DOJ demands sensitive Illinois voter registration information after Illinois responds to initial request

In response to a July letter, the Illinois State Board of Elections provided the U.S. Department of Justice with the same limited voter data that it provides to political parties.

Illinois Governor JB Pritzker speaks at rally in August

Photo: Capitol News Illinois/Jerry Nowicki

Gov. JB Pritzker takes questions during a news conference Thursday, Aug. 14, 2025, in Springfield. He defended Illinois’ decentralized election system after signing an unrelated bill.

by Peter Hancock
Capitol News Illinois

SPRINGFIELD - The U.S. Department of Justice is insisting Illinois election officials hand over the state’s entire computerized voter registration database, including sensitive information such as driver’s license and partial Social Security numbers.

In a letter dated Thursday, Aug. 14, an attorney in the department’s Civil Rights Division rejected the Illinois State Board of Elections’ offer of a partially redacted database – the same data that state law allows political committees and other governmental agencies to access – insisting that federal authorities are entitled to the complete, unredacted data.

“We have received Illinois’s statewide voter registration list (“VRL”),” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon wrote. “However, as the Attorney General requested, the electronic copy of the statewide VRL must contain all fields, including the registrant’s full name, date of birth, residential address, his or her state driver’s license number or the last four digits of the registrant’s social security number as required under the Help America Vote Act (‘HAVA’) to register individuals for federal elections.”

The letter indicated DOJ was making the request under a provision of the National Voter Registration Act, also known as the “Motor Voter Act,” a 1993 law that was intended to make it easier for people to register whenever they conducted other government business such as obtaining a driver’s license or renewing their vehicle registration.

“Our request is pursuant to the Attorney General’s authority under Section 11 of the NVRA to bring enforcement actions,” the letter stated.

The letter also cited the 2002 Help America Vote Act. Passed in the wake of the controversial 2000 election between Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore, that law made sweeping changes to the nation’s voting processes, including new requirements about how states must maintain accurate and up-to-date voter registration databases.

‘Not entitled to demand’

DOJ first requested a copy of the Illinois database in a July 28 letter. That was a few weeks after the agency filed what’s known as a “statement of interest” in a civil lawsuit that the conservative legal activist group Judicial Watch, along with other plaintiffs, had filed against the state board, alleging it was not meeting its duties under HAVA to maintain the voter database. Read more: Trump administration requests voter data from Illinois elections board

In that initial letter, DOJ also requested the names of all election officials in the state who are responsible for maintaining the registration list. It also asked the state to identify the number of people removed from the registration list during the 2022 election cycle because they were noncitizens, adjudicated incompetent or due to felony convictions.

David Becker, a former attorney in the DOJ’s voting section who now runs the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation and Research, told Capitol News Illinois last month that the letter is similar to requests filed in multiple other states and that it goes far beyond the Justice Department’s legal authority.

“The Department of Justice asked for the complete voter file for the state of Illinois, including all fields in that file, which is an absolutely huge file that contains so much sensitive data about Illinois citizens, including driver’s license numbers, Social Security numbers and dates of birth that the Department of Justice is not entitled to receive and not entitled to demand,” he said in an interview. “They know this. Other states have told them this, and yet they continue to seek to receive this information, citing sections of federal law that don’t apply and don’t require that.”

Illinois’ initial response

The State Board of Elections responded to that request Aug. 11 with answers to DOJ’s questions as well as an electronic copy of what it described as the statewide voter registration list.

However, the board also cited a state statute that limits what the agency can disclose from the centralized registration list. A spokesperson for the board said in an email that the law allows the release of two types of data files. One, available only to political committees or “a governmental entity for a governmental purpose,” includes the voters’ names and addresses, their age at the time the registration was completed, the voting jurisdictions in which they reside, and their voting history. That includes elections in which they voted and, in the case of primary elections, which party’s ballot they selected.

That is the list the state board provided to DOJ. The board also waived the normal $500 fee it charges for providing the list. Another version of the file, available to the general public, contains much of the same information, but only the name of the street on which they live, not their exact street address.

But neither file, the spokesman said, contains voters' personal identification information used to verify voter registrations such as driver’s license numbers or Social Security numbers.

