Democratic states scramble to prevent potential Trump administration interference in their elections

Democratic-led states are racing to protect November’s midterm elections from possible interference by the Trump administration and its allies; It introduces new laws that restrict law enforcement presence at polling places or seek to thwart the federal government’s efforts to obtain sensitive election materials.

Five states — California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland and Washington state — have recently passed laws to protect their elections from federal action, according to CNN research and the Voting Rights Lab, which tracks election legislation.

Sponsors say they are responding to President Donald Trump’s ongoing rhetoric about voting fraud and the administration’s increasingly aggressive moves to reshape how voting is conducted. The U.S. Constitution gives states the primary duty to conduct elections and Congress the authority to set the ground rules for federal contests.

“It’s frustrating that the Trump administration believes it can ignore the U.S. Constitution and try to take over our elections,” said Maryland state Sen. Cynthia Kagan, who is co-sponsoring a new bill that aims to preserve the state’s deadline for counting mail-in votes after Election Day.

Since returning to the White House last year, the president has repeatedly tried to change election procedures on his own as his attempts to push new voting restrictions stalled in Congress.

He signed administrative orders regarding Harsh intervention against the ban on voting by mailHe baselessly claimed it was full of fraud. His administration obtained records from the 2020 election, which he lost, from the nation’s largest counties. Georgia And Arizona. And the Justice Department is fighting in court to gain access to multiple states.’ voter rolls When seeking evidence of individuals who are ineligible to vote, including non-citizens.

Trump also said last month when asked whether he would send Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents or National Guard troops to the polls. replied “He would do whatever was necessary to make sure we had honest elections.” Other administration officials refused exclude the idea public.

That raised new alarms among some Democratic lawmakers and election officials about possible actions by federal law enforcement at polling places this fall.

In Connecticut, a new provision of state law that goes into effect July 1 largely aims to prohibit law enforcement from coming within 250 feet of a polling place, drop box or vote-counting area without permission from election officials, according to Democratic State Rep. Matt Blumenthal, who chairs his chamber’s government management and elections committee and is the new law’s lead sponsor.

“We are taking these steps because of the shocking and unprecedented statements and actions that Donald Trump and his allies, including the government, have made to attack and threaten our elections,” he told CNN.

Responding to the latest moves by Democratic states, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement that Trump “is committed to ensuring that Americans have full confidence in the administration of elections, which includes providing fully accurate and up-to-date, error-free voter rolls and illegally registering non-citizen voters.”

“The president’s campaign promise is why millions of Americans are sending him back to the White House,” he added.

When asked about Trump’s remarks about sending federal officials to the polls, the White House said press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters she had not heard the president “discuss any formal plans to put ICE outside polling places.”

Some of these state laws can lead to legal conflicts with the federal government. Court disputes have already erupted between the Trump administration and states such as California and the US. Connecticut Over laws banning ICE officers from wearing masks while working across state lines.

But legal experts say states are likely on firmer ground when it comes to a new set of laws spelling out how state and local officials must respond to any federal overreach regarding elections.

Here’s a look at how states are changing their laws to face potential federal action:

• Inside CaliforniaDemocratic Gov. Gavin Newsom last month signed legislation banning election officials from gaining unauthorized access to voter rolls or voting machines without a court order. It also makes it a crime to knowingly receive a ballot from election officials without a valid permit.

• Inside coloradoA law signed by Democratic Gov. Jared Polis earlier this month prohibits interference with voting within a newly established 30-foot buffer zone around polling places and polling places. It also gives the governor, with input from an advisory committee, the authority to declare an emergency to allow elections to continue in the event of any disruption.

• ConnecticutThe new law also requires municipal officials or election workers who receive a subpoena or arrest warrant to notify the attorney general and secretary of state within 36 hours.

• Inside marylandA law enacted in May allows the state to continue counting votes in local and state elections from mail-in ballots received after Election Day even if the federal government ends the post-election grace period for presidential and congressional contests.

• Inside washington stateA law that took effect in March makes it a felony punishable by up to five years in prison to disclose personal information contained in a voter registration file to anyone other than state and local election officials without permission from the secretary of state. Democratic Sen. Marcus Riccelli, the measure’s sponsor, said it does not prevent a government agency from requesting and potentially obtaining the information. But the request “must be made through our secretary of state, who manages our statewide voter registration database,” he said.

during signing ceremonyNewsom called the California law necessary “to address legitimate concerns” about the administration’s moves.

He also touched on high-profile names. 650,000 ballot papers were confiscated In last year’s special election in Riverside County, California, Republican state sheriff Chad Bianco, who was running for governor, was elected. A local judge had signed an order calling Bianco a “fact-finding mission” into potential election fraud.

Earlier this year, the state Supreme Court I stopped the probe and ordered the seized ballot papers to be kept. The justices asked both sides to prepare briefs on how a new state law that seeks to restrict the seizure of such ballots might affect the case.

Blumenthal, the lead sponsor of Connecticut’s new law, pointed out that the FBI seized 2020 election records in Fulton County, Georgia, on January 28. He showed in a sealed affidavit following a legal challenge from local authorities: Claims from 2020 election deniers It was used to justify the FBI’s order.

Blumenthal said Connecticut law wouldn’t necessarily prevent federal agents from obtaining election materials in cases like Fulton County’s, but it does try to give state officials an opportunity to intervene in court before ballots or machines are seized under a search warrant.

“We want to make sure that some judicial authorities hear both sides of the story, and we also want to make sure that if he is executed, it’s done in a way that doesn’t interfere with our elections,” he said.

In Maryland, Democratic lawmakers have objected to the president’s repeated efforts to curb mail-in voting. The Trump administration is supporting the Republican National Committee’s initiative before the U.S. Supreme Court to stop vote counting in federal elections to be held after Election Day. A decision from the high court is expected soon.

Maryland is one of 14 states, along with the District of Columbia, that count mail-in ballots received after Election Day. National Conference of State Legislatures. (Additional states have extended ballot deadlines for overseas and military voters.) Maryland has a 10-day grace period as long as ballots are postmarked on or before Election Day.

Some Republican lawmakers claim Democrats are trying to interfere with legitimate oversight of the election by the federal government.

California state Sen. Tony Strickland, who opposes the new law in his state, said he expects it to be legally challenged on the grounds that it could violate the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which prohibits states from regulating the federal government.

federal appeals court cited It blocks a California law earlier this year that forced ICE officers to show identification while working in the state.

“I think we need to have the ability to monitor elections at all levels of government to make sure that elections are conducted properly,” Strickland told CNN. “What do you need to hide?”

But new laws in places like Washington state that impose criminal penalties on local officials who share sensitive data may escape challenges on constitutional grounds because they do not seek to police federal actions, said Richard Pildes, co-director of the Democracy Project at New York University School of Law.

“These are designed to tell election officials not to volunteer information if requested,” he said. “They regulate their own election officials. They don’t tell federal officials how to carry out their responsibilities.”

Justin Levitt, a Loyola Law School professor who served as White House counsel on voting during the Biden administration, said states have recently had legal battles with the federal government over election rules, but most of them have centered on changes enacted by Congress.

“What’s different now is that the president is trying to act outside of federal law and authority,” Levitt said. Still, he said he believes this fall’s elections will not face serious disruption.

First, he said, the controversy over high-profile seizures in Georgia and California has sensitized judges across the country to the need to carefully review future requests for voting materials, especially as elections approach.

“The states themselves are responsible for the process,” Levitt added. “And when the president orders things done, the states don’t have to listen.”

For more CNN news and newsletters, create an account at: CNN.com