Whether you’re working a shift, managing a team, or balancing a packed schedule, you have rights that protect your ability to vote.
This resource is designed to help you and your network understand what those rights are, how to use them, and how to plan ahead with confidence.
Being informed gives you power as a citizen. Hang this flyer at work. Share it with colleagues. Send it to your group chat.
As a long-time resident of Colorado, I appreciate guardrails.
Let me give you an example.
When I drive from Denver to Winter Park, Granby and Steamboat Springs, Colorado, I need to go over Berthoud Pass on U.S. 40. I rely on guardrails on the eastern approach to Berthoud to protect against situations like a flat tire, driving when exhausted, or even an avalanche — all of which could plunge me hundreds of feet to the valley floor without that barrier.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines “guardrail” as “a bar along the edge of something steep, such as stairs or a cliff, to prevent people from falling off.” But the term is also used metaphorically to refer to regulations or frameworks designed to ensure ethical conduct and prevent abuses of power.
Vice President Harris warned voters in 2024 that Donald Trump, if re-elected as president, would not have any effective guardrails. That prediction was accurate. In his first 16 months of this second term, Trump has operated without most of the institutional guardrails that have constrained his predecessors.
Trump populated his cabinet and his top-level advisors in his first term with those who had deep knowledge of the perils of acting thoughtlessly. This time, his primary criterion has been their loyalty to Trump. Cabinet meetings have become parodies, with person after person praising him, discussing the supposed wisdom of his decisions, competing with each other for his approval. The result, unsurprisingly, is that no one in the Executive Branch, with the exception of Fed. Chair Jerome Powell, is willing to second-guess his decisions.
The Congress has abdicated its institutional role as a co-equal branch of government. Senate and House Republicans have voted against five different War Powers resolutions against the increasingly unpopular war against Iran. Even Republicans who oppose endless wars have been quieted by the threat of primary election challenges.
Overall, the federal courts have been less deferential to Trump. The Supreme Court has used its shadow docket to grant Trump a series of stays in decisions concerning immigration and other matters.
But, Trump has had less success getting unfriendly countries to bend to his wishes. Iran, in particular, has fought Trump to a standstill in his war against that country, blocking the Strait of Hormuz until the U.S. lifts its blockade of Iranian ports. It has refused to meet with American envoys as long as the American blockade continues. “Since the Iranians are obviously negotiating very skillfully – or simply not negotiating,” German Chancellor Merz said, “a whole nation is being humiliated by the Iranian leadership.”
Trump has said that he doesn’t “need international law” and that his power is constrained by his “own morality.” That’s like relying on the sobriety of an alcoholic to keep that person from plunging hundreds of feet to his death from the Berthoud Pass road.
No president in American history, with the possible exception of Richard Nixon, has needed guardrails. Other presidents, even those who have made major changes to the federal government, have operated mostly within the law.
FDR, for example, got his programs adopted by Congress and appealed directly to the American people in support of his programs. When he made controversial proposals, such as to increase the number of Supreme Court justices after that court had ruled against New Deal programs, he tried to do that by legislation and retreated in the face of public opposition. Abraham Lincoln populated his cabinet with political rivals. Other presidents have filled their cabinets with powerful people with strong agendas, such as Alexander Hamilton, Frances Perkins and Henry Kissinger. No president other than Trump has needed or tolerated the level of pure sycophancy shown by Trump’s band of yes- people.
The ultimate guardrail, however, is the people.
People across the country have rebelled against ICE’s militarized, aggressive, and lawless war against immigrants. Millions have participated in No Kings rallies. Trump’s tariffs have delivered higher prices while manufacturing jobs continue to disappear. Public opinion polls show that voters have turned against Trump because of economic woes, increased inflation, and the war against Iran.
The ultimate check and balance in our constitutional order is the voter. If control of the House and/or the Senate passes the Democrats this November, the Congress will be able to perform its traditional role of guarding against autocratic power by the Executive Branch.
There are many ways in which a Democratic-controlled Congress can exercise that power. It almost certainly will launch investigations into the rampant corruption of the Trump administration and into the myriad and often illegal ways it has operated. It can use the power of the purse to reinstate agencies that have been abolished or gutted, such as U.S. AID and the Department of Education.