DOJ, Pritzker respond

In its letter Thursday, however, DOJ said the list that the elections board provided was insufficient. “In charging the Attorney General with enforcement of the voter registration list requirements in HAVA and the NVRA, Congress plainly intended that DOJ be able to conduct an independent review of each state’s list,” Dhillon wrote. “Any statewide prohibitions are preempted by federal law.”

The letter directed the board to provide the information by Aug. 21.

The board spokesman said the latest DOJ letter is “under review.”

On Monday, Pritzker declined to say whether the board’s decision to provide the partially redacted database was the correct one. But he also accused the Trump administration of ulterior motives.

“Well, it's clear why they're hunting around for voter data, right? They're trying to say that in the next election, that there will be fraud because they know they're going to lose,” he said at an unrelated bill signing. “They are looking, essentially, to say that, well, we found somebody who died who's still on the rolls, and therefore there's fraud, and therefore these elections are fraudulent and should be overturned.”

He also defended Illinois’ decentralized election system.

“We have, actually, one of the safest, best systems in the entire country, because it's run by individual county clerks so it's unhackable,” he said.

Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that distributes state government coverage to hundreds of news outlets statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.

Illinois joins suit against Trump administration orders limiting gender-affirming care

Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul and other Democratic attorneys general are suing the Trump administration over policies to limit gender-affirming care for youths. The lawsuit argues the policies violate states’ 10th Amendment right to regulate health care.

Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul on Senate floor in May

Photo: Capitol News Illinois/Jerry Nowicki

Raoul is pictured on the floor of the Senate in May of this year. The Illinois Attorney General joined a multi-state bid to block the Federal government from limiting gender-affirming care.

by Ben Szalinski
Capitol News Illinois

SPRINGFIELD - Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul is joining a multi-state lawsuit seeking to block the Trump administration from limiting gender-affirming care.

The lawsuit, filed in Massachusetts district court by 17 states, argues an executive order signed in January by President Donald Trump that directs federal agencies to take “appropriate steps to ensure that institutions receiving federal research and education grants end the chemical and surgical mutilation of children” violates states’ 10th Amendment right to regulate medical care.

The order defines “children” as people under age 19, which the attorneys general say conflicts with many states such as Illinois, where people are generally considered adults when they turn 18. A separate executive order by the president established that the federal government only recognizes two genders.

How does any of this keep our children or our communities safer?

It also seeks to block two Department of Justice orders that direct the DOJ to investigate and enforce legal action against doctors, hospitals and other medical professionals that provide gender-affirming care to youths.

The orders use “cruel, demeaning language” to “undermine the legitimacy” of medical care, California Attorney General Rob Bonta said at a news conference Friday.

“This administration is driving a wedge between patients and health care providers from providing patients the health care that they need,” Raoul said.

Also troubling to the attorneys general is the prospect of criminal prosecution against doctors who provide care.

“The Department of Justice is diverting valuable law enforcement resources away from catching criminals and predators who are actually harming children,” Raoul said. “How does any of this keep our children or our communities safer?”

Guidance to Illinois doctors

The orders have also caused Illinois health care providers to stop providing types of gender-affirming care, including University of Chicago Medical Center, UI Health, Rush, Northwestern Medicine and Lurie Children’s Hospital in Chicago.

Though Raoul said he opposes the Trump administration’s policies and believes they are illegal, he declined to give legal advice about whether Illinois health care providers should continue following the federal directives while the lawsuit proceeds.

Illinois has numerous laws on the books establishing legal gender-affirming care.

“I am not a health care administrator; I am not the head of a hospital that’s being threatened with potential criminal investigation or prosecution or removal of funding that goes toward saving the lives of various patients,” Raoul said. “And so I am not in the position of either advising what administrative decisions should be made at hospitals.”

Raoul said his role is to “remove” legal threats against the state and its residents.

Medical providers that decide to stop providing gender-affirming care are likely not guilty of discrimination under Illinois law, Raoul said, “particularly if the federal government is threatening you with criminal prosecution.” He added Illinois laws don’t require doctors to provide a full range of gender-affirming care.

