Federal Judge Blocks Election Demands Tied to Public-Safety Funding
A court says FEMA cannot use counterterrorism grants to force states and cities to change how they run elections
By Walter Sundiata | On The Corner: Democracy Watch | September 29, 2026
The Federal Emergency Management Agency has an essential public mission: helping communities prepare for emergencies, terrorism and other serious threats. Running elections is not part of that mission.
FEMA does not register voters. It does not select voting equipment. It does not count or certify ballots. Yet the agency attempted to use money intended to protect communities from terrorism as leverage to make states and local governments change how they administer elections.
A federal judge has now said it cannot do that.
On September 28, U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali blocked the Federal Emergency Management Agency from withholding part of approximately $1.1 billion in counterterrorism grants unless states and local governments agreed to a series of election-administration demands.
The case has a direct Ohio connection. The City of Columbus joined Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, along with Harris, El Paso, Dallas and Travis counties in Texas, in challenging the conditions.
The court sided with those communities.
Election conditions attached to public-safety money
Congress created the Homeland Security Grant Program to help state, local and tribal governments prevent and respond to terrorism and other serious threats. The funding can support first responders, emergency planning, cybersecurity and the protection of critical infrastructure and crowded public spaces.
FEMA announced that it would hold back 20 percent of certain grant awards until jurisdictions satisfied federal election conditions. Those conditions included:
Comparing voter-registration records with federal citizenship data.
Verifying the citizenship of election workers.
Preparing to replace certain electronic voting systems with hand-marked paper ballots.
Conducting manual post-election audits.
Following federal ballot-reconciliation requirements.
The administration argued that these measures would strengthen election security and protect elections from foreign interference and cyberattacks.
The plaintiffs did not ask the court to decide whether paper ballots, citizenship checks or post-election audits were good or bad policy. Their argument was narrower: Congress never authorized FEMA to use counterterrorism grants to regulate routine election administration.
Judge Ali agreed.
In his ruling, he concluded that the election conditions were not reasonably connected to the statutory purpose of the grants. Congress had authorized FEMA to distribute money for counterterrorism preparedness. It had not authorized the agency to withhold those funds until states and communities changed how they registered voters, selected voting equipment or counted ballots.
That distinction matters.
The issue is not election security versus public safety
This case can easily be reduced to a familiar political argument: one side says the federal government was trying to protect elections; the other says it was trying to control them.
But the legal issue is more fundamental.
When Congress establishes a grant program and defines its purpose, an executive agency cannot ordinarily convert that program into a tool for achieving unrelated policy goals. FEMA has no general responsibility for registering voters, maintaining voter rolls, choosing ballot systems or conducting election audits. Those questions may be debated in Congress, state legislatures, election boards and the courts. They should not be imposed by threatening to remove resources that police, firefighters, emergency managers and other public-safety agencies rely upon.
That does not make every federal election recommendation improper. Nor does it prevent Congress from adopting election standards within its constitutional authority. It means the agency administering a public-safety program must remain within the authority Congress actually gave it.
Why the Columbus connection matters
Columbus was not simply observing this dispute from the sidelines. It was one of the local governments that went to court.
That gives this national ruling a clear Ohio dimension. City officials joined communities from other states in arguing that public-safety funding should not become a bargaining chip in a dispute over election policy.
Akron and Canton were not plaintiffs, and the ruling does not identify a specific local grant award for either city. Still, the governing principle reaches beyond Columbus: counterterrorism resources appropriated for community protection should be awarded according to the law governing those programs—not according to whether local or state officials accept unrelated federal election demands.
For historically marginalized communities, that separation is especially important. Election-policy changes involving citizenship records, voter-list maintenance and voting technology can create additional burdens for naturalized citizens, voters with incomplete government records, people with disabilities and residents who already encounter barriers to participation. At the same time, those communities should not be asked to sacrifice public-safety resources as the price of resisting policies they believe are unlawful.
What is confirmed—and what remains unsettled
The court has blocked FEMA from enforcing the challenged election conditions against the plaintiff jurisdictions. The ruling establishes that FEMA exceeded the authority Congress provided for these counterterrorism grants.
The decision does not resolve every dispute over federal involvement in the 2026 election. A separate challenge brought by state officials remains pending, and the administration may appeal Judge Ali's ruling.
It also does not decide the merits of every election safeguard FEMA proposed. The court ruled on authority and the connection between the conditions and the grant program—not whether every proposed safeguard was desirable.
The larger democratic question
The Constitution divides power for a reason. Congress writes laws and controls federal spending. Executive agencies administer the programs Congress creates. States and local governments retain substantial responsibility for conducting elections, subject to constitutional protections and laws enacted by Congress.
Those lines can sometimes appear technical. But they determine whether public policy is made through the democratic process or through financial pressure applied by an agency acting beyond its assigned mission.
In this case, the court drew a line: protecting communities from terrorism is not a blank check for federal control over elections.
That is not merely a victory for the cities and counties that filed the lawsuit. It is a reminder that even policies described as security measures must be carried out through lawful authority.
Because democracy is not strengthened when government ignores the limits placed upon its power. Democracy is strengthened when those limits still mean something.
Call to Action
5 Calls currently offers an advocacy campaign titled Fight the Trump Administration's Election Interference. It asks constituents to contact their members of Congress and state officials—including governors, secretaries of state and state legislators—and request that they oppose federal efforts to control state election systems or obtain sensitive voter information.
That campaign represents 5 Calls' advocacy position and is provided separately from WBOB's reporting.
Comments