We need to do everything we can to get the people to restore the institutional guardrails that have been missed during the second Trump term. And, if a blue tsunami appears in six months, the Democrats will need to deliver.
It is not too much of an exaggeration to say that American democracy and the future of the world are on the line.
Written By Barry Roseman, SU4W Board Member
While much of the early speculation and conversation around the upcoming midterm elections has centered on whether Democrats can reclaim the House of Representatives, a quieter but increasingly plausible scenario is emerging: a shift in control of the U.S. Senate.
Recent polling trends, including declining approval ratings for Trump, have opened the door to a potential Democratic path to a Senate majority. Political analysts, including SU4W PAC consultant Bighorn Company, have identified a handful of key races that could determine the outcome.
For Democrats to take control, they would need to:
It is a challenging map, but not out of reach. Voter frustration over rising living costs, persistent inflation, immigration policies, and foreign policy decisions, including the Iran conflict and its economic ripple effects, has created a more competitive environment. Meanwhile, Republicans are preparing to defend their 53 to 47 majority, already signaling major investments in key battlegrounds including Alaska, Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Ohio.
With most of these states politically divided, none of these races are guaranteed wins. However, several stand out as especially competitive.
Promising Democratic Opportunities For Success
Maine | Primary: June 9
Democrats are once again targeting longtime Republican Senator Susan Collins. This time, early polling suggests a real opening. The decision on April 25 by Gov. Janet Mills to end her Senate bid can only improve their chances. Both she and the other Democratic candidate, oyster farmer Graham Platner, were ahead of Collins in recent polling in this closely watched race. The issue now is whether Platner, running for his first time, can maintain his momentum against the long history of Collins bringing substantial federal dollars into the state, and the large funding national Republicans are certain to provide.
Still, Maine’s recent Democratic lean, including its support for Harris in 2024, makes it one of the Democrats’ best chances.
Alaska | Primary: August 18
Mary Peltola, former holder of Alaska’s at-large House seat, is emerging as a formidable contender against Senator Dan Sullivan. A member of the Yup’ik tribe, Peltola has strong rural support and narrowly lost reelection in 2024. Recent polling shows her leading Sullivan by five points. The limited number of undecided voters in the state increases the reliability of this polling.
North Carolina | Primary: May 12
Roy Cooper, the state’s Democratic governor, enters this race leading the polls, with numbers from April 29 giving him a 9-point lead over Republican Michael Whatley. High Point University polling found his lead at 50% to 42%, with 6% undecided. Even Whatley’s term as national Republican chair seems unlikely to overcome his never having held elected office. And in this climate, Trump’s endorsement may not help him.
Cooper’s strong track record, including a double-digit statewide win in 2024 despite Trump carrying the state, makes this one of the Democrats’ best pickup opportunities. Both parties are expected to invest heavily.
Toss-Up Races
New Hampshire | Primary: September 8
Had former Gov. Chris Sununu not reversed his decision against running and thrown his hat into the ring, this race would have been a strong likely Democrat win. His name recognition and fundraising strength make Sununu a serious contender. With Trump’s strong endorsement, Sununu’s success may also show where Trump stands with voters.
Still, Democrat Chris Pappas brings his own advantages: four terms in Congress, strong fundraising, and broad appeal, particularly among younger voters. Early polling gives him a slight edge.
Ohio | Primary: May 5
Sherrod Brown’s previous loss was close, (by 3.6 points) and he remains a well-known figure in a deeply divided state. Early polling shows him competitive against Republican Jon Husted. Economic concerns, especially inflation and rising gasoline and other costs, could play a decisive role here, making Ohio one of the cycle’s most unpredictable races.
Nebraska | Primary: May 12
In a deeply Republican state, independent candidate Dan Osborn is taking an unusual path, and it may be working. Running outside the Democratic label, he is polling within one point of Republican Pete Ricketts. The Cook political report has shifted the race to favoring him.
A farmer with a strong pro-labor background, Osborn has built a coalition that cuts across traditional party lines.
Long Shot Opportunities
Texas | Runoff: May 12
Democrat James Tallarico could face either incