News
What Threats Does My Vote Really Face?
Poll workers verify your information and accept your ballot.
Fake or illegal votes are rare. Voting machines and staff can make minor errors accepting ballots, but there are checks to catch them. The real threat is the perception that fraud is a widespread problem, officials and experts say, if it keeps voters from turning out or fuels unrest.
Will poll watchers interfere?
Local Election Workers Count Votes
Most use technology to count ballots and keep a paper record to audit them.
Will it be harder to vote by mail?
Most voters will have a seamless experience casting a mail ballot, but more of these ballots could be challenged in 2024. Some states adopted stricter rules after the 2020 surge in mail voting, such as tighter signature or ID requirements and shorter ballot return windows.
What about foreign interference?
U.S. security agencies say that foreign adversaries cannot alter our election results. Instead, they may spread false claims about the results that put election staff and their work at risk.
Are election workers in danger?
Election administrators, who have faced a rise in personal threats since 2020, are preparing for protests, some by hiring security guards and installing panic buttons. Protests could put the timely counting of votes at risk.
After local officials review and certify results, states must finalize them by Dec. 11.
What if results are contested?
Recounts are automatic in some states if the results are close, and candidates and voters can petition or sue for a recount in others. Lawsuits contesting results or alleging fraud could delay the final tally in some places, though courts must move swiftly.
Could officials refuse to certify?
County boards must certify their results once checks are complete. But since 2020, officials in at least 20 counties across eight states have voted to deny or delay certification, with many making false claims of fraud.
States can go to the courts to force boards to certify. It is unlikely, but a lengthy legal battle could prevent a state from certifying its results by the deadline, which could put the counting of its electors at risk.
The Electoral College chooses the president, based on state results. Electors meet on Dec. 17.
What about fake electors?
The Electoral Count Reform Act, passed in 2022, makes clear that the state’s top election official must certify the electors pledged to the candidate who wins the most votes.
Attempts by Trump allies in 2020 to push officials to designate alternate electors in states where he lost would be near impossible under the new law.
Election officials and experts worry that false claims about fraudulent votes and electors could spark protests and put the electors’ ability to vote at risk.
Congress Performs the Final Count
On Jan. 6, a newly elected Congress meets at the Capitol to finalize the electoral votes, overseen by the vice president.
Could they reject results?
It is possible that some members of Congress could object to a state’s certification of electoral votes. They would need support in both the House and Senate to challenge the results, and a majority of both chambers to reject them.
If no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the House would vote to choose the president.
Members of the public who object to the results could protest — as an angry mob did on Jan. 6, 2021 — to try to stop Congress from counting the electoral votes. The Department of Homeland Security has said it will ramp up security on Jan. 6.
News
National Guard has done little to reduce violent crime in D.C., a new study finds
National Guard members stand watch near the Lincoln Memorial on the morning of Memorial Day in Washington, DC, May 25, 2026.
Alex Wroblewski/AFP via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Alex Wroblewski/AFP via Getty Images
President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard in Washington, D.C. has reduced petty property crimes, but has had little to no effect on violent crime, despite the high cost to taxpayers, according to a new analysis from the nonpartisan think tank Niskanen Center.
The study’s findings were published just weeks after federal officials announced that the number of troops in D.C. is set to double this summer to 5,000 as part of a “summer surge” of law enforcement ahead of events planned for America’s 250th birthday celebration.
Trump deployed the National Guard to D.C. last August, as part of the administration’s Safe and Beautiful Task Force, which he said was an effort to reduce crime and beautify the city. The task force includes hundreds of federal law enforcement — including immigration enforcement — working in conjunction with local police. It’s an approach that Trump previously said he wants to carry out in “many cities,” and already has in places like Memphis and New Orleans.
There are currently around 2,800 National Guard members deployed to D.C. from both the city itself and about a dozen other states, all of which have Republican governors. In contrast to other controversial National Guard deployments by Trump during his second term, the president has the authority over the Guard in D.C.
Guard members do not legally have the power to carry out arrests, but can detain individuals.
