this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2026
26 points (100.0% liked)

politics

31488 readers
2710 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A federal judge has ordered the Department of Homeland Security to stop certain investigative actions in its hunt for noncitizen voters, writing that the department’s efforts rely on faulty data that includes US citizens legally allowed to vote.

Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín wrote in the order that DHS’s data alleging hundreds of thousands of possible illegal voters “is widely known to inadvertently include U.S. citizens” and “leaves citizens afraid that their name will be wrongly included in the hundreds of thousands identified for investigation.”

The judge’s order specifically limits actions DHS takes in the field to investigate noncitizen voting, such as interviews, and says that DHS cannot take those actions if it believes the person they’re targeting could be a US citizen.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago

There are two parts to this objective:

  1. Disenfranchise voters who they are at "the enemy" from being able to vote.
  2. Lay the ground work for the inevitable cries of "rigged election!!1!" when they get their asses handed to them.

This judge's decision helps to mitigate the first part. But there's nothing he can do about the second part. For that everyone needs to just stand firm, point out the facts, and not let that bullshit stand.