I was able to attend this briefing from American Community Media, where the conversation around elections felt immediate, unsettled, and a bit familiar actually.
Over the past year, as moderator Pilar Marrero noted, there has been “an escalation of federal and state actions that go well beyond routine election administration,” raising many questions, about the procedure but also about who holds power of the procedure. For our communities, access is already limitied in many wasy.
Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School and former White House senior advisor on democracy and voting rights, opened with a careful but pointed assessment of federal activity. Drawing on his experience in the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, Levitt argued that much of what is coming from the executive branch is best understood as an attempt to “project power that he does not have.”
His distinction between legal authority and operational reality was central to this breifing. Elections in the United States, he reminded the room, are administered by state and local officials, not the president. “He doesn’t have his hand on the switch that makes things happen with respect to elections,” Levitt said, noting that many officials are simply ignoring directives that fall outside federal authority.
Still, he did not dismiss the moment as harmless, there are broader implications. The messaging, he said, is “scary” and “highly unusual,” even if it has not yet translated into widespread disruption on the ground.
Levitt’s concern sharpened when the conversation turned to public trust. He warned that repeated claims of fraud, despite a lack of evidence, have taken root. “I am quite worried that he has succeeded substantially in spreading distrust, where that distrust is not warranted,” he said.
The lowering of erosion of confidence does not fall evenly. In Indigenous communities, where distrust in federal systems has historical grounding, new waves of misinformation risk compounding with these commuinity-wide feelings.
Levitt pointed to a partial remedy that feels almost understated in its simplicity. When people engage directly in election work, he said, they often leave with greater confidence. “The minute that people get a view on the inside, it turns them around.” It is a reminder that proximity to process can counter abstraction, though access to that proximity is not equally available in all communities.
Danielle Lang, vice president for voting rights at the Campaign Legal Center and a litigator who has challenged many of the policies discussed, offered a more procedural view of the current landscape. Her work places her inside the legal response to federal and state actions, and her assessment was notably measured. “The president has no constitutional power over elections,” she said, echoing a line that has now been reinforced in multiple court rulings.
Lang described a series of legal challenges that have successfully blocked attempts to alter voter registration rules or collect broad voter data. In contrast to broader narratives about judicial inaction, she emphasized that, in this domain, courts have been responsive. “That is simply not the story when it comes to elections,” she said.
Many of the proposed changes, even when blocked, introduce confusion. Policies around voter registration, absentee ballots, and identification requirements can be complex. The result is that participation feels uncertain for many. For Indigenous voters, this dynamic intersects with existing obstacles such as distance from polling locations, limited broadband access, and underfunded election infrastructure in tribal areas.
The law may remain intact, but the perception of instability can still suppress participation. Lang noted that tension, saying that even unsuccessful efforts can shape behavior. Yet she emphasized preparedness among legal advocates. “Voting rights advocates have the voters’ backs,” she said, framing the current moment as an opportunity to respond.
That balance between perception and reality carried through the remarks of John C. Yang, president of Asian Americans Advancing Justice. Yang, a longtime civil rights attorney, situated the conversation within a broader demographic shift. As communities of color grow in political influence, he argued, restrictions often follow. “Voting is a right. It’s not a privilege,” he said, returning to a principle that feels increasingly contested in practice.
Yang described how policies framed as neutral can produce unequal burdens, particularly for voters with limited English proficiency or those who rely on mail ballots. Of course, this is a large population of the United States, and this can translate into large biases.
He also emphasized misinformation. False claims about voting rules, he warned, can deter participation before any sort of law begins. Without accurate reporting, “people reading just simply the Facebook page could feel like, alright, I’ve already lost my right to vote.” This is where things get murky and scary.
Andrea Senteno, regional counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, extended that analysis, focusing on how technical changes translate into lived barriers. Her work centers on Latino voting rights, but her observations apply more broadly. Requirements such as proof of citizenship or limits on voter assistance, she said, “create, intentionally, confusion and fear and distrust.”
These are in fact predictable consequences of policies that place additional confusion and burden on specific communities. Senteno also highlighted how enforcement environments shape behavior. The suggestion of immigration enforcement near polling sites, even if not implemented, can discourage eligible voters from participating. This is a psychologial barrier, a real one, and these words and fears carry power.
Across the panel, a consistent theme emerged. The mechanics of elections may remain stable, but the surrounding narrative is shifting. Levitt described much of the current federal activity as “marketing,” a term that captures both its performative quality and its potential impact. Yang framed misinformation as a tactic. Senteno described confusion as a deliberate outcome. Lang pointed to the legal system as a counterweight. Together, they outlined a landscape where the formal rules of democracy coexist with an informal environment that can either support or suppress participation.
The panel’s emphasis on local control and community agency offers a note of hope. “Voters have agency here,” Levitt said. “We’re in charge.”
So it seems we are again on a battle ground. For the sake of our communities, we must continue to keep each other informed. Journalism remains very important, to clarify what is real. Confusion and rumors can form into the shape of monsters, and together we can work to dismantle it.