Troops — many of whom are armed — are largely carrying out what are called “high visibility patrols” to make their presence known around federal property and in residential areas, parks and city metro stations in an effort to free up D.C. police to redeploy to higher-crime areas. The report found that generally hasn’t happened.
Instead, researchers found that the deployment led to a 24% drop in “opportunistic” crimes — like property crimes and vehicle break-ins. But the presence of the Guard had no effect on violent crimes, including robberies, which were already on a downward trend before Trump came back into office.
“What the Guard brought was a massive, sudden shock from the visible presence of uniformed military personnel on the streets of Washington almost overnight,” researchers wrote, calling the deployment of the Guard a “blunt and expensive instrument.”
A recent assessment by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that it costs the federal government around $1.5 million per day for the current number of troops deployed to D.C.
“I think on balance the National Guard’s deployment is not a failure, there is success in what they’ve done. But I guess the point that we try to make is: compared to what?” says Richard Hahn, one of the authors of the study. “You could get the same or better outcomes, possibly much better outcomes, for much cheaper, if you just were very thoughtful about policing.”
In response to NPR’s request for comment about the study, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said that it “should not be taken seriously.”
“The President’s Safe and Beautiful Task Force and National Guard presence have driven down crime, beautified the city, and improved quality of life for countless individuals,” Jackson said, without providing any evidence.
It’s unclear when the planned “summer surge” would end, or if the number of National Guard troops in the city would return to their current levels in the fall.
“Our message today is that we’re not done. We are not satisfied. We are not content with good. We are coming for perfection, and we won’t be done until we reclaim every last inch of ground on anyone seeking to do harm in our nation’s capital,” Assistant Attorney General Colin M. McDonald said when announcing the surge.
NPR reached out to task force officials behind the Guard deployment for clarity on when the surge might start or end, but did not receive an immediate response.
News
How Each House Member Voted on the Iran War Powers Resolution
Vote
Total
Democrats
Republicans
215
211
4
208
0
208
The House on Wednesday passed a measure to direct President Trump withdraw U.S. forces from Iran or win congressional approval to continue military operations there. The vote was the fourth of its kind in the chamber since the war began, the previous three having failed.
A vote on this measure was originally scheduled for last month but was pulled by House Republican leaders after it became clear they lacked the votes at the time to defeat it because of several members’ absences. Several Republicans were also absent on Wednesday, but party leaders were unable to delay the vote any longer.
Votes fell mostly along party lines, with the exception of four Republicans, who voted with Democrats to pass the measure. Representative Jared Golden, Democrat of Maine, who had previously voted with Republicans, flipped and voted with his party.
Republicans who voted against their party
The House vote came after four Senate Republicans last month broke from their party to advance a measure to assert the legislature’s role in authorizing the war. The Senate had rejected seven other similar measures, but Republicans in both chambers have expressed increased uneasiness with the conflict as it wears on.
Even if a war powers resolution passed in both the House and Senate, it would be subject to an all-but-certain veto by Mr. Trump, which would need a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override. Beyond that, the president and his senior aides have frequently dismissed efforts by Congress to rein in his war powers, saying they are unconstitutional.
How Every Member Voted
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
Did not vote
Did not vote
Did not vote Did not vote
Did not vote
Did not vote
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Did not vote
Republicans
Member
Answer
Democrats
Member
Answer
News
House votes to rein in Trump on Iran as war loses GOP support
Washington — The House on Wednesday passed a measure that would force President Trump to end the war with Iran without congressional authorization, marking the first time the lower chamber has defied the White House on the conflict.
The House voted 215 to 208 to approve the war powers resolution with the help of four Republicans. Democratic Rep. Jared Golden of Maine, who has voted against the three previous failed attempts, also dropped his opposition and voted for the measure, giving his party unanimity on the issue.
Republican Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Tom Barrett of Michigan and Warren Davidson of Ohio voted with Democrats in favor of the measure.
Democrats in the chamber erupted in applause after passage.
The vote was supposed to take place before lawmakers left for the Memorial Day recess, but House GOP leaders abruptly pulled the vote when it became clear they did not have the numbers to block it. Several Republicans were absent and others were expected to support it.
The Senate advanced a similar measure in May to rein in Mr. Trump on Iran after four Republicans joined all but one Democrat to push it forward. Three Republican absences also helped deliver the breakthrough after seven previous unsuccessful votes.
But the Senate’s procedural vote was just the first step on the way to potential passage, and Republicans will have another opportunity to block it in the coming days.
It’s unclear when they plan to vote on the House version. In a statement, House Democratic leaders called on Senate Republicans “to do the right thing.”
Support for the war from some Republicans waned after the conflict passed a statutory 60-day deadline under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which says the president must remove armed forces from hostilities if Congress has not authorized the war. The war passed the deadline on May 1, but the administration has argued that a fragile ceasefire stopped the clock in early April, though both sides have carried out attacks since then.
The Trump administration has also argued the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is unconstitutional, though that theory has never been tested in court.
Republicans who have voted in favor of limiting Mr. Trump’s military powers in Iran have been uncomfortable with the lack of congressional authorization on the war and a strategy to end it. Some fear the war’s unpopularity and the economic fallout could harm the GOP’s chances at keeping control of Congress after the midterm elections in November.
GOP Rep. Ashley Hinson of Iowa, who is running for Senate, said in a private exchange at a campaign stop last week that the war could be a “political liability” if it continues beyond “the next couple of weeks,” according to audio obtained by CBS News.
But Mr. Trump said last month he was in “no hurry” to make a deal with Iran ahead of the midterms.
“Everybody’s saying, ‘Oh, the midterms, I’m in a hurry.’ I’m in no hurry,” he said.
The resolution approved Wednesday was introduced in April by Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. It directs the president “to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran,” unless Congress declares war or authorizes the use of military force.
Rep. Brian Mast of Florida, the Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, earlier Wednesday called it a “stupid political vote” that “weakens the president’s hands as he’s negotiating with Iran.”
After the vote, Meeks brushed off the assertion that the war powers votes have undercut the president during negotiations with Iran. When asked whether Democrats would keep forcing votes to end the Iran war, Meeks told reporters, “You can expect us to continue to do our jobs.”
“We’re going to continue to do our constitutional responsibilities,” he said.
Fitzpatrick, who also voted in favor of a war powers resolution in May, said, “The law is the law.”
“We have to follow the law. There’s a law on the books,” Fitzpatrick said. “So you have two choices: You either follow the law or you change the law. You can’t violate the law. That’s not an option.”
During floor debate on the measure on May 20, Democrats questioned why Republicans haven’t held a vote on an authorization for military force to provide Mr. Trump with legal guardrails for attacking Iran.
“If my Republican colleagues believe this is justified, they should bring an AUMF to the floor,” Meeks said.
There’s been little momentum so far behind an AUMF introduced by Barrett earlier in May.
Rep. Kevin Kiley of California, an independent who caucuses with Republicans, argued there are “better tools” for Congress to assert its authority.
“We actually have the ability to provide direction as to how funds should be used,” Kiley said, referring to Congress’ power of the purse. “I understand why people want to use whatever tools are available, but I believe that Congress should use those tools of congressional oversight and the powers we have under Article I that really have teeth here.”
-
News17 minutes agoNational Guard has done little to reduce violent crime in D.C., a new study finds
-
Los Angeles, Ca2 hours agoMan claiming to be armed robs Culver City bank, gets away with $10,000
-
Detroit, MI2 hours agoFired Detroit TV anchor Taryn Asher files sex discrimination lawsuit against old station, claims new GM protected men
-
San Francisco, CA2 hours agoSan Francisco family devastated as they face nearly 90% rent increase
-
Dallas, TX2 hours agoWings’ top pick Azzi Fudd hosts clinic as Cash App donates to Dallas nonprofit
-
Miami, FL2 hours agoPatients left scrambling for care after Miami-Dade woman accused of operating an unlicensed surgery recovery center
-
Boston, MA2 hours agoClover plans to reopen some locations after sudden closure, thanks to an anonymous investor
-
Denver, CO2 hours agoNew report finds Denver metro home buyers and sellers experiencing ‘unattainability fatigue’