Illinois has numerous laws on the books establishing legal gender-affirming care, including protections for Illinois health care providers from prosecution and other disciplinary action in other states for giving legal health care to patients in Illinois that might be considered illegal in another state.

Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that distributes state government coverage to hundreds of news outlets statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.

Illinois lawyer says Kilmar Obrego Garcia case is a ‘constitutional crisis’

"The idea that the U.S. government is absolutely flouting our constitutional right to due process is terrifying, ..."

by Judith Ruiz-Branch
Illinois News Connection

CHICAGO - An Illinois law professor is weighing in on what she called a "very public and open test of due process" for immigrants being deported from the United States without court hearings.

On Wednesday, a U.S. district judge denied the Justice Department's request to further delay the wrongful deportation case of a Maryland man, Kilmar Obrego Garcia, who was sent to a prison in El Salvador. Both a U.S. District Court and the U.S. Supreme Court have ordered the Trump administration to "facilitate" his return.

Victoria Carmona, clinical professor of immigration law, Chicago-Kent College of Law, said regardless of citizenship status, the lack of due process for one person is a crisis for everyone.

"The idea that the U.S. government is absolutely flouting our constitutional right to due process is terrifying, because if they're going to do it for one person, this is the test case," Carmona explained. "This is to see what can the government get away with and start pushing the odometer further and further away from due process. And it should be scary to everyone."

The government now has until May 5 to report any efforts it is making to comply with the court orders. In the meantime, Gov. JB Pritzker said Illinois is looking into ways to cut any state financial ties to Salvadoran companies in protest of that government's imprisonment of hundreds of deportees taken from the U.S. without court hearings.

Obrego Garcia already had a set of protections which said he could not return to his native country of El Salvador for fear of government persecution. The Justice Department said deporting him was an administrative error, although the Trump administration insists he is affiliated with a gang.

Carmona pointed out both countries' leaders are making the case more difficult to resolve.

"From El Salvador's perspective, I'm sure they're upset because their citizen had essentially claimed protections and saying that the El Salvadoran government would harm him if he returned," Carmona observed. "But this idea that the U.S. has no position to facilitate his return is an absolute lie."

Whatever happens to Obrego Garcia, Carmona added the unprecedented nature of the executive branch ignoring judicial orders has set the U.S. up for a constitutional crisis.

"At this point, I think Congress should be looking at impeachment," Carmona contended. "If Trump is going to clearly violate the Supreme Court orders, the resolution is impeachment."

Other interesting articles:

SAVE Act faces scrutiny as advocates warn of voter suppression risks

A new voting bill could make name changes a voting hurdle for many women. Illinois leaders are speaking out.

URBANA - A newly revived federal voting bill is drawing renewed scrutiny, especially in Illinois, where voting rights advocates warn it could create significant barriers to ballot access.

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which passed the U.S. House last week with unanimous Republican support and four Democratic votes, would require all voters to present proof of U.S. citizenship — such as a passport or birth certificate — when registering or updating their registration. The bill now awaits consideration in the Senate, though no vote has been scheduled.

This is not the first time the legislation has surfaced. A previous version passed the House during the last session of Congress but stalled in the then-Democratic-controlled Senate.

Proponents of the SAVE Act argue it is essential for protecting the integrity of elections by ensuring that only American citizens can cast ballots. However, critics see it as a thinly veiled attempt to suppress voter participation under the guise of security. The League of Women Voters of Illinois (LWVIL) delivered that message directly to lawmakers during a subject matter hearing before the Illinois House Ethics and Elections Committee on April 22 in Springfield.

Kathy Cortez, LWVIL’s Vice President for Issues and Advocacy, testified that the legislation risks disenfranchising large swaths of the voting population by introducing new hurdles that disproportionately affect low-income individuals, women, and others who may have difficulty assembling documentation.

No citizen should have to make the choice between meeting their basic needs and exercising the right to vote

“We believe every citizen should be protected in the right to vote, and that electoral systems should encourage participation and enhance representation for all voters,” Cortez said. “The League of Women Voters opposes the SAVE Act because, by imposing inequitable economic and administrative requirements, the bill would create unnecessary barriers to voting participation.”

