been preparing for months to devote significant time and resources to creating a recent electoral system in just a few weeks.

“The government has not persuaded us that the (executive order’s) impact on the Plaintiffs is ‘hypothetical,'” Gelpí and Rikelman wrote.

The panel’s third judge, Joshua D. Dunlap, partially agreed and partially disagreed with that opinion, noting that the Postal Service rule imposed by the executive order had not yet been finalized. But he added that the timeline suggested in the order would require states to take immediate action on absentee ballots.

Consequences for countries

The Trump administration is running out of time to effectively implement mail-in voting restrictions ahead of the November midterm elections 99 days from Monday.

The 1st Circuit panel cited the upcoming midterms as a reason to temporarily block the order. A full review of the ordinance could be considered over a longer time horizon, but state election officials faced inevitable consequences if they did not begin preparing to meet the ordinance’s requirements in time for the November general election and September primary, the justices said.

The order directed the U.S. Postal Service to require states to notify the agency 90 days before an election if they plan to utilize absentee ballots and, if so, to send the list of eligible voters to the federal government at least two months before the election and before mailing ballots to those voters.

Democratic officials in 23 states – California, Massachusetts, Nevada, Washington, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania – and the District of Columbia have filed lawsuits challenging the executive order.

Twelve states with Republican attorneys general – Alabama, Missouri, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas – joined the call on the federal government’s side.

Citizenship lists

The executive order also required the Department of Homeland Security, with the assistance of the Social Security Administration, to compile lists of voting-age citizens residing in each state and then report that information to state officials at least 60 days before each federal election.

According to the ordinance, the list of citizens would be drawn up from naturalization and social security registers. It would also include data from SAVE, a powerful computer program maintained by the Department of Homeland Security that verifies citizenship by comparing names with information in federal databases.

District Court Judge Indira Talwani found that the executive order failed to invoke appropriate constitutional or legal authority to justify the creation of the lists.

Trump is questioning faith in mail-in ballots

Trump has consistently raised unfounded concerns about mail-in voting, which almost every state and some only allow.

The practice, particularly common in Western countries, enjoyed robust bipartisan support until Trump tried to undermine its credibility during the 2020 election cycle.

According to the Pew Research Center, in 2018, 71% of voters, including 57% of Republicans, supported voting by mail.

Until then April 2026 pollDemocrats’ positive view of mail-in voting remained high, but Republican support dropped to 34%.

In the executive order, Trump said that restricting mail-in voting would restrict foreigners from voting, another voting issue that Trump has often raised without providing evidence that it caused a stern integrity issue in any election.

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Sherrod Brown raised more than twice as much as incumbent Republican Sen. Jon Husted from April to June, according to financial data from both campaigns.

Congressional candidates must file several financial disclosures during the year in which they are elected. Reports for the second quarter of 2026 were due on July 15.

Brown’s campaign announced direct donations of $14.1 million in the second quarter and an additional $3 million from an affiliated PAC. The Husted campaign saw $3.4 million in direct donations and $4.3 million from three affiliated PACs.

“Ohioans across the state are fed up with Jon Husted, who repeatedly prioritizes corporations, billionaires and special interests at the expense of hardworking families,” said Patrick Eisenhauer, Brown’s campaign manager.

In a press release, the Husted campaign touted its results as the largest second-quarter fundraising total ever posted by a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate from Ohio.

This is the third consecutive U.S. Senate election in Ohio in which the Democratic candidate’s early summer fundraising was significantly greater than that of his Republican opponent. Former Ohio State Rep. Tim Ryan outperformed current Vice President J.D. Vance by USD 6.8 million from April to June 2022, and Brown outperformed incumbent U.S. Senator Bernie Moreno by $6 million from April to June 2024.

Both elections ended with Democratic losses at the ballot box. The 2024 race has become the most exorbitant non-presidential election in American history, and although Brown more than tripled Moreno’s campaign spending, Republican groups still outspent Democratic groups by more than $75 million.

A recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court will also strengthen the role of political parties in supporting campaigns this election cycle. Ruling in the Ohio case brought by Vance, in a 6-3 decision, the court established spending limits for political parties in coordination with specific candidates.

Expenses

This time, Brown spent more than $11.5 million on advertising in the second quarter. Some internal advertisements touted his position health care AND Congress Stock TradingAND three ads tried to link Husted to deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Brown also released trio advertising in data centers in July.

While Brown raised about $4.3 million more than it did in the second quarter of 2024, it was also more frugal, spending more than $2.5 million less on advertising. At the end of June, the former three-term senator declared that he had $16.2 million in cash at his disposal.

