Trump is attacking Washingtonians' voting rights. We must continue to expand them
The future of our democracy is at a crossroads. The right to vote, a fundamental pillar of our country, is under attack. While federal actions threaten to undermine fair elections, Washington State must remain steadfast in protecting and expanding democracy.
Because even in a state with some of the best election laws in the nation, we are at risk. If we are not moving forward, we are moving backward.
For me, this is personal. My parents are Mexican immigrants. I grew up in a town where most of the people looked like me, yet none of our elected officials did. Politics and elections felt like something happening outside our lives.
Many people in my community, despite having the right to vote, rarely exercised it. Not because they didn't care, but because no one had ever made them feel like their voice mattered.
That is the reality for too many people in this country, particularly in communities of color. And that is exactly what efforts to suppress the vote are designed to do — to make people feel like their voices don't count. We cannot let this continue to happen.
President Donald Trump's recent executive order requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration and limiting mail-in ballots is a direct attack on the very foundation of our democracy. These restrictions threaten to disenfranchise millions in Washington alone, particularly those in historically marginalized communities.
We've seen this before. From literacy tests and poll taxes to the gutting of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, every gain in voting rights has been met with efforts to roll them back. This is just the latest attempt.
Democracy is fragile. It requires constant shaping, defending, and improvement. We have not arrived at a perfect system. We must act now to protect what so many before us fought for and gain ground.
This is why Washington is leading the way on voting rights and electoral reforms. We passed the Washington Voting Rights Act to ensure fair representation, allowing communities to challenge electoral systems that silence them. We implemented same-day registration and pre-registration for young voters, making it easier for every eligible Washingtonian to participate. These are important steps, but they are not enough.
Looking to the future, we must expand Automatic Voter Registration to reach more eligible voters. We need a state-level precancel system, through HB 1710, to ensure jurisdictions with a history of discrimination against its own residents do not make changes that disenfranchise voters.
We must pass HB 1381 to expand language access at the ballot and continue efforts to meet voters where they are by permitting local governments to implement on-cycle elections (HB 1339) and ranked choice voting (HB 1448). And we must ensure that people with past convictions are not denied their right to participate in our democracy.
Democracy is the through-line of our nation's progress. The fight for suffrage — from women's right to vote, to the Voting Rights Act, to today's battle against voter suppression — has always determined who has a seat at the table. It determines who is represented in the halls of power that govern our lives. We cannot take it for granted.
Every attack on democracy or voting rights is an attack on the issues we care about — education, healthcare, climate, justice. If people cannot vote, they cannot hold leaders accountable or shape their own future.
The work we do today determines the strength of our democracy for generations to come. The right to vote should not depend on how many obstacles you can overcome to cast a ballot. It is given in the U.S. Constitution.
Washington must keep leading. Communities must keep fighting. To make this vision a reality, get involved in the legislative process and reach out to your local lawmakers.
Most importantly, pay attention to the races that affect you most at the bottom of the ticket. Because when democracy moves forward, we all do.
