This started out to be a very different weekly column. On Friday, I was writing about our role in helping secure an important new precedent stopping Trump from seizing ballots in November when my phone started blowing up. The Roberts Court had just paved the way for the Trump administration to proceed with its plan to use a centralized database housed within the Department of Homeland Security to verify the citizenship eligibility of voters. As I put my pen aside (ok, it was my keyboard) and started reading the decision, it immediately became clear that it was a bad one for all the reasons the three dissenting justices laid out, including that the government’s nonexistent showing of irreparable harm pales in comparison with the “harm caused by burdening or disenfranchising even a few lawful voters.” What crap!
Nevertheless, I urge us all to keep calm and carry on with whatever form of voting, preferably early, you prefer. My own blood pressure went down when I came to page six of the majority opinion, which noted that because we are in the National Voter Registration Act’s 90-day quiet period before the election, states may not use DHS’s new database to engage in systematic voter roll maintenance. The dissenters of course agreed. Because of this moratorium on systematic removals from the voter rolls so close to the election, the impact of this decision on the election, the majority said, should be limited.
What’s more, we and the entire voting rights community will be watching closely for any attempts by the administration or MAGA-aligned elections officials to circumvent the 90-day cooling-off period. We will go right to court to stop any malicious efforts they try to pull on individual voters or otherwise.
That brings me back to my original topic. Earlier this week, Donald Trump was confronted by the latest obstacle to any attempt to interfere with the 2026 election by seizing ballots. It came in the form of a defeat in the California Supreme Court. The court ruled against Trump acolyte Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco in his effort to seize more than half a million ballots from the custody of elections officials months after a 2025 election.
This case began during Bianco’s misbegotten run for California governor, perhaps as an attempt to emulate Trump or to win his endorsement (which never came). After a conservative election watchdog group alleged discrepancies in the 2025 Proposition 50 vote, Bianco seized more than 650,000 ballots from elections officials, taking a page from Trump’s election-denial playbook. He then had his own personnel begin recounting ballots, an extraordinary intervention into the administration of an election.
On Thursday, the state Supreme Court repudiated the sheriff’s gross breach of state law in a decision that establishes important precedent that can be used to block any Trump seizure shenanigans. Best of all, you Contrarians played a key role! Your paid subscriptions helped power our litigation team that filed briefs challenging the sheriff’s conduct. We participated as amicus on behalf of LULAC in multiple petitions filed with the California Supreme Court that sought to stop the rogue sheriff.
Our wonderful colleagues at the Campaign Legal Center also filed amicus briefs in the cases. And kudos to California Attorney General Rob Bonta and to the UCLA Voting Rights Project, which led the way in the case. The California Supreme Court unanimously affirmed Bonta’s authority to issue binding directions to county sheriffs about particular investigations. Although the California Constitution has long given the attorney general direct supervision over county sheriffs, this is the first time the California Supreme Court has addressed a dispute between an attorney general and a sheriff over the scope of that authority.
The court also unanimously ruled that Bianco’s seizure was unlawful. As the decision made clear, voted ballots must “remain in the elections official’s custody even in the event of a criminal investigation” to “safeguard[] the integrity of our elections by protecting ballots from alteration, tampering, or other improper interference.” This decision emphasizes the importance of chain-of-custody rules and will hopefully prevent rogue actors from using search warrants to seize ballots in a live election or after an election.
Along with efforts to undermine mail-in voting and deploy ICE at polling places, seizing ballots could be one of the main ways Trump tries to interfere with a free and fair election. Put together, these are three of the most obvious ways he could try to disrupt the election or cast doubt on the result.
Here’s the good news, Contrarians: You helped stop all three, not only through our efforts in the California case, but also through our work in helping win the USPS case. As part of a nationwide coalition, we stopped Trump from demolishing the existing mail-in voting structures in the states. And with our pro-democracy coalition, we’re going to stop him from deploying ICE in our new case with partners that I wrote about last week.
It doesn’t mean Trump won’t keep trying, but these developments that you have helped make possible through your paid subscriptions serve as bold obstacles to the effort. They make it less likely that he’ll try and more likely that he’ll be defeated if he does. That has a deterrent effect.
There is another, and perhaps even more important, deterrent — the prospect of a historic blue wave. A new Emerson poll puts congressional Democrats 11 points ahead of congressional Republicans on the generic ballot. And another poll from this week found that Trump’s approval has fallen below 30 percent. The environment could be so favorable to Democrats that even a Senate seat in Kansas could be in play!
There is, of course, still cause for concern, and the Republicans have a major cash advantage, but the American people are determined to express their will at the ballot box. I believe we’ll see them come out in full force to reject this administration and its enablers in Congress.
