Trumpova administracija povečuje pritisk na države, da spremenijo volilne prakse.

The Trump administration has intensified its efforts to influence election procedures across U.S. states, reportedly using federal funding as leverage to compel changes in voting practices. According to recent reports, the administration is warning state election officials that failure to remove noncitizens from voter rolls could result in criminal charges. This move comes amid ongoing legal battles over allegations of widespread election fraud, despite courts having repeatedly dismissed such claims as unfounded. With less than four months remaining before pivotal midterm elections, the administration's actions appear aimed at shaping the landscape of future elections, particularly the 2026 cycle.

The Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division issued letters to election officials in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, asserting that allowing nonvoters to participate in elections or remain on voting rolls could lead to criminal prosecution. These letters also required states to provide detailed responses within five days regarding their compliance strategies. While some experts suggest these communications merely reiterate existing legal obligations, others argue that the intent behind them is more nuanced.

The administration has also tied federal antiterrorism grants to specific election-related requirements. A June announcement by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) outlined conditions under which 20 percent of grants for states and urban areas would be withheld unless compliance was achieved. The initiative, involving over $1 billion allocated for various security measures, emphasizes the importance of securing election infrastructure as a national security concern. States were instructed to verify the citizenship status of all registered voters and election workers, among other mandates.

These developments have sparked varied reactions. Some states are resisting the pressures being applied by the administration, while others are supporting the initiatives. Oregon's Secretary of State, a Democrat named Tobias Read, criticized the Justice Department for issuing threats without substantial evidence to support claims of non-existent voter fraud. He emphasized the security and fairness of Oregon's election system, expressing that he is not intimidated by political intimidation or fabricated controversies.

Legal scholars have offered differing perspectives on the implications of these actions. Rick Hasen, a professor at UCLA and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project, noted that the administration seems to be attempting to exert influence over how states and localities manage upcoming elections. He indicated that part of this effort involves altering election rules and another aspect aims at eroding public confidence in the election process. Meanwhile, Derek Muller, a law professor specializing in election law at the University of Notre Dame, questioned whether the letters hold significant meaning beyond restating legal provisions and requesting updates, suggesting that many states might disregard them.

As the situation unfolds, the focus remains on the potential impact of these administrative moves on the upcoming elections. Legal challenges continue to emerge, reflecting broader concerns about the balance between ensuring election integrity and preserving the autonomy traditionally afforded to states in managing their electoral processes. The White House has deferred inquiries to FEMA, which has yet to comment publicly on the matter. As the deadline approaches for states to demonstrate compliance with the newly imposed requirements, the unfolding narrative promises to reveal further insights into the complex interplay between federal authority and state sovereignty in the realm of election governance.