Late postmarks increased in 2026
They increased by 4133 during Washington state’s 2026 primary (compared to the 2024 primary). 74.8% of rejected ballots were attributed to late postmarks in 2026.

Ballot drop box expansions
In 2026, the office of the Secretary of State made funding available for counties to install new ballot drop boxes, improve their existing ballot drop boxes, or enhance communication plans to promote ballot drop box usage. Counties have used these funds to install 21 new ballot drop box locations. 

Emerging election issues

USPS service reliability
Continued attention and voter education on postmarking practices, delivery timelines, and late-arriving ballots. To help voters find out whether their mail ballots might be affected, Democracy Docket mapped zip codes↗️

where mail pickup changes were in effect. See the map from Oct. 1, 2026 below:

Election security resources
Changes in federal support and state efforts to maintain critical cybersecurity services. 

Voter confusion

Clear communication about ballot return options, deadlines, and ballot status tracking is paramount. 

Positive development

USPS rule blocked
On Sept. 14, the U.S. Supreme Court left an injunction in place preventing the new USPS ballot-mail rule from taking effect before the November General Election. Washington can proceed with its established election processes without implementing new requirements. 

For more information, see the recording of the Sept. 23 Tribal Affairs & Elections Committee Work Session meeting↗️. Click "View video" and skip to minute ~35.

Voting for the 2026 midterms is continuing by the normal process in light of two recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. 

On Sept. 14, 2026, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Postal Service cannot place new restrictions on ballot mail before the Nov. 3 General Election. Therefore, there is no change to Washington election processes.

In addition, on Sept. 25, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order in Department of Homeland Security v. League of Women Voters concerning the federal government’s expanded Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database. This SAVE database has no relation to the SAVE Act (Safeguard American Voter Eligibility) though the League has opposed the use of both. 

The Court’s order allows the expanded SAVE system to operate while the case continues through the courts. State and local election officials can now use the system to help verify citizenship information. The underlying case has not been finally resolved.

What you should know:

• The expanded SAVE system uses federal records to conduct citizenship-related checks. Litigation has raised questions about the accuracy and completeness of some underlying records, including records involving naturalized citizens.
  
  
• The Supreme Court’s order also addressed the federal law governing systematic voter-roll removals before federal elections.

• 
  

The most important step is simple: Check your registration status before the election↗️.

Vist Vote411.org↗️ or VoteWA.gov↗️ to confirm:

• You are registered at your current address
• Your name and other registration information are correct
• You know where are eligible to vote
• You have time to resolve any questions before voting
  
• 
  

If you receive a notice from an election official about your registration or eligibility, do not assume that your registration has been cancelled. Read the notice carefully and contact your state or local election office using contact information from its official website.

The case will continue in the lower courts. So, for now, checking your registration early↗️ and responding promptly to any official notice can help you avoid surprises on Election Day.

Please visit your state or local election office for official registration information and instructions.

On Monday Oct. 5, the Supreme Court of the United States demanded another look at Washington State’s legislative district maps. This latest twist in the dispute over the 2021 redistricting process in Washington State, kicked off when the Court decided Louisiana v Callais in April 2026; significantly weakening the federal Voting Rights Act. In this week’s ruling, SCOTUS remands the case about Washington’s maps to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review in light of Callais.

This week’s decision doesn’t change the maps for the 2026 election but could mean that Washington will have new legislative maps before 2028. The next redistricting maps are set to be drawn in 2031 after the 2030 Census is complete.

In 2024, the original case: Soto Palmer v Hobbs↗️, was decided in favor of the Yakima Valley Latino citizens and the districts were redrawn to combine majority Latino communities and give them a chance to elect candidates of their choose.  The 9th U.S. Circuit upheld the decision, concluding race was not the predominant factor in shaping the redrawn map. These rulings have now been scraped, and the courts will reexamine. The original plaintiffs↗️ will continue the fight.

The League of Women Voters of Washington has a long history of pushing for redistricting reform.  Considering the rocky process in 2021, LWVWA is advocating its Take Back the Maps bill proposal in 2027 to change the rules for the Washington State Redistricting Commission to that the process in more visible and more accountable to the people of the state. In the long run, LWVWA would like to see a state constitutional amendment that creates a citizens commission – an expanded commission of ordinary people that increases representation, transparency and puts the needs of the people first. This type of commission would increase trust in our line drawing process and make lengthy legal battles, like we are seeing now, less likely to occur. 

Join the effort by contacting Alison McCaffree, LWVWA Democracy Issue Chair, and attending the Redistricting Reform Task Force meetings↗️. 