Thanks to you, Contrarians, we are winning important election cases and remain ready to defend the franchise. Your subscriptions help fund all that — and our essential journalism here at The Contrarian, as you’ll see in our usual weekly round up below.
Media Matters
What You Need to Know About the Paramount-Warner Bros. Deal
Meredith Blake broke down the unwelcome news that after a settlement with state attorneys general this Monday, the Paramount merger is poised to go through — meaning that David Ellison will soon be in control of CNN and much, much more.
Trump’s Continued Attacks on the Media Shouldn’t Stand
April Ryan wrote on the comprehensive affront — and failure — of Trump’s White House press ban and would-be state television platform. “Authoritarians can’t abide journalists who report on their machinations and corruption. But that’s exactly what the First Amendment protects.”
Four Changes to Help the White House Press Recover Its Spine
Jennifer Rubin had some constructive criticism. “The White House press corps has failed to cover the despotic president in a way that accurately conveys to Americans the depth of his mental deterioration and fascist extremism.”
The Real Threat to National Security Isn’t the Press
Clayton Weimers wrote on Pete Hegseth’s determination to keep reporters out of the Pentagon — and how (ironically) futile his defenses are. “A free press is not a threat to national security; it is a part of civic infrastructure that permits our democracy to function.”
Trump vs. the World
Trump’s Threats to Iran and the Trump/Xi Meeting
On the podcast this week, Jennifer Rubin, Tom Malinowski, and I discussed Trump’s antagonistic address to allies at the UN General Assembly, particularly his possible threat against Iran, and his Thursday meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping. “[Other] countries are studying these speeches.”
The Next UN Secretary-General Has to Solve an (Almost) Impossible Puzzle
Roberto Valadéz wrote on the high-stakes selection of the next UN Secretary-General, who will have to get past the veto power of the Security Council — and then show it what leadership looks like. “The United Nations was created for moments like this.”
Trump’s U.N. Speech May Signal the Next Chapter of American Hegemony
Brian O’Neill broke down how Trump’s UN speech — as ridiculous as it was — indicated where he may apply his power next: the Western Hemisphere. “His speech did not sound like that of a man preoccupied with shrinking authority.”
John F. Terzano wrote on Trump’s dismissive attitude toward the war in Iran, which he seems to see as a low-stakes branding exercise despite its ongoing cost in human lives. “Small potatoes for whom?”
Turning Red to Blue
Does the Road to the House Majority Run Through the West?
Tim Dickinson analyzed ten races from Arizona to Alaska that could put Democrats in control of Congress. “The Democratic candidates in these districts don’t fit the stereotype of left-coast liberals … [but] above all, they are little-d democrats who can help turn the tide against MAGA authoritarianism.”
‘Must Flip’: Inside the Strategy to Turn Red Seats Blue
Jennifer Rubin spoke with Swing Left’s Yasmin Radjy about what grassroots campaigning looks like in 2026. “Some of our work is in the now, and some of it is [knowing that] the flowers may not bloom for a few more years, but we’ve got to try now.”
Red-District Democrats Still Have a Problem
Natalie Fertig wrote on how red-state Democrats are still fighting headwinds of distrust, especially as swing voters see the rise of left-flank groups like the Democratic Socialists. “When you get into these rural areas of the state, even the liberals feel like the liberals in downtown Seattle or downtown Olympia don’t understand how they’re living their lives and paying their bills.”
Fighting Back
Register to Vote! Celebrate Dolly Parton Day.
In this week’s Contrarian Calls to Action: Ways to join climate week in New York, a feminist rally in Houston, train for election protection nationwide, help voters get IDs, banish AI from campaign ads, and more. And if your state has opened the polls (see our map or ElectionInnovation.org), VOTE EARLY!
The Contrarian Covers the Democracy Movement
This week, we saw protests in North Carolina, California, Oregon, Virginia, Kansas, and more. Get help organizing from Indivisible, find protests in your area at mobilize.us, and send us your protest photos at submit@contrariannews.org.
Jennifer Rubin celebrated ProPublica, the bastion of investigative journalism that has proved undaunted in exposing government corruption, lately featuring Susan Collins’ campaign funding malfeasance and Don Jr.’s Russian-funded wedding. “The outlet is a national treasure.”
Cartoons, Culture, & Fun Stuff
This week, our cartoonists covered construction (For National Security, Nick Anderson; The MAGA Bat Signal, Nick Anderson), destruction (Trump v. the Pillars of American Democracy, Michael de Adder; Tom the Dancing Bug, Ruben Bolling), topspin (Spitballing Diplomacy, Michael de Adder), and spin-spin (Truth and Consequences, Nick Anderson).
