You can find the careful and well reasoned district court opinion at this link. From the introduction:

The first question presented in these consolidated cases is whether the President, acting unilaterally, may direct changes to federal election procedures. Because our Constitution assigns responsibility for election regulation to the States and to Congress, this Court holds that the President lacks the authority to direct such changes.

In Section 2(a) of Executive Order No. 14,248, the President directed the Election Assistance Commission to “take appropriate action” to alter the national mail voter registration form to require documentary proof of United States citizenship. The several Plaintiffs in these consolidated cases have moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that Section 2(a) of Executive Order No. 14,248 cannot lawfully be implemented because our Constitution entrusts Congress and the States—not the President—with the power to regulate federal elections.

Upon consideration of the parties’ submissions, the relevant legal authority, and the entire record, this Court agrees. Because there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment in their favor on their constitutional separation-of-powers claims regarding Section 2(a) as a matter of law, the Court shall enter partial summary judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor and deny both the Federal Defendants’ and Defendant-Intervenor’s cross-motions for summary judgment as to those claims. The Court shall permanently enjoin the proper Federal Defendants from implementing Section 2(a) of the President’s Executive Order. Because there is no just reason for delaying the ultimate resolution of Plaintiffs’ constitutional separation-of-powers claims regarding Section 2(a), the Court shall enter a final, appealable judgment on those claims. Finally, because Plaintiffs have not alleged that there is yet a final agency action implementing Section 2(a), the Court shall dismiss without prejudice the Democratic Party Plaintiffs’ Administrative Procedure Act claims regarding that provision…

Yesterday, Robert Boatright and Catherine Tolbert’s essay argued that we should hold primary elections on a single, national primary day:

When America adopted primary elections, primaries were hailed as a way to give the public a say in choosing our leaders. Today, fewer than twenty percent of Americans vote in primaries. Primary voters are unrepresentative of the population, registered voters, and even the other members of their parties. Turnout of younger people is extremely low. Turnout fluctuates wildly, depending on whether there is competition in high-profile races. To improve primaries, we must increase the participation, representativeness, and consistency of primary voters. The best way to do this is to hold all congressional and state primaries (though not necessarily presidential primaries) on the same day: a National Primary Day.

Primaries for state and federal office are spread across eighteen dates from March to September.  If all primaries were held on the same day, people would know when to vote. A single-day primary would also attract more national media coverage.  People would know there is a primary even if they knew little about their local candidates. A national primary would also simplify mobilization efforts by parties or interest groups. An organization seeking to increase turnout by a particular demographic group or to highlight the salience of an issue could engage in a nationwide campaign or publicize lists of endorsed candidates. These effects would be felt the most among lower propensity voters, who tend to be younger, less wealthy, and less ideologically extreme than today’s primary voters. The primary electorate would look more like the American population.

There are many secondary effects from having a single-day primary as well. A single-day primary would limit the power of organized interests. The sequential nature of contemporary, low-turnout primaries gives undue power to groups that have sought to encourage extreme candidates and to selectively “primary” incumbents. An increase in turnout would make it more likely that primary victories would be a consequence of voter mobilization, not voter inattention. When primaries do yield unexpected results, we would understand these outcomes in the context of all of the year’s primaries, not as harbingers of what might take place in primaries later in the year.

AJC:

For much of the last decade, it was Republicans who questioned the integrity of Georgia’s elections. Now a growing share of Democrats are voicing doubts of their own.

In the latest Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll, more than one-third of Democratic primary voters say they’re either “not so confident” or “not at all confident” that the 2026 primary will be conducted fairly and accurately.

That’s more than double the share from October 2024, when just 16% of Democrats said they lacked faith in the election system.

Meanwhile, 80% of likely GOP primary voters say they have faith in the integrity of next year’s vote, and only 6% say they’re not confident at all. It’s almost the inverse of where the parties stood last year, when as many as two-thirds of GOP voters expressed doubts about Georgia’s elections.

Washington State Standard:

Facebook’s parent company is asking Washington’s high court to overturn what the state’s attorney general has called the largest campaign finance penalty in the nation’s history.

Meta argues the Washington campaign finance law used to justify the $35 million fine violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The company also argues that the punishment, for not providing required records for digital campaign advertisements hosted on its platform, is excessive and misguided. 

The state attorney general’s office, which sued Meta in 2020, says provisions of the law are necessary to inform voters about who is spending money to influence Washington elections. Gov. Bob Ferguson was leading the attorney general’s office when the case was filed. 

“This purpose is even more urgent today, given the targeted and ephemeral nature of digital media, yet Meta has repeatedly and intentionally violated our law,” said deputy solicitor general Cristina Sepe, as the state and Meta argued their cases before state Supreme Court justices Tuesday.

Meta was represented in court by Rob McKenna, the former two-term Republican state attorney general and 2012 gubernatorial candidate.