A major point of concern raised during the hearing was the bill’s disproportionate impact on women. Cortez explained that because many women in Illinois changed their names after marriage, the SAVE Act would require them — and not men — to produce documentation of name changes through marriage, divorce, or remarriage in order to vote.

The League also highlighted the financial implications of the legislation. For many residents living paycheck to paycheck, obtaining official documents like certified birth certificates or divorce decrees could present a real hardship.

“No citizen should have to make the choice between meeting their basic needs and exercising the right to vote,” Cortez said. “We believe that even one individual losing their ability to vote because they could not afford to comply with the requirements of the SAVE Act is one voter too many.”

Despite their opposition to the measure, LWVIL expressed a willingness to support voters if the bill becomes law. With a statewide network and long-standing relationships with Illinois' 108 election authorities, the League says it is prepared to help residents navigate any new requirements.

As the debate continues, Illinois remains a microcosm of a broader national conversation — one that pits concerns over election integrity against the practical realities of access and participation.

Immigration courts offer many barriers and too few solutions to a complex process

Garcia noted it is a misconception most immigrants speak Spanish. She has heard many other languages, from Arabic to Creole to Mandarin.

courtroom

Photo: Saúl Bucio/Unsplash

by Judith Ruiz-Branch
Illinois News Connection

CHICAGO - As the Trump administration's deportation efforts continue, more people find themselves in immigration court.

Immigration law is complicated, and most immigrants who navigate the court system do so by themselves.

Kelly Garcia, a reporter for Injustice Watch who covers immigration courts in Chicago, said the lack of legal representation and language barriers add to the complexity. Garcia noted almost no one she has encountered in the Chicago court speaks English, yet all the signs and case sheets are in English. Many show up late or miss their hearings because of it.

"If you miss your court hearing, the judge can order your removal," Garcia pointed out. "These barriers have very serious consequences for people - and it's very sad, honestly. It's very sad to witness that."

Garcia noted it is a misconception most immigrants speak Spanish. She has heard many other languages, from Arabic to Creole to Mandarin and said most people do not know they need to request a court interpreter in advance of their hearing or risk having their case delayed. Those who show up late or not at all could be immediately removed from the country.

Research shows those with legal representation fare better in court. But people in immigration court do not have the right to an attorney if they cannot afford one. The burden of proof, to show they were charged incorrectly or request temporary relief through asylum, falls on them.

Groups like the National Immigrant Justice Center and Legal Aid Chicago are on-site to help address some gaps. As the daughter of an immigrant, Garcia emphasized she can relate to the range of emotions she sees in court.

"It just feels very personal to me, because I know how it impacted my mom," Garcia recounted. "I know how hard and difficult that was for her and I also recognize that it's only gotten harder for a lot of people, especially for people who have migrated [from] very dangerous conditions, here."

Garcia added she has seen many people come to the U.S. for reasons beyond their control. She said her time covering the immigration court has prompted her to work on creating an "explainer" story to help answer the many questions she hears from defendants every day.

Other interesting articles:

Commentary |
Anti-Immigrant legislation doesn’t serve anyone but prison contractors

by Sulma Arias

OtherWords

The Laken Riley Act is an assault on due process, undermining all of our rights to make for-profit prison CEOs richer.

You’re reading the words of a formerly undocumented immigrant.

When I fled El Salvador four decades ago, I was 12 years old and alone. I was escaping the country’s civil war, where U.S.-backed death squads had made murders and rape our daily reality.

I reunited with my sisters, my only surviving family, in Wichita, Kansas. Once there, I helped open churches, started businesses, and raised three daughters. There were times I wasn’t sure we’d make it to the end of the month, but I was grateful for the sense of peace and security we were able to create here.

That’s why I’m so alarmed that the new Republican-led Congress has chosen to open with a bill, H.R. 29, that strikes fear in the hearts of immigrant families all across the country. This bill would strip judges of discretion and require immigrants to be detained and subject to deportation if they’re accused — not even convicted — of even minor offenses like shoplifting.

This major assault on due process won’t keep anyone safer. It would terrorize all immigrants in this country, who studies show are much less likely to commit crimes of any kind than native-born Americans.