Meanwhile, Husted’s campaign generated more than five times Moreno’s ad spending during the same period in 2024. His main committee, Husted for Senate, paid for his first TV ad of the series in slow April. Two May ads attacking Brown’s congressional record came from the Husted Victory secondary committee.

His campaign reported more than $11 million in cash, more than double Moreno’s June 2024 cash balance.

These two campaigns aren’t the only groups with money in Ohio’s U.S. Senate race. Outside groups have already pledged to spend more than $174 million on the race AdImpact expects total spending to reach $749 million until election day.

The Republican-backed Senate Leadership Fund has already spent $700,000 on this year’s race and plans to spend a total of $79 million. The Democratic-backed Senate Majority PAC has committed $64 million to the race.

Most of the outside spending in the second quarter came from two Republican super PACs. Americans for Prosperity Action, Inc., a super PAC financed by Republican megadonor Charles Koch, has spent more than $3.1 million since April.

Ohio Flyer PAC paid more than $445,000 for April “The Party’s Over” advertising aimed at Brown’s record in Congress, part of more than $1.6 million in ad spending in the second quarter. The super PAC is dedicated solely to supporting Husted’s election candidacy, and its name refers to Husted’s time playing on the University of Dayton football team.

Fundraising

Ohio Flyer PAC received its largest second-quarter donation from A Public Voice, Inc., a Virginia-based gloomy money group that has given millions to Republican super PACs in the previous elections.

Nonprofit organizations like A Public Voice, Inc. do not have to disclose their donors. A Public Voice, Inc. has a history in U.S. Senate races in Ohio: she has donated $315,000 super PAC that opposed Brown in 2018and donated $850,000 to super PAC-backed Republican Sen. Jane Timken, who is running in the 2022 primary.

Brian Colleran, CEO of an Ohio nursing home chain, and Chevron also made six-figure contributions to Ohio Flyer PAC. A super PAC can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money, but cannot directly coordinate with a candidate’s campaign committee.

The Husted campaign received the largest donations in the second quarter, including a total of $637,200 from two Jane Street Capital executives through Husted Victory. Quantitative trading firm Jane Street has made some progress recently artificial intelligence AND data centers.

His campaign was also approved a total of $69,750 in smaller donations from the political action committees of utilities such as American Electric Power and Duke Energy, as well as technology companies such as Oracle and Meta.

Other prominent Husted donors include Cleveland Browns owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam, who regularly contribute to Republican campaigns. During the second quarter, Cleveland Browns executives and Haslam family members gave a total of $292,000 to Husted.

Only one person donated more than $50,000 to a committee affiliated with Brown’s campaign in the second quarter: Joe Kanfer, former CEO of Akron-based hand sanitizer maker Purell. Brown received most of his largest individual donations through the Ohio Grassroots Victory Fund affiliate committee.

James McClave, another Jane Street trader who donated millions to a gloomy money group who supported former President Joe Biden in 2024, donated $7,000 to Brown’s campaign committee.

McClave was also an early investor in artificial intelligence giant Anthropic spending millions on artificial intelligence regulation. Anthropic general counsel Jeff Bleich contributed $20,500 to Brown’s campaign committees during the second quarter.

Brown reported more than $5.1 million in donations through the Democratic fundraising platform ActBlue, and Husted contributed $500,000 from Republican counterpart WinRed. According to a press release, the former senator made more than 135,000 donations in the second quarter, including nearly 70,000 first-time donors.

The next deadline for congressional candidates to submit financial reports is October 15.

Issue 3 asked Ohioans whether the current voter photo ID requirement should be written into the state constitution. While Republicans say it’s good policy, Democrats and Libertarians say the constitutional amendment is only meant to unite the GOP base.

The three candidates for Ohio Secretary of State are divided on this amendment.

What is the applicable law?

Ohio law already requires voters to show up ID card with photo when casting your vote in person. Acceptable forms include a valid Ohio driver’s license, U.S. passport, or military ID. Voters can no longer exploit bank statements or utility bills.

The ID card must have a valid expiration date, a photo of the voter, and the voter’s name, which must substantially match the voter’s name as it appears on the voter roll or in the poll book.

Other acceptable forms of ID include an Ohio ID card, an Ohio BMV momentary identification form, a U.S. passport, an Ohio National Guard ID card, and a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs ID card.

What does a yes vote on issue 3 mean?

Voting “yes” on Issue 3 means you want to make it more challenging to change current voter ID requirements by enshrining them in the Ohio Constitution.

“We should protect elections here in Ohio,” said Robert Sprague, the Republican candidate for secretary of state.

