Four local governments are challenging new Department of Homeland Security rules that tie counterterrorism grants to state election security measures, arguing the requirements overstep federal authority and could disrupt upcoming elections.
Four local governments from Texas, Tennessee, and Ohio have filed a federal lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), contesting new rules that make counterterrorism grant funding contingent on states adopting specific election security measures. The lawsuit, announced this week, claims the federal government is exceeding its authority by imposing requirements on how states run elections.
The plaintiffs-Harris County and El Paso County in Texas, the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County in Tennessee, and the City of Columbus, Ohio-are seeking to block the DHS from enforcing these new conditions, which were introduced in the latest $1 billion Homeland Security Grant Program funding opportunity.
Grant Funding Linked to Election Rules
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which administers the grant program, states must now implement several election security steps to receive full funding. These include using hand-marked paper ballots, conducting manual audits of at least 5% of ballots after each federal election, reconciling voter participation with ballots cast, and verifying the citizenship status of voters and election workers through the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements system.
FEMA has stated that up to 20% of a state's grant award could be withheld, or the award canceled, if these requirements are not met. Local officials argue that these mandates are both costly and burdensome, especially for law enforcement agencies that rely on the funding for critical equipment and public safety needs.
Legal Arguments and Potential Election Impact
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., asserts that FEMA's new conditions violate the Administrative Procedure Act and the constitutional separation of powers. The complaint emphasizes that Congress, not the executive branch, has the authority to set terms for federal spending and to regulate federal elections. The plaintiffs warn that the sudden imposition of these requirements, just months before the midterm elections, could create significant logistical and financial challenges for state and local governments.
In a related development, the Trump administration has previously attempted to influence state election procedures through other means, including efforts to obtain voter data and changes to the Election Assistance Commission. These actions have faced resistance from states and have not always succeeded in court. For example, a recent federal court decision rejected a similar federal attempt to access state voter registration data.
Federal Response and Next Steps
FEMA has defended the new grant requirements, describing them as "common-sense measures" to protect election integrity and national security. The agency maintains that states must take these steps to receive their full grant awards this year. However, the plaintiffs are asking the court to declare the new rules unlawful and prevent DHS and FEMA from enforcing them as a condition of counterterrorism funding.
The outcome of this lawsuit could affect how federal agencies structure grant programs tied to state and local responsibilities, particularly in areas traditionally managed by states, such as election administration. The case is expected to proceed in the coming months, with potential implications for both funding and election operations in the affected jurisdictions.
Under the U.S. system, states and local governments are primarily responsible for administering elections, while federal agencies like FEMA typically focus on supporting critical infrastructure and emergency preparedness. The current dispute highlights ongoing tensions over the balance of power between federal and state governments, especially when federal funding is used to encourage or require changes in state policy.