So who benefits from H.R. 29? Private prison corporations like CoreCivic and GEO Group, who made a fortune during the last Trump administration by running private prisons for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

CoreCivic and GEO kept immigrants and asylum seekers in inhumane and toxic conditions with poor hygiene and exposed women and children to sexual predators. Under this new law, cynical executives will siphon off more public dollars, and wealthy investors will reap more rewards, from abusing and demonizing people seeking refuge from violence or poverty.

When Trump won, private prison stocks soared. Why? Because investors anticipated making a fortune detaining immigrants. More than 90 percent of migrants detained by ICE end up in for-profit facilities.

GEO Group, which maxed out its campaign contributions to Trump, told its investors they could make almost $400 million per year supporting “future needs for ICE and the federal government” in a second Trump term. Their stock price nearly doubled in November.

Whether those detained are guilty or not, CoreCivic and GEO get paid. That’s what H.R. 29 is for: advancing corporate greed, not protecting Americans.

We all have a stake in stopping private prison corporations from becoming more powerful, regardless of our language, race, gender, or community. In addition to jailing immigrants, for-profit prison companies also look for ways to put citizens in prison more often — and for longer — so they can make more money.

Whenever we allow fundamental rights to be taken away, we erode our shared humanity and diminish all of our rights and freedoms.

The people behind H.R. 29 want us to be afraid of each other so we won’t stand together. They want to be able to barge into our homes, schools, and churches to take our neighbors and loved ones away. They want workers to be too scared to stand up to their bosses’ abuse. All so their donors in the private prison industry can make more money.

Democrats will need to find their way in this new Congress. Falling in line behind nativist fear-mongers who take millions in campaign contributions from the private-prison industry is not the right way to do it.

Americans demand better. We want true leadership with an affirmative vision for the future of this country and dignity for all people, including immigrants.

H.R. 29 targets whole communities because of the language we speak and the color of our skin. Instead, our elected leaders, regardless of party, must work to address people’s needs through building an economy that works for all of us, not just the wealthy few.

Sulma Arias is executive director of People’s Action, the nation’s largest network of grassroots power-building groups, with more than a million members in 30 states. This op-ed was adapted from OurFuture.org and distributed for syndication by OtherWords.org.

Viewpoint |
Think you are exempt, you're not - If they can take my rights, Republicans will take yours, too

The GOP’s attacks on trans people are setting a stage for a broader assault on rights we all enjoy.

Illustration: Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

by Robin S.C. Griffin

OtherWords

Most days in my depraved, transsexual lifestyle start the same: I wake up at 5:15 a.m. to pet my cat, have some coffee, and journal a little before I get out the door.

I bike down the street to a gym where I get to see a few friends and sweat a little before putting in my time at the office. After work, I do a few chores and relax for a while. Half the time I cook dinner, half the time my wife takes care of it.

Like you, I like to listen to music, play a game, or watch a show unless I make plans with friends. I try to write in my free time and then get to bed on time to do it all again.

The simple fact is that most trans people’s lives are pretty normal — we’re human after all.

It’s a simple life, but it’s full of joy and meaning for me. I’m not Christian anymore, but it feels like I’ve managed to find the kind of life King Solomon talked about in Ecclesiastes 5:12: “Sleep is sweet to the one who works.”

The simple fact is that most trans people’s lives are pretty normal — we’re human after all. So why is attacking us the number one priority of the incoming Republican-controlled government?

Republicans recently decided to welcome Delaware Rep.-elect Sarah McBride, who will be the first openly trans member of Congress, by introducing a resolution that would ban trans women from using restrooms at the Capitol. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has spoken in support of the measure.

Days later, Senator Roger Marshall of Kansas introduced the “Defining Male and Female Act of 2024,” which seeks to prohibit the federal government from recognizing trans people and lays the groundwork for further discrimination.

There’s a lot going wrong in our world. So why are Republicans chasing down trans people?

These cruelties come on top of a wave of anti-trans laws in statehouses across the country, a wave which continues to build in GOP-controlled states.

All this in a country where most families can’t afford surprise expenses of a few hundred dollars, where people call an Uber to the emergency room so they aren’t bankrupted by the ambulance bill, and where many workers would have to toil for decades to earn what their CEO makes in a day.

Not to mention 2024 is on track to be the hottest year in recorded human history, leaving a wake of climate-driven disasters across the country.

There’s a lot going wrong in our world. So why are Republicans chasing down trans people?

Attacks on trans people are broadly unpopular outside Trump’s base, and we make up a small fraction of the population. Policies that make our lives better and safer — or even just leave us alone — come at essentially no cost to everyone else.

The fact of the matter is that Republicans are warming up for their bigger goals. If they can wipe away two decades of progress for trans people in a few short months, they’ll have a playbook for overturning gay marriage by the end of the year.

If they can convince you to look the other way while they invade the medical history of trans people, maybe you won’t notice when they use the same authority to let insurance companies deny you coverage for a preexisting health condition.

They don’t care how normal my life is — or yours. The point is to crush anyone they don’t like and to reward their wealthy backers. I can’t say where they’ll stop, but I share Solomon’s cynicism from the back half of Ecclesiastes 5:12: “But the satiation of a wealthy man will not permit him to sleep.”

About the author:
Robin S.C. Griffin is a development associate at the Institute for Policy Studies. This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.

More Viewpoints:

A threat to democracy, fighting back against voter suppression and intimidation

SNS - The right to vote is legally protected from intimidation and harassment. Federal law makes it a crime to intimidate, harass, or deceive voters at home or at the polls.

Voter suppression is any attempt to prevent or discourage certain Americans from registering to vote or casting their ballot. It is any act that deliberately restricts or discourages certain groups from voting, undermining electoral fairness. You may not be threatened, coerced, frightened, assaulted, compelled, or discouraged to vote one way or another, or not to vote at all. The right to vote necessarily includes the right to be free from intimidation and harassment.

“A true democracy is where every person has the desire, the right, the knowledge, and the confidence to participate,” said Becky Simon, president of the League of Women Voters of Illinois. “We encourage you to join the League of Women Voters of Illinois in our fight to support everyone’s freedom to vote.”

After the Civil War, African Americans in the former Confederacy were able to exercise their newly won rights to vote; to run for local, state, and federal offices; and to serve on juries. These rights were given and protected by federal laws and the 14th and 15th Amendments. The laws, adopted to curtail white supremacist violence, specifically criminalized the terrorist activities of white supremacist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan and authorized the use of federal troops to protect polling stations and suppress white supremacist violence.

Over time, white supremacists found other ways to control voting in their towns, counties, and states without direct physical violence. Political parties have used five key methods to suppress voting by targeted groups: voter ID laws, gerrymandering, voter purges, felony disenfranchisement, and criminalizing voting through the arbitrary enforcement of oppressive, unfair laws.

Today, experts warn that voter suppression and intimidation trends are moving to the digital spaces, becoming embedded in technology.

"It might include robocalls and social media posts that provide incorrect information about where to vote or promote the false idea that voters' personal information or ballot choices will be shared with the government, the public, or law enforcement," wrote the League of Women Voters of Illinois in a recent statement.

The League of Women Voters of Illinois (LWVI) is fighting voter suppression and intimidation by mailing thousands of Get Out the Vote postcards, deploying nonpartisan poll watchers throughout the state, observing public testing of voting equipment, and actively fighting misinformation and disinformation.

According to the ACLU, "More than 400 anti-voter bills have been introduced in 48 states. These bills erect unnecessary barriers for people to register to vote, vote by mail, or vote in person."

What should you do if you witness voter suppression or intimidation? Document incidents thoroughly using your phone (outside the polling place) or by taking notes. If your voter registration is denied at your polling place, you may ask a poll worker to double-check your registration, and you may still cast a provisional ballot.

The LWVI recommends that you avoid engaging with groups or individuals who are actively trying to intimidation fellow voters and immediately reported to the Illinois State Board of Elections at 217-782-4141 or the Election Protection Hotline:

English: 866-OUR-VOTE (866-687-8683)
Spanish: 888-VE-Y-VOTA (888-839-8682)
Asian Languages: 888-API-VOTE (888-274-8683)
Arabic: 844-YALLA-US (844-925-5287)

Commentary |
Mass deportations would be a nightmare for America

by Alliyah Lusuegro
OtherWords.org

There’s an image that’s stayed with me for weeks: A sea of people holding up “Mass Deportation Now” signs at the Republican National Convention.