A future General Assembly could repeal the law unless it is written into the constitution, supporters of the proposal argue.

The Ohio Constitution is the primary governing document that supersedes all other state policies. It can only be changed by the votes of the people.

The Ohio Revised Code contains all current laws that Ohio lawmakers pass and sign into law. It is regularly updated and changed by state lawmakers.

“I would like us to go back to in-person voting – that way everyone would have to show a photo ID,” Sprague said in an interview. “We know people are who they say they are.”

It is much more challenging to introduce a policy into the constitution or change it. In order for citizens to put the proposed amendment on the ballot, they must collect hundreds of thousands of valid signatures from across the state.

For lawmakers to propose an amendment, support is required from 60% of the members of each chamber. Issue 3 was put to a vote by supermajority Republican lawmakers. For the amendment to become part of the state constitution, voters must still pass it.

Changes to the Ohio Revised Code either require significantly fewer signatures to be collected for proposed legislation to be considered by voters, or the bill can be passed by a basic majority vote in the Legislature.

If the legislature enacts a law that is inconsistent with the Constitution, it is up to the judiciary to uphold the Constitution.

Both President Donald Trump and GOP gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy campaigned for No. 3’s passage.

“I think Ohioans will support this,” Sprague said.

Trump has been advocating for stricter voting laws across the country for years. He is currently advocating for Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, which, among a number of other significant changes, would require a photo ID to vote.

There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in Ohio, even if photo ID wasn’t the law. Thousands of audits have confirmed this.

What does a “no” vote on issue number 3 mean?

Voting “no” on Issue 3 means you don’t want to add the current requirements to the state constitution and instead keep them in the Revised Code.

Allison Russo, the Democratic nominee for secretary, believes the amendment is on the ballot for political reasons.

“It speaks to the desperation we see from Republicans in this state,” Russo said in an interview. “They are clearly concerned about the November election.”

Republican strategists acknowledged there are concerns about the GOP this year.

“We may have a turnout problem,” GOP strategist Bob Clegg said, adding that there could be “lowered turnout.”

This isn’t the first time the Republican Party has turned on the “vote squeezer” some opponents he said.

In 2022, the next midterm year, Republicans put a proposal on the ballot that would ban noncitizens from voting in all Ohio elections. Noncitizens could no longer vote in state or federal elections.

“Instead of addressing the real issues of everyday Ohioans, they are turning to red meat issues that may or may not have any impact in November,” Russo said.

She supports photo ID, but it’s the law, so she said it was a waste of time.

“Our photo ID requirements that we currently have are the strictest in the country,” she added.

Republicans deny it is an attempt to raise turnout, saying it is simply good politics.

Tom Pruss, the candidate’s Libertarian secretary of state, opposes the amendment, calling it “political theater.”

“Our election laws should not be crafted in response to nationwide fear-mongering, cable news debates, or baseless claims designed to incite voter anger and fear,” Pruss said.

(*3*)

Some conservative activists also oppose the proposal, arguing it doesn’t go far enough because it doesn’t require voter ID for absentee ballots.

In trying to get Issue 3 passed by the Legislature and put it on the ballot, Republicans couldn’t get enough votes.

To get the 60 voters needed, the GOP amended an unrelated bill to require photo ID for absentee ballots. Gov. Mike DeWine vetoed the measure, noting that it contained many errors and could disenfranchise voters.

Pruss raised the fact that the constitutional amendment does not apply to absentee or mail-in voting, citing concerns about what a future General Assembly might do.

“This gives partisan lawmakers significant power to later restrict mail-in voting, which could impact seniors, military personnel, voters with disabilities, rural residents, shift workers and others who cannot easily vote in person,” Pruss said.

Why is this “Issue 3?”

Beginning in November 2024, Ohio began renumbering its state ballot proposals. Instead of renumbering each election, the numbers will not repeat until a state reaches number 500.

This was originally an issue in 2023. The first special election in August 2023 asked voters whether Ohio should take power away from the majority. Supporters, mostly Republicans, wanted people to vote yes.

However, in November 2023, issue 1 asked voters whether the right to reproductive freedom and abortion should be protected. Opponents, mostly Republicans, wanted people to vote no.

So for the GOP in August it was “Yes on 1”, in November “No on 1” and vice versa for the Democrats.

Under this fresh plan, No. 1 is the November 2024 redistricting proposal. No. 2 is the May 2025 bond proposal. Currently, No. 3 is the November 2026 voter ID amendment.

Follow WEWS House of Representatives reporter Morgan Trau X AND Facebook.