By Karen Crowley, President, LWV of Washington

Every election season, someone asks the same question, usually with a raised eyebrow: "If the League of Women Voters doesn't take sides, why does it have so much to say?"

It's a fair question. It's also based on a misunderstanding we'd like to clear up, because the answer is rooted in what democracy requires of people who care about it.

Political distinction
Since our founding in 1920, the League has held this stance: We do not support or oppose any political party or candidate. We don't ask our members who they vote for. We don't fund campaigns. We don't wear party jerseys.

We take this commitment to nonpartisanship seriously. It's why our voice carries above the noise of party politics, and why people across the political spectrum have trusted our voter guides and candidate forums for decades.

But nonpartisan never meant neutral. And it certainly never means silent.

Being partisan means taking a firm side tied to a political party — prioritizing one group's success and often resisting compromise because the goal is winning for the team.

Being political, in contrast, means engaging with civic life, public policy and the problems a community faces. It means showing up to public hearings, pushing for clean water or defending the right to vote — none of which requires choosing a party. That's the League’s distinction: nonpartisan on candidates and parties, unapologetically political on issues.

What this means in practice
We take positions on governmental policy — such as voting rights, environmental protection, education, health care — and do so through study, not allegiance. We follow the policy, not the person or party behind it.

Sometimes that position aligns with a party platform; sometimes it doesn't. That's the whole point: We're don’t push a team. We evaluate whether a policy serves voters and strengthens democracy.

Nonpartisanship does not require silence about the actions of elected officials. Once elected, a candidate becomes our representative. We have a right — even an obligation — to weigh in on policy decisions they make on our behalf.

The League is not neutral about democracy itself. We are pro-voter and pro-democracy, and consider the defense of voting access, government transparency and democratic norms a civic duty — not a partisan strategy.

This year, the League of Women Voters of Washington has taken public positions opposing state ballot initiatives we believe would strip protections from vulnerable children and undermine successful state policy, and we support requiring the highest earners to pay their fair share toward education, health care and working families. None of this is about which party wrote an initiative. It's about what the initiative would actually do.

Standing firm without picking sides
The line between 'political' and 'partisan' isn't always where our critics claim. Those who oppose reforms the League supports sometimes call our advocacy 'partisan' to try to limit our influence. The accusation won’t silence us.

That same clear-eyed confidence guides how we work with others. Partnering with another organization to co-host a voter registration drive, work in a coalition or share the stage at an event does not compromise our nonpartisanship, even if that partner has endorsed a candidate.

What matters is whether the partnership itself stays focused on the shared issue. Each League's board weighs that, considering local conditions and community trust.

In fact, today’s issues warrant deep, authentic coalition work. We are stronger and more effective when we can work together to speak with one voice.

The League’s bright line remains: We will not organize or lead an effort built explicitly to support or oppose a candidate or a party. Everything short of that is a judgment call, made locally.

Bold, loud and still nonpartisan
This moment calls us to be bold enough to name issues, loud enough to be heard without apology, nimble enough to mobilize quickly — all while remaining scrupulously nonpartisan. Those aren't contradictions. They're part of the same muscle the League has flexed for 106 years.

Nonpartisan never meant passive. This discipline lets us fight harder for voters. We don't check our voice at the door to prove we're fair. We stay fair so that our voice means something. That's the deal we made in 1920, and it's the deal we're keeping now.

States like Washington can continue using our existing mail-voting processes for the November election, without new federal requirements being imposed weeks before Election Day as the Supreme Court left the injunction blocking key parts of a proposed new rule in place. Together with the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts and LWV partners, LWVUS went to court to protect voters and stop these last-minute changes from taking effect. But while we should celebrate this victory, we also know our work isn't finished. 

In a separate opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh indicated that the Postal Service may have the authority to issue this kind of rule. His reason for blocking it now was clear: election officials simply don't have enough time to implement it before November.

That means we have to be ready for what comes next.

The League will continue fighting attempts to create new barriers to the ballot — in the courts, in communities, and wherever voters' rights are at stake. For more information, see: US Supreme Court Blocks Postal Service From Restricting Mail Ballots↗️.

Remember, your vote is secure. As Secretary of State Hobbs recently told the Journal of San Juan Islands↗️, “Incidents of voter fraud are incredibly rare. In Washington state, there were just five cases between 2008 and 2025, out of 90 million ballots cast during that time.”

By Alison McCaffree, Democracy Issue Chair, LWV of Washington

Sept. 2, 2026 was another busy day for the Washington Voting Justice Coalition↗️ (WVJC). Thirty-two people gathered for the second annual Democracy Summit including leaders from the LWVWA: Amy Peloff (Executive Director), Marty Gibbons (Advocacy Portfolio Chair), and Alison McCaffree (Democracy Issue Chair). This day is set aside to discuss ways to protect and enhance democratic systems in Washington state. A hot topic this year was the protection of Washington’s Vote by Mail system and ensuring that all voters who turn in ballots on time get counted.