Rep. Sharlett Mena represents the 29th Legislative District, including South Tacoma, Midland, Parkland, and portions of Lakewood and Spanaway. She serves as chair of the House Committee on State Government and Tribal Relations.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
32 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Big changes are being proposed for a US food aid program. Here's a breakdown by the numbers
TPresident Donald Trump's plan to cut taxes by trillions of dollars could also trim billions in spending from social safety net programs, including food aid for lower-income people . The proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program would make states pick up more of the costs, require several million more recipients to work or lose their benefits, and potentially reduce the amount of food aid people receive in the future.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Military deployment in L.A. puts Trump's authority to use troops at home in the spotlight
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's move to send National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles amid unrest over his immigration policies has given new weight to a lingering question: How far can a president go in using the military to quell domestic disturbances? For now, the military has a limited role in Los Angeles, at least on paper, focused on protecting federal buildings and activities. But that hasn't stopped California's Democratic leaders, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, from vehemently objecting to Trump's actions. Trump has not taken the more drastic step of invoking the Insurrection Act, the name given to a series of legal provisions that allows the president, in certain circumstances, to enlist the military to conduct civilian law enforcement activities. But Elizabeth Goiten, an expert on national security at the Brennan Center for Justice, noted that the memorandum Trump issued Saturday authorizing military involvement in support of immigration enforcement makes no reference to Los Angeles, meaning it applies nationwide. "That's just a red alert," she said. "If we have the military being pre-emptively deployed throughout the country to effectively police protests, that is the hallmark of authoritarian rule." Although the military's role may initially be limited to a protective function, Goiten said that could easily be expanded in certain situations to include use of force and detention of protesters even without invoking the Insurrection Act. She pointed to the response of federal agencies under Trump during protests in Portland and Washington, D.C., in 2020. Ilan Wurman, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, said that to this point, Trump has acted within existing precedents that allow the president to use the military to assist with the enforcement of federal law. 'Federalizing the National Guard, using regular forces to restore order, is in my view well within the range of prior precedents,' he said. But, Wurman added, any attempt to invoke the Insurrection Act 'would be more problematic.' Generally, using the military to conduct broad law enforcement activities is forbidden under another law, the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. But that statute contains many loopholes, of which the Insurrection Act is one. The Posse Comitatus Act was enacted at the tail end of the post-Civil War Reconstruction period, erecting a new barrier against military intervention in the South as it moved toward the Jim Crow era. The last time the Insurrection Act was invoked was during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. President George H.W. Bush acted at the request of Tom Bradley, the Democratic mayor of Los Angeles, and Pete Wilson, the state's Republican governor. Previously, the act was used to desegregate schools in the 1950s and '60s amid opposition from state and local leaders in the South. In calling in the National Guard, Trump invoked a different law that allows the president to do so when there is an invasion or a danger of invasion or a rebellion or a danger of rebellion or when "the president is unable to with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." The law states that orders 'shall be issued through the governors of the states,' which has not happened in this case, as Newsom is adamantly opposed to Trump's move. California has filed a lawsuit that cites the skirting of Newsom's role under that provision as well as broader claims that Trump is infringing on California's sovereignty, among other things. "There is no invasion. There is no rebellion," California Attorney General Rob Bonta said Monday. In a new court filing Tuesday, Bonta said there was a "substantial likelihood" that troops will "engage in quintessential law enforcement activity" in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act if a judge does not take immediate action. He cited plans for National Guard members to provide support for immigration operations by, for example, securing perimeters in communities where enforcement activities are taking place. NBC News has separately reported that Marines deployed to Los Angeles could be used to transport immigration officers to arrest locations. Attorney General Pam Bondi has said she fully backed Trump's actions. 'We are going to enforce the law regardless of what they do,' she said, referring to Newsom in a Fox News interview Monday. 'Look at it out there. It looks like a Third World country.' Chris Mirasola, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center, said the impact of Trump's current plan could be limited by practical considerations, including the number of military personnel available and the cost of paying National Guard troops on active duty. "This ends up becoming extremely expensive very quickly," he added. The cost of the Los Angeles deployment alone is about $134 million, a defense department official said Tuesday. Military personnel are also likely to have little training in how to approach a domestic protest. "This is not in their normal mission set. There's always risk of escalation," which would only be more pronounced if the Insurrection Act was used, Mirasola added. If the president invokes the Insurrection Act, troops would not be limited by law to protecting federal property and personnel. Instead, they could have a much more active role on the streets, with a greater possibility of encountering civilians. While troops may not be able to carry out all the functions of federal law enforcement officers, such as conducting immigration raids, they could assist without violating the law, Mirasola said. There are also questions about whether the judiciary would intervene if Trump sought to use the Insurrection Act — or even who would have legal