Since then, I’ve been plagued with nightmares of mass raids by the military and police across the country. I see millions of families being torn apart, including families with citizen children. And I see DACA recipients — like me — carried away from the only life we’ve ever known.

Mass deportation wasn’t just a rallying cry at the GOP convention. It’s a key plank of Project 2025, a radical document written by white nationalists listing conservative policy priorities for the next administration.

And it would be a disaster — not just for immigrants, but for our whole country.

I moved to the United States when I was six. Until my teenage years, I didn’t know I was undocumented — I only knew I was from the Philippines. I grew up in Chicago with my twin brother. Our parents worked hard, volunteered at my elementary school, and ensured we always had food on the table. They raised us to do well and be good people.

But when my twin and I learned that we were undocumented, we realized that living our dreams was going to be complicated — on top of the lasting fear of being deported.

Everything changed right before I entered high school in 2012: The Obama administration announced the Deferred Actions for Childhood Arrivals policy, or DACA. The program was designed to protect young people like my twin and me who arrived in the U.S. at a young age with limited or no knowledge of our life before. We’re two of the 600,000 DACA recipients today.

DACA opened many doors for us. It’s allowed us to drive, attend college, and have jobs. And we’re temporarily exempt from deportation, a status we have to renew every two years.

DACA helped me set my sights high on my studies and career. Although I couldn’t apply for federal aid, with DACA I became eligible for a program called QuestBridge that granted me a full-ride scholarship to college. Today I work in public policy in the nation’s capital, with dreams of furthering my career through graduate school.

But if hardliners eliminate DACA and carry out their mass deportations, those dreams could be swept away. And it would be ugly — mass deportation would be a logistical disaster, taking decades and costing billions.

Imagine your friends, neighbors, colleagues, peers, and caretakers being dragged away from their homes. For me, it would mean being forced back to the Philippines, a place I haven’t seen in two decades. My partner, my friends, my work — all I’ve ever known is here, in the country I call home.

This country would suffer, too.

An estimated 11 million undocumented people live here. We’re doctors, chefs, librarians, construction workers, lawyers, drivers, scientists, and business owners. We fill labor shortages and help keep inflation down. We contribute nearly $100 billion each year to federal, state, and local taxes.

Fear-mongering politicians want you to believe we’re criminals, or that we’re voting illegally. But again and again, studies find that immigrants commit many fewer crimes than U.S.-born Americans. And though some of us have been long-time residents of this country, we cannot vote in state or federal elections.

Despite all the divisive rhetoric, the American people agree with immigration advocates: Our country needs to offer immigrants a path to legalization and citizenship. According to a Gallup poll last year, 68 percent of Americans support this.

My dark dreams of mass deportations are, thankfully, just nightmares for now. And my dreams of a secure future for my family and all people in this country outweigh my fears. We must do everything possible to keep all families together.

Alliyah Lusuegro is the Outreach Coordinator for the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies. This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.

League of Women's Voters to discuss recent SCOTUS decision on Social Media Censorship

CHICAGO - Does the First Amendment allow U.S. government officials to intervene and prevent the spread of misinformation and disinformation on social media?

Jill Wine-Banks, a distinguished attorney and MSNBC Legal Analyst known for her prominence in political and legal discourse, is scheduled to speak about the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent action on social media censorship. This virtual event will take place on Tuesday, August 20, at 7 p.m. via Zoom. The program is free and is presented by the League of Women Voters of Illinois’ Mis/Disinformation Task Force.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently had an opportunity to rule on this question. Instead, they declined to issue decisions in two cases, punting them back to officials in Texas and Florida.

Among her many accomplishments, Wine-Banks was named General Counsel of the U.S. Army by President Carter, where she supervised what was, in essence, the world's largest law firm.

She started her legal career as the first woman to serve as an organized crime prosecutor at the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. Four years later, she was selected to be one of the three Assistant Watergate Special Prosecutors in the obstruction of justice trial against President Nixon's top aides. Nixon was named an unindicted co-conspirator in that case, but the evidence presented led to Nixon’s resignation.

In 2014, she was named by the Secretary of Defense to the Judicial Proceedings Panel’s Subcommittee on Sexual Assault in the military, where she served until 2017. She was also the first woman to serve as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the American Bar Association.

Those who wish to join the online talk can register for the event here.

To tackle the concerning increase in misinformation and disinformation, particularly its impact on our elections, the League of Women Voters of Illinois established the Mis/Disinformation Task Force in January 2024. The goal of the task force is to educate the public about misinformation and disinformation. For more information, please visit lwvil.org/misdis-info.

Commentary |
State-Level marijuana legalization has been a stunning success

Contrary to some critics’ claims, legalization states have not experienced any spike in either psychosis or mental illnesses.

by Paul Armentano

It’s been over a decade since Colorado and Washington became the first two states to legalize marijuana for adults. With the benefit of hindsight, it’s fair to ask: Has this policy been successful?

Absolutely. A policy of legalization, regulation, and education is preferable to a policy of criminalization, stigmatization, and incarceration.

Let’s be clear. Legalization didn’t create or normalize the marijuana market in the United States. The market was already here.

Illustration by Gordon Johnson/Pixabay

But under a policy of prohibition, this market flourished underground — and those involved in it remained largely unaccountable. They didn’t pay taxes, they didn’t check IDs, and they didn’t test the purity of their products. Disputes that arose in the illicit marketplace were not adjudicated in courts of law.

By contrast, under regulation, cannabis products in many states are now available from licensed manufacturers at retail stores.

Cannabis is cultivated, and products are manufactured, in accordance with good manufacturing practices. Products are lab tested and labeled accordingly. And sales are taxed, with revenues being reinvested in the community. Since 2014, retail sales of adult-use cannabis products have generated more than $15 billion in tax revenue.

Most importantly, millions of Americans — many of them young adults — are no longer being arrested for possessing a substance that is objectively safer than either tobacco or alcohol.

According to data compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the annual number of marijuana-related arrests in the United States fell from 750,000 in 2012 to 227,000 in 2022, the last year for which data is available.

In short, these state-level policy changes have resulted in countless Americans being spared criminal records — and the lost opportunities that accompany them — in the past decade.

Teen use of cannabis has not grown with legalization. A CDC report says use has actually dropped among high school students.

Photo: Dimitri Bong/Unsplash

And contrary to opponents’ fears, cannabis use by teens has not risen in parallel with legalization.

According to data provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the percentage of high schoolers who use marijuana actually fell 30 percent over the past decade. Compliance check data from California, Colorado, Nevada, and other legal marijuana states show that licensed marijuana retailers do not sell products to underage patrons.

Also contrary to some critics’ claims, legalization states have not experienced any spike in either psychosis or mental illnesses.

According to findings published last year in the Journal of the American Medical Association, rates of psychosis-related health care claims are no higher in jurisdictions where cannabis is legal than in those where it’s not. Stanford University researchers similarly reported last year that residents of states where cannabis is legal exhibit no higher levels of psychosis than those in non-legal states.

Legalization is also successfully disrupting the illicit marketplace. According to a 2023 survey, 52 percent of consumers residing in legal states said that they primarily sourced their cannabis products from brick-and-mortar establishments. By contrast, only 6 percent of respondents said that they primarily purchased cannabis from a “dealer.”

Many consumers in non-legal states also reported that they frequently traveled to neighboring legal states to purchase cannabis products rather than buying from illicit dealers in their own state.

Twelve years into states’ marijuana legalization experiment, public support for making marijuana legal nationwide has never been higher. To date, 24 states have legalized the adult-use market.

None of these states have ever repealed their legalization laws. That’s because these policies are working largely as voters and politicians intended — and because they’re preferable to cannabis criminalization.

After a century of failed policies and “canna-bigotry,” the verdict is in. Legalization is a success, and the end of cannabis prohibition can’t come soon enough.

Paul Armentano is the Deputy Director for NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. This op-ed was adapted from an earlier version published at The Hill and distributed for syndication by OtherWords.org.