Sports Fans Can’t Boycott. Paramount Is Counting on It.
Gabriel Lezra wrote on the bind confronting any sports fan with the prospect of the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger. “Competition is the only discipline this market has, and the deal weakens it from both directions.”
Barrett, Roberts and Kavanaugh attended Trump's disgraceful state dinner for China's communist leader, Xi; the next day they hand him a win in his election interference efforts. Coincidence? I don't think so.
Thanks for all your efforts in helping stop Trump from stealing the mid-terms. Lord knows we can't count on the supreme court to do it.
Thank you, Norm, for all you and your team(s) do.
Facts Only
* The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration may use a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) centralized database to verify voter citizenship.
* A 90-day quiet period under the National Voter Registration Act prohibits states from using this database for systematic voter roll maintenance before the election.
* The California Supreme Court ruled against Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco regarding the seizure of ballots.
* Sheriff Bianco seized over 650,000 ballots following allegations of discrepancies in the 2025 Proposition 50 vote.
* The California Supreme Court affirmed the Attorney General's authority to issue binding directions to county sheriffs.
* The California court ruled that voted ballots must remain in the custody of elections officials during criminal investigations.
* A coalition involving the Campaign Legal Center, LULAC, and the UCLA Voting Rights Project filed briefs in the California case.
* Legal actions were taken to prevent the removal of existing mail-in voting structures via the USPS.
* An Emerson poll indicates congressional Democrats lead congressional Republicans by 11 points on the generic ballot.
* A separate poll indicates Donald Trump's approval rating has fallen below 30 percent.
Executive Summary
Recent judicial developments have created a complex legal landscape for the upcoming election. The U.S. Supreme Court has permitted the use of a DHS database for citizenship verification, though a statutory 90-day quiet period currently prevents this from being used for systematic voter roll purges. Simultaneously, the California Supreme Court established a significant precedent by ruling that county sheriffs cannot seize ballots from election officials, even during criminal investigations, ensuring that chain-of-custody rules remain intact to prevent tampering.
These legal battles are part of a broader effort by pro-democracy coalitions to secure mail-in voting and prevent the deployment of ICE at polling places. While these court victories provide a deterrent against election interference, the political environment remains volatile. Current polling suggests a shift in momentum toward Democrats, with a significant lead on the generic congressional ballot and a decline in the president's approval ratings. However, substantial funding advantages for Republicans persist, leaving the final outcome dependent on voter turnout and continued legal vigilance.
Full Take
The strongest version of this narrative is that the rule of law, supported by strategic litigation and grassroots funding, serves as the primary bulwark against executive overreach and the destabilization of democratic processes. It posits that judicial precedents regarding chain-of-custody and statutory "quiet periods" are the only reliable mechanisms to prevent the weaponization of state security apparatuses against the franchise.
The narrative relies on a high-stakes framing that links disparate events—a DHS database ruling, a California sheriff's local dispute, and USPS litigation—into a singular, coordinated existential threat. By positioning these as "three of the most obvious ways" to disrupt an election, the text creates a sense of urgent crisis that is then resolved by the efficacy of the author's specific legal coalition. This creates a closed loop where the reader's anxiety is triggered and then relieved by a call to support a specific subscription-funded entity.
Patterns detected: ARC-0021 Emotional Exploitation
The driving paradigm is one of "Legalist Resistance," assuming that the judiciary is a battleground where the "correct" side must be funded to win. This echoes historical patterns of adversarial political mobilization where the goal is not consensus, but the strategic deployment of lawfare to neutralize an opponent.
This approach empowers agency through collective financial action but risks reducing democratic health to a series of court wins and losses, potentially overshadowing the need for systemic legislative reform.
Bridge Questions:
1. Does the reliance on "quiet periods" and specific court rulings provide a sustainable defense, or does it merely delay systemic vulnerabilities?
2. How would the legal strategy change if the "rogue actor" were a state official operating with the full backing of a legislative majority rather than a single sheriff?
Counterstrike Scan: An influence campaign pushing this narrative would use "threat-solution" pairing—manufacturing an immediate fear of disenfranchisement and immediately offering a paid subscription as the direct remedy. While the content contains high emotionality, it aligns with genuine legal proceedings and polling data, making it a partisan advocacy piece rather than a synthetic influence operation.
Sentinel — Human
The text reads like a passionate opinion column, blending real legal and political events with a strongly partisan advocacy narrative, which suggests human authorship focused on persuasion rather than objective reporting.