This article was originally published on News5Cleveland.com and are published in the Ohio Capital Journal under a content sharing agreement. Unlike other OCJ articles, it is not available for free republication on other news outlets because it is owned by WEWS in Cleveland.

WASHINGTON – Hundreds of thousands of Haitian immigrants could lose their legal status as early as Tuesday, putting them at risk of deportation after the U.S. Supreme Court last month allowed the Trump administration to end their humanitarian protections.

The impending loss of Temporary Protected Status for between 330,000 and 350,000 immigrants comes amid the Trump administration’s deportation campaign and continued attacks on TPS recipients who come from countries deemed too risky to return. The Department of State strongly discourages any visits to Haiti due to kidnappings and gang violence.

The Department of Homeland Security has already urged people who are at risk of losing their TPS to self-deport.

“Temporary Protected Status is exactly that – TEMPORARY,” DHS he said in a social media post on Monday. “For people with solved TPS: closing time. You don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here.”

Several media reports indicated that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement plans to aggressively enforce the law against Haitian immigrants who are losing their legal status, starting with a immense population in Springfield, Ohio.

said the state’s Republican governor, Mike DeWine CBS News on Monday was unaware of these DHS plans and called any enforcement action against Haitians a “mistake.”

The lower court stays

The exact moment when you lose your status is complicated by a federal judge in Washingtonwhich has not yet complied with the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case and lifted the earlier suspension that prevents the administration from ending TPS for Haitians. A decision, potentially granting another stay while the court hears other arguments, is expected this week.

The U.S. Department of Justice has proposed a briefing schedule to continue appearances in the District of Columbia trial court, with the final hearing taking place on November 6. Lawyers for the Haitians at TPS plan to submit a brief by Friday laying out their legal arguments in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision.

Federal judges have halted TPS terminations for citizens of Burma, Ethiopia and South Sudan. Before the second Trump administration began last year, there were approximately 1.3 million immigrants from 17 countries in TPS.

Companies and families in constant motion

Immigration advocates and business leaders have criticized the administration’s policy to repeal TPS.

“The majority of adult TPS holders are active participants in the labor market, working in industries that are already struggling with persistent labor shortages,” Rebecca Shi, CEO of the American Business Immigration Coalition Action, said in a statement. “Removing these workers not only turns lives upside down, it weakens industries that are already struggling to meet demand.”

The Haitian Bridge Alliance, which advocates for TPS holders in Haiti, said in a statement that the loss of protection from deportation would lead to family separation because many beneficiaries have children who are U.S. citizens.

“What we will witness will be one of the largest family separation events in modern history,” the Haitian Bridge Alliance said.

Closure of other roads

Some TPS recipients may apply for other immigration status, such as asylum, although not all may apply or qualify for it.

For example, foreign nationals suffering from TPS as a result of a natural disaster are unlikely to meet the criteria for asylum, which include fear of persecution “due to race, religion, nationality, membership in a specific social group or political beliefs” – according to federal law.

Plus the Trump administration issued the recipe on Tuesday, allowing asylum officials to immediately send asylum seekers to appear before immigration judges without holding a hearing or attaching key evidence of the applicant’s credibility, leading to quick denial and deportation.

The modern rule, combined with the loss of TPS, means beneficiaries are unlikely to have much chance of winning their asylum claims.

Supreme Court ruling

Last month, the Supreme Court ruled that courts were barred from reviewing whether the decision to end TPS designations made by then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem followed proper procedures.

Although the case was brought by TPS recipients from Haiti and Syria, the decision could also impact other TPS-related challenges to the Trump administration’s efforts to end the designation.

Due to the Supreme Court’s ruling, lawyers representing TPS recipients in courts across the country are correcting their complaints.

They argue that termination of TPS status, including work authorization, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states that the government may not deprive a person of “life, liberty, or property” without following certain procedures.

Lawyers also argued that TPS’s dissolutions were driven by racial resentment rather than improvements in domestic conditions.

They cite President Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign statements that falsely accused Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, of eating pets.

Each morning in the Ohio Capital Journal’s free newsletter, The Eye-Opener, we round up the news and commentary from across Ohio, the country and the world that catches our attention. We call this feature Catching Our Eye and have published it here.

Sign up for our free daily newsletter to get all the Ohio news you need to know delivered straight to your inbox every weekday morning.

If you already subscribe, please share the Ohio Capital Journal with your family and friends: https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/subscribe/

Catching our eyes

• House in Ohio. Andrew Tobias of Signal Ohio reports: “The sudden withdrawal of Cincinnati-area Republicans from the Ohio House race is causing confusion among the GOP.”