standing to sue to stop Trump. Litigation in that scenario could mirror a legal fight that has already played out over the Trump administration's efforts to use a wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act, to swiftly deport certain immigrants without affording them due process. The Supreme Court said due process is required, that detainees be given a proper chance to raise legal objections before a federal judge. But the court also said such lawsuits must be brought via habeas corpus claims from the people affected, not under a federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act. Any attempt to use the Insurrection Act could be challenged, 'but what shape the challenge takes may depend on the basis for invocation, how it is implemented and how it is directly carried out on the ground,' a civil rights lawyer said. Although Trump and his allies have referred to protesters in Los Angeles as "insurrectionists," there is no plan at the moment to invoke the Insurrection Act, a White House official told NBC News. Speaking on Sunday about whether he would seek to use the law, Trump said there was not currently a reason to but did not rule it out in future. 'Depends on whether or not there's an insurrection," he said. This article was originally published on
Associated Press
an hour ago
- Associated Press
Big changes are being proposed for a US food aid program. Here's a breakdown by the numbers
TPresident Donald Trump's plan to cut taxes by trillions of dollars could also trim billions in spending from social safety net programs, including food aid for lower-income people. The proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program would make states pick up more of the costs, require several million more recipients to work or lose their benefits, and potentially reduce the amount of food aid people receive in the future. The legislation, which narrowly passed the U.S. House, could undergo further changes in the Senate, where it's currently being debated. Trump wants lawmakers to send the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' to his desk by July 4, when the nation marks the 249th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Here's a look at the food aid program, by the numbers: Year: 2008 The federal aid program formerly known as food stamps was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, on Oct. 1, 2008. The program provides monthly payments for food purchases to low-income residents generally earning less than $1,632 monthly for individuals, or $3,380 monthly for a household of four. The nation's first experiment with food stamps began in 1939. But the modern version of the program dates to 1979, when a change in federal law took effect eliminating a requirement that participants purchase food stamps. There currently is no cost to people participating in the program. Number: 42 million A little over 42 million people nationwide received SNAP benefits in February, the latest month for which figures are available. That's roughly one out of every eight people in the county. Participation is down from a peak average of 47.6 million people during the 2013 federal fiscal year. Often, more than one person in a household is eligible for food aid. As of February, nearly 22.5 million households were enrolled SNAP, receiving an average monthly household benefit of $353. Dollars: $295 billion Legislation passed by the House is projected to cut about $295 billion of federal spending from SNAP over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. A little more than half of those federal savings would come by shifting costs to states, which administer SNAP. Nearly one-third of those savings would come by expanding a work requirement for some SNAP participants, which the CBO assumes would force some people off the rolls. Additional money would be saved by eliminating SNAP benefits for between 120,000 and 250,000 immigrants legally in the U.S. who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. Another provision in the legislation would cap the annual inflationary growth in food benefits. As a result, the CBO estimates that the average monthly food benefit would be about $15 lower than it otherwise would have been by 2034. Ages: 7 and 55-64 To receive SNAP benefits, current law says adults ages 18 through 54 who are physically and mentally able and don't have dependents would need to work, volunteer or participate in training programs for at least 80 hours a month. Those who don't do so are limited to just three months of benefits in a three-year period. The legislation that passed the House would expand work requirements to those ages 55 through 64. It also would extend work requirements to some parents without children younger than age 7. And it would limit the ability of states to waive work requirements in areas that lack sufficient jobs. The combined effect of those changes is projected by the CBO to reduce SNAP participation by a monthly average of 3.2 million people. Percentages: 5% - 25% The federal government currently splits the administrative costs of SNAP with states but covers the full cost of food benefits. Under the legislation, states would have to cover three-fourths of the administrative costs. States also would have to pay a portion of the food benefits starting with the 2028 fiscal year. All states would be required to pay at least 5% of the food aid benefits, and could pay more depending on how often they make mistakes with people's payments. States that had payment error rates between 6-8% in the most recent federal fiscal year for which data is available would have to cover 15% of the food costs. States with error rates between 8-10% would have to cover 20% of the food benefits, and those with error rates greater than 10% would have to cover 25% of the food costs. Many states could get hit with higher costs. The national error rate stood at 11.7% in the 2023 fiscal year, and just three states — Idaho, South Dakota and Vermont — had error rates below 5%. But the 2023 figures are unlikely to serve as the base year, so the exact costs to states remains unclear. As a result of the cost shift, the CBO assumes that some states would reduce or eliminate benefits for people. Margin: 1 House Resolution 1, containing the SNAP changes and tax cuts, passed the House last month by a margin of just one vote — 215-214. A vote also could be close in the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 of the 100 seats. Democrats did not support the bill in the House and are unlikely to do so in the Senate. Some Republican senators have expressed reservations about proposed cuts to food aid and Medicaid and the potential impact of the bill on the federal deficit. GOP Senate leaders may have to make some changes to the bill to ensure enough support to pass it.