“We believe our democracy is strongest when every voice is heard and every vote is counted.” — WVJC motto. 

Since 2017, the coalition has been advocating for legislative change with the following goals:

• Build a culture of self-determination and civic engagement
  
  
• Promote access and equity for every Washingtonian
  
  
• Set the highest standard for effective, equitable, and participatory democracy

The LWVWA has been a member since WVJC’s founding. Alison McCaffree, LWVWA Democracy Issue Chair serves as a liaison to the coalition. The LWVWA alongside 78 other organizations in the coalition have advocated and succeeding in:

• Passing and improving the Washington Voting Rights Act (2018) (2021)
  
  
• Creating and enhancing Automatic Voter Registration (2018) (2026)
  
  
• Restoring voting rights to individuals with past felony convictions while under supervision (2021)

The coalition regularly hosts statewide listening sessions to hear directly from residents — particularly those in historically marginalized groups — regarding their views on the electoral system. This year’s listening session focused on redistricting commission reform, democracy vouchers, getting corporate money out of campaigns and a fulltime legislature. 

“The LWVWA is more successful because we work in coalition. Each organization has its own network and its own strength. By working together, we reach more people and influence more elected officials, and pass more positive voting rights legislation,” says Alison McCaffree. 

For more information about WVJC and the LWVWA's work on democracy reform, please contact Alison McCaffree , 253-720-6813.

By Susan F. Martin, Co-chair, Study on Protection of Immigrant Rights, LWV of Washington 

On Thursday, August 27, 2026, the Justice Department sued Washington, Oregon, New Mexico and Arizona for seeking “to undermine federal law by placing aliens over citizens.” The League of Women Voters is strongly opposed to any effort to deny immigrants access to essential services, such as education, solely based on their immigration status.

The specific issue is in-state tuition and scholarships for undocumented students residing in these states. The administration had already sued 17 other states with similar policies. Despite the Justice Department’s claim, Washington state does not “seek to undermine federal law by placing aliens over citizens.” Rather, the state and organizations such as ours are seeking greater equity, not special preferences. 

Until recently, both red and blue states enacted legislation granting in-state tuition to residents, regardless of immigration status. Texas and California were the first to adopt the policy, passing legislation in 2001. 

Washington first enacted legislation allowing in-state tuition in 2003. Adjustments to the law were made in 2021, to make it clear that the requirements for in-state tuition and scholarships pertained to both citizens and immigrants alike. 

To receive in-state tuition, students must show they are residents of Washington and that they have not moved to the state for educational purposes only. They may show residency if they graduated from a high school in the state or lived in Washington for at least one year. The law also requires students to sign an affidavit that they are citizens or are seeking legal status. 

There are many reasons that in-state tuition and scholarships are beneficial not only to undocumented students but also to the broader community. 

Public schools and universities were created to educate residents and support the regional workforce and economy. These institutions charge lower tuition to in-state residents because state taxpayers have already subsidized the operations of these schools and universities through the income, property, and sales taxes they pay. Immigrants who have lived, worked, and paid taxes in our state should not be denied access to public education because of their status.

The Supreme Court held in the landmark 1982 decision, Plyler v. Doe↗️, that states cannot deny children a free public K-12 education based on their immigration status. While the court did not extend that right to higher education, it makes little sense to educate a child only to tell her that she is unable to continue learning because of her immigration status. 

Given Washington and the country’s need for expertise in so many areas, helping students — documented or not — to cover the costs of higher education is beneficial to all concerned

Education has long been in the hands of states and localities. The federal government has played a role in financing programs, but that role is now minimal. Yet, the administration in the other Washington seems determined to second guess those who know much better that denying education to anyone, let along to children who were brought up in our communities, is harmful and unnecessary. 

When asked about the suit, Governor Bob Ferguson was succinct in saying: “Washington state won’t be bullied into changing how we provide opportunities for young people in our state. We'll see them in court, and we expect to win." The League of Women Voters of Washington wishes him well in protecting all students in our State. 

Make your voting plan early
There are ongoing legal challenges involving new federal requirements for mail voting, and the rules may change as those cases move through the courts. The League of Women Voters is closely monitoring these developments.

Know your state's rules
Check Vote411.org and your state or local election officials for the latest information about registering, requesting a mail ballot, voting in person, and election deadlines.

Return a mail ballot as soon as possible
Don't wait until the last minute. Allow enough time for your ballot to be received and processed. Use a ballot drop box to return your ballot, if possible. If you need to mail your ballot, be sure to do so at least one week in advance."

If you don't receive your ballot, act promptly
Check your ballot status or print off a replacement ballot at VoteWA.gov. You can also contact your local elections office to learn what options are available to you. Do not assume that you have to give up on voting. Under federal law, you can always vote in-person with a provisional ballot."

Have a backup plan
Know your options for voting in person if you need them, particularly if your ballot does not arrive in time. 

Get reliable, current information
Election rules can vary by state and may change as litigation continues.  Use VOTE411 and your state and local election officials for the most current instructions.

Bottom line
Legal and administrative changes should not prevent any voter from making a voting plan.Voters should know their options, act early, and seek help if a requested ballot does not arrive.

Learn more

• "'Cast, but never counted': Cantwell, Hobbs highlight ballot rejection rates following August 2026 primary↗️" from My Edmonds News
  
  
• "How Increases in Late Postmarking Disenfranchised WA Voters↗️" the Sept. 2 press conference featuring Secretary Hobbs, Senator Cantwell, LWV of Snohomish County President Harrison and NAACP President Hayward Evan

By MAK Mitchell, Money in Politics Issue Chair, LWV of Washington

As the League works to defend democracy and empower voters, we see corporate and dark money in politics eroding the influence of voters and diminishing their voices.

League members are not alone in that perspective. A 2026 survey by IPSOS, a major global market research company reported that 76 percent of Americans want to stop big money in politics, making it a bi-partisan issue.

Join us at one of three sessions in September sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Washington and hosted by three local Leagues to learn about promising new state and federal strategies to stop this assault. The League is featuring a national speaker from American Promise↗️and two state speakers from Fix Democracy First↗️.

The first session, hosted by the LWV Seattle King County, is in Seattle, on Sept. 15, from 6-7:30 pm at Metropole in Pioneer Square. Only the Seattle session will require registration↗️. On Sept. 16, in Olympia, LWV Thurston County will host a session from 6-7:30 pm in the ASHHO Cultural Community Center. 

Finally, the LWV Jefferson County will host a session Sept. 17 from 5-6:30 pm in the Cotton Building in Port Townsend.

Sessions are all free and open to the public. More information about this project is available from the specific local Leagues:

For the Seattle event, info@lwvskc.org; for the Olympia event, info@lwvthurston.org; and for the Port Townsend event, lwvjeffcowa@gmail.com.

A map of the legislative districts that were changed in 2024. This map could be changed back to districts similar to the 2022 maps.

By Alison McCaffree, Democracy Issue Chair, LWV of Washington

As of the morning of June 9, Washington state residents await a United States Supreme Court decision that could mean another change in legislative districts. A decision on a writ of certiorari, (Latin meaning “send us the files”) was due June 2. 

The case, and the current legislative map, was the subject of the lawsuit Soto Palmer v Hobbs that was settled in August 2024. Opponent’s petition to the Supreme Court came after the Ninth Circuit upheld the maps in August 2026. On May 26, 2026, a federal judge denied opponent’s request to re-open the case in light of the recent Louisiana v Callais decision. The district judge said wait for the SCOTUS decision on cert. 

A brief from the original plaintiffs (Soto Palmer, et al.) laid out the reasons that the opponents should not be able to file this claim. They emphasize that remedy maps were not created predominantly on race. They conclude that cert should be denied. 

Lawyers for Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs sent in a brief reminding the court that Washington state did not appeal the Ninth court decision and believes that the case should be sent back to the Ninth Circuit to take up the case again in the light of the conclusions in Louisiana v Callais. 

There are three possible outcomes:

1. SCOTUS denies cert and affirms the lower court ruling.
   This would be the best outcome for voters and would result in less chaos. The maps would stand for 2026 – 2030, until the 2030 Census numbers trigger the next round of map drawing in January 2031. Given the tenor of the court, this outcome is unlikely. 
   
   
2. SCOTUS denies cert and sends to Ninth Circuit to reconsider.
   This reconsider process will take time. It would most likely leave the maps for this year’s elections but opens the possibility of changing maps before 2028 or 2030. Given that Washington state is recommending this action, this is the most likely outcome; but no one knows for sure.
   
   
3. SCOTUS takes up the case.
   If the US Supreme Court decides to take the Soto Palmer case, it would have the first opportunity to do so when it reconvenes its next session between October 2026 and June 2027. This would also create the possibility of new maps before 2028 or 2030.

Whatever the decision, the uncertainty created is not good governance. The LWVWA supports a new type of redistricting commission that would put people first and minimize the chances of these types of lawsuits. Find more information on our redistricting webpage.