  Hamilton County Republicans are scrambling to find a replacement candidate in one of Ohio’s more competitive legislative districts after the party’s candidate in the November election abruptly resigned this week.

  Elizabeth Maier surprised Republicans and Democrats alike on Wednesday by announcing on her campaign website that she was ending her campaign for Ohio’s 27th House District.

• Americans left and right see the game rigged. CNN’s Aaron Blake writes: “According to polls, Americans – including many Republicans – are losing faith in capitalism”

  President Donald Trump has indicated that his main strategy for the 2026 midterm elections is to call Democrats “socialists” and even “communists” at every turn. There is evidence that democratic socialism is gaining slightly more support in recent Democratic primaries.

  However, the more critical event in American politics today may not be the rise of socialism but the decline of faith in capitalism and economic justice.

  New polls confirm that even the right is increasingly disillusioned.

• Cruelty for cruelty’s sake. Bob Ballard of TiffinOhio.net writes: “Trump’s cruel deportation campaign will devastate Springfield, Ohio, and threaten its Haitian neighbors”

  Cruelty is the cheapest thing a government can produce. It doesn’t need a budget, no legislation, no argument that can survive ten seconds of exposure to evidence. I need a date on the calendar and other people’s neighbors.

  The date in Springfield (was) on Friday.

  That’s when Temporary Protected Status expires and between 12,000 and 15,000 people in the Clark County city of less than 60,000 people cease to be legally present and become a burden.

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump revived his tariff program on Friday, imposing new import taxes on products from dozens of top U.S. trading partners, immediately replacing the transient global tariffs he imposed after the U.S. Supreme Court dealt a major blow to his sweeping “Emancipation Day” obligations.

As of Friday morning, U.S. importers will now pay an additional 10% to 12.5% ​​of product value for most goods from nearly 60 countries, including Canada, the European Union, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, Taiwan and the United Kingdom, among dozens of others. According to US trade authorities, the tariffs could affect 99.4% of imports.

The new round of import taxes, first announced delayed Thursday afternoon, replaces the blanket 10% tariff on world goods under Section 122 of the Trade Act 1974, which expired at midnight Friday. These tariffs invited new ones legal challengesincluding from Democratic-led states.

The latest tariffs were imposed after the Office of the United States Trade Representative allegedly found forced labor conditions in all economies under investigation under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act.

U.S. Trade Ambassador Jamieson Greer said in a statement Thursday that Trump “recognizes that decades of moral suasion have failed to eradicate forced labor from global supply chains. The United States has had a ban on the import of forced labor for nearly a century and rigorously enforces it; it is long past time for our trading partners to do the same.”

Supreme Court ruling

The Office of the United States Trade Representative announced two wide investigations in March, less than a month after the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s unprecedented global tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, commonly known as IEEPA.

Shortly after the Supreme Court struck at the IEEPA rates it announced in early April 2025, in the so-called “Liberation Day”, the government was in limbo for approximately $166 billion in returns to US importers who have already paid tariffs.

The latest batch of tariffs, effective Friday, is the second round of import taxes announced this week by the Trump administration. The White House introduced 50% tariffs on most goods Import from Canada Monday, triggering customs duties in accordance with Art. 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930.

The crisis-era provision, which has never been enforced before, authorizes the president to impose tariffs of up to 50% of the value of a product in response to discrimination against U.S. trade.

States Newsroom spoke to many people miniature business owners from 2025 on the impact of tariffs on their ability to keep prices stable, hire workers, invest in new equipment and supplies, and just generally continue to operate.

“Ridiculously Dumb”

Critics have blasted the administration’s new series of sweeping tariffs on a enormous share of domestic imports.

Scott Lincicome, vice president of general economics at the libertarian Cato Institute, wrote Thursday that the results of Section 301 investigations were “clearly predetermined” and “both laughably obtuse and wildly disproportionate to any measurable economic distortions.”

“And the whole thing sets a precedent for an ‘automatic tariff generator’ that Trump or a future president can implement at will. It makes a mockery of the real problem and could poison legal reforms. And Congress probably won’t do anything about it.” – Lincicome he wrote.

Some Republicans in the US House of Representatives rejected Trump’s tariff agenda in February, but no legislative changes have emerged.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement Thursday that the president “bleds inflation-plagued Americans dry with his tariffs.”

“Now he’s back for more. Trump’s chaotic tariffs have made life harder and more expensive for Americans. Families are paying more for everyday items. Small business owners are struggling to keep the lights on. Manufacturers are laying off jobs and farmers are being squeezed. Meanwhile, Trump and his billionaire family and friends are getting rich off the backs of working families,” said Schumer, D-N.Y.

Yale Budget Lab estimates Under the new tariffs, consumer prices could rise by up to 1%, adding approximately $1,100 to household costs.

If the tariffs remain in place, the U.S. would gain about $2 trillion in revenue over the next decade, though that number will likely be lower after taking into account the negative impact on the economy, according to the Yale Budget Lab.

WASHINGTON — Political party poll watchers are increasingly showing up, usually outside polling places.

They have a different mission than nonpartisan election observers, long considered a beacon of credibility, and the fear is that voters will be confused about who is there to influence them and who is there to protect them.

A growing partisan presence raises the possibility of even more conflict in November’s midterm elections, voting rights advocates worry. They fear that confusion between the two groups will contribute to a continuing decline in voter confidence in the process.

“This is a polarized country. There is a risk that people will see other poll monitoring programs designed to intimidate and lump us all together,” said Dan Vicuna, senior director of voting policy and fair representation at Common Cause.

His organization is part of a coalition of voting rights advocates that trains and sends nonpartisan workers to the polls. They ensure that voters will not be intimidated and that the counting and recounting will be carried out correctly.

Political parties that have their own poll-watching programs insist that the other side is responsible for the confusion.

“The Trump administration has sought to break long-standing norms around observers and bystanders,” she said Rep. Terri SewellD-Ala., the top Democrat on the House elections subcommittee.

Republicans say the integrity of the election has been at risk for years and, despite virtually no evidence, they are maintaining results in key state and presidential races that were subject to fraud.

President Donald Trump in his address to the nation On July 16, it said that “evidence shows that the electoral system we have is dangerously and truly vulnerable, at levels we never thought possible, to hacking, exploitation and foreign interference.”

The result so far is a Trump-inspired redrawing of congressional lines in some states to favor Republicans, a so-far unsuccessful push to pass Congress a bill requiring voters to show proof of citizenship and show ID at the polls, and a Supreme Court decision weakening the Electoral Law Act safeguards against intimidation in polls.

Many eyes on the process

Survey viewing takes many forms, depending on state laws and policies. Observers and poll workers often find themselves outside elections promoting their interests.

Monitors, on the other hand, are trained observers.

Common Cause explains that poll watchers are “individuals assigned to observe polls on behalf of a campaign or political party and confirmed by election officials – often at the polling place.” In some states, they can challenge voting eligibility

Some election observers remain outside polling stations. “They may be clearly biased in favor of a specific candidate or party. These people have no right to enter the polling station.” Common cause explains.

Common Cause is part of the Election Protection program, which focuses on helping voters and election officials in areas where turnout may be low or there is concern about voter intimidation.

“Our program focuses on impartial problem solving,” Vicuna said. Depending on your state’s laws, it may direct people to the appropriate polling place.

Observers who go through a training program can ensure that a partisan poll worker does not attempt to overstep his authority or that a voter does not show up fearing that immigration officials may be present.

Another highly regarded system is the “observer” program, approved by Congress two years ago under a 413-1 votes in the House and by vote in the Senate.

“The goal of the program is that during close or difficult elections, House staff members, designated and accredited by the (House Administration) Committee, will be on-site at the office or polling facility to observe election procedures and ensure that a certified winner will be selected in a free and fair election,” he says House Administration Committee Fact Sheet.

It emphasizes that “election observers are not campaign staff and cannot endorse or represent any candidate or position.”

The program enjoys broad bipartisan support and has recently gained recognition Representative Laurel Lee, R-Florida, chairman of the House Elections Subcommittee.

“It promotes transparency, gives election officials a different perspective on the process, and helps candidates and voters better understand how elections are conducted,” she said of the program. “Taken together, these benefits strengthen public confidence in our choices.”

A system that works?

Subcommittee conducted the hearing July 15 regarding election activities. Despite fierce fighting over voting rights, the hearing was peaceful and based on political principles.

It featured two local election officials, Wesley Wilcox of Marion County, Florida, and Lance Reed of Summit County, Ohio, describing how they try to avoid any display of bias or attempts to influence voters.

Summit County, which includes Akron, is largely Democratic. Marion County is largely Republican.

“We have a great opportunity to counter the many false narratives circulating online. We can educate people about how elections actually work,” Wilcox said.

Reed described how officials in his county had a “positive experience” with the congressional program and were unaware of the political opinions of observers.

Sewell expressed a broader concern that the combination of Republican efforts to send poll watchers coupled with court decisions that have likely weakened the Voting Rights Act could lead to more GOP intimidation of minority voters.

She asked Reed where he saw the line “between legitimate election observation and conduct that risks intimidating voters and disrupting or disrupting the work of election officials?” She also asked what safeguards might be most effective in preventing observers from promoting biased views?

“Fortunately, we have not encountered any problems in this regard,” he said, adding that many of the local observers are people well known to election officials who have been doing this work for years.

Suspicious political parties

Beyond composed talks in Congress and nonpartisan efforts to protect elections, both parties are increasingly suspicious of each other’s activity at the ballot box.

Republicans have sent poll watchers to multiple states in 2024 as part of a massive effort that officials say will ensure election integrity.

“Every ballot. Every precinct. Every processing center. Every county. Every battleground state. We will be there,” he said Lara Trumpwho was then co-chairman of the Republican National Committee. The party sent thousands of volunteers to track polls in 18 potential swing states.

Republicans have sent congressional observers to Atlanta, Detroit, Milwaukee, Philadelphia and Madison, Wisconsin, this year, said Republican Joe Morelle of New York state, the top Democrat on the House Administration Committee. He said no Democratic congressional observers were sent.

“Their departure from long-established norms suggested an unprecedented attempt to exploit the program for partisan gain,” Morelle said. The Republican National Committee did not respond to a request for comment.

Trump praised GOP election observation efforts and vowed to continue them this year.

He recalled May Truth Social in the post like “Republicans had an election integrity army in every state to protect the sanctity of every legal vote.”

He said: “We will do the same thing again in 2026, but it will be much bigger and stronger. The voice of all Americans should be heard by casting a vote. Rest assured that this election will be fair!”

So far, “The RNC is already on the ground, deploying staff in 17 states, registering voters and aggressively pursuing victory in November – and we won’t stop until we do it,” he said President Joe Gruters in a May post on X. The states were not identified.

Democrats are fighting back using their own poll viewing programs.

Democratic National Committee claims to be working to “develop comprehensive counter-programming for potential GOP voter intimidation and election subversion.”

It plans to do this through “the deployment of poll watchers, constitutional observers, escalation protocols, and coordinated legal and operational support.”

The DNC does not provide details.

Additionally, last month Senate Democratic leaders announced a modern program that they say will “train Senate staff to serve as official election observers and protect against any interference in the 2026 midterm elections.”

They wrote in a statement “Their role will be to observe, document and report objective information to assist the Senate in addressing any potentially contested Senate elections and to inform future legislation and oversight efforts related to federal election administration.”

Voters seem to agree on one thing. “I think at the end of the day, public trust is the most important thing, and right now it’s on the rocks,” said a member of the elections subcommittee, Rep. Julie Johnson, D-Texas. “This is the most fragile element of our electoral system in a long time.”

Republican gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy said in March that consolidating Ohio’s public universities would make higher education better and more affordable.

The overwhelming consensus of economists polled on the topic this month said such a move would reduce Ohio’s graduate population and reduce economic output. They were divided on whether it would save money at all.

In the face of backlash, Ramaswamy is now backtracking on his call.

“I think we have too many duplicate programs in our universities,” Ramaswamy told an audience in Strongsville earlier this month, according to WEWS in Cleveland.

He later added: “I want every region to have the best higher education institutions available to the people of (each) region. But not every university has to offer every program“

Vivek Ramaswamy said Ohio should close “low-cost” universities. Then came the reaction.

Ramaswamy said something completely different in: March 27 column in The Columbus Dispatch. He cited Ohio’s aging population and degenerating student enrollment, and applauded the fact that Georgia eliminated nine public universities from 2011 to 2018.

He wrote that as governor, “he would bedetermine where missions overlap, where enrollment collapses have made independence impossible, and where administrative functions can be standardized without harming students.”

In effect, he said, “it would create a more competitive, increasingly affordable and rights-based higher education system for taxpayers and students.”

A panel of Ohio economists polled by Scioto Analysis was unconvinced by this argument. No one believed it would support Ohio’s economy in the long run.

When asked whether they agreed with the statement that “reducing the number of universities in Ohio would reduce Ohio’s long-term economic output,” 11 agreed and four were unsure.

None of them said they thought reducing the number of public universities would be a good solution raise economic result.

Most of them work at public universities, so some bias in their favor may be inherent. However, Kevin Egan of the University of Toledo made a uncomplicated argument for why reducing the number of public universities reduces economic output.

“On average, college graduates earn more, reflecting their additional value to the economy,” he wrote in comments to the survey. “Closing any local public universities will result in some local commuters not attending college, thereby reducing the number of valuable workers to the economy in the long run.”

On the other hand, Curtis Reynolds of Kent State University said the economic benefits of Ohio’s public colleges could be undermined because Ohio leaders are not doing a better job of making the state attractive to teenage professionals.

“I am less certain about this for one simple reason: Ohio is struggling to retain the college graduates we produce,” he wrote. “If a state is unable to retain college graduates, the education of college graduates may be less important (from the state’s perspective).”

Reynolds didn’t mention the issue, but when CNBC ranked Ohio earlier this month, that’s what it was The best state for businessplaced it 18th in terms of quality of life. And one thing this may have affected Ohio is: abortion ban passed by Republicans in a rigged state legislature. It was later overturned by voters, but legislative Republicans are still trying to get it done limit abortion rights.

“And with surveys showing that a significant percentage of younger workers would not live in a country that banned abortion, in this category we include reproductive rights as well,” CNBC said of its quality of life score.

Ohio economists overwhelmingly agreed that getting rid of public universities would reduce the number of Ohioans earning college degrees. Twelve said yes and two were unsure.

“This will reduce the number of bachelor’s degrees and ultimately the number of master’s degrees as well,” said Charles Kroncke of Mount St. Joseph University.

Before his earlier departure, Ramaswamy was a member of future President Donald Trump’s “Department of Government Effectiveness.”

Led by Elon Musk, another billionaire with no government experience, DOGE promised to reduce waste and save taxpayers $2 trillion.

It was a miserable effort general chaos and fired people who often had to be rehired. This saved much less than promised – and by some estimates, even that was achieved costing taxpayers billions.

Although Ramaswamy said his college consolidation plan would save Ohioans money, economists didn’t believe the case was so clear-cut.

Six said it would save money, six said it wouldn’t, and two weren’t sure.

Even some economists who said consolidation would save money questioned the wisdom of doing so.

“It would save the state money in the short run, but in the long run it would be wise and foolish,” said Bob Gitter of Ohio Wesleyan University. “Education is one of the main functions of government.”

More than 200 U.S. mayors are calling on the federal government to reverse changes that will cost states billions and push millions of people off the food stamp program.

This week, the U.S. Conference of Mayors asked the U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee to reconsider deep cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) made in last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act. In addition to imposing fresh eligibility and work requirements on beneficiaries, the law will require states to self-fund some SNAP benefits for the first time starting in fall 2027.

210 mayors who signed the letter to Senate leaders, he said they are on the “front lines of a deepening food security crisis” and said the federal government should be expanding access to food, not creating fresh obstacles.

The letter was signed by the Democratic and Republican mayors of leading major cities such as Baltimore, Las Vegas, Oklahoma City and St. Louis, as well as smaller communities including Lima, Ohio; Manhattan, Kansas; and Muskegon, Michigan. The United States Conference of Mayors is a nonpartisan organization representing more than 1,400 leaders in cities with populations of 30,000 or more.

“When we talk about how to keep our residents fed, it worries Republican mayors, it worries Democratic mayors, it worries independent mayors. It worries everyone,” Matt Tuerk, the Democratic mayor of Allentown, Pennsylvania, told Stateline.

Tuerk, who heads the national organization’s Standing Committee on Children, Health and Human Services, said his constituents already struggle with high costs of housing, utilities and groceries.

“Now they are concerned about whether they will be able to even pay for the groceries they need without SNAP benefits,” he said.

Already over 4 million Americans lost SNAP benefits, putting more pressure on food banks and food pantries across the country.

Federal officials have argued that changes are needed to root out fraud and waste in the food stamp program.

Tuerk said philanthropic groups don’t have the resources to serve as a national safety net, and cities and states are already struggling with tight budgets that can’t fill the void left by federal cuts.

“And there is no suitable food substitute,” he added. “And I can say this as a kid who had a free lunch card… Without food stamps, I wouldn’t be where I am today.”

The mayors are also asking Congress to delay implementation of the fresh requirements, which some experts say could cost states money over $9 billion.

The fresh law will penalize states based on their rate of payment errors – a technical federal calculation for SNAP overpayments and underpayments, not fraud. States with payment error rates above 6% will have to fund between 5% and 15% of their benefit payments. Previously, the feds provided assistance.

Last month, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said in a statement that the fresh error rate data was “further evidence of a serious lack of state accountability” in the SNAP program.

However, a group of mayors said states need more time to improve error rates and boost budgets for additional costs.

“Rising costs of living, stagnant wages and reduced federal support are converging to create conditions that city governments must address on their own,” the mayors’ letter said.

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at: khardy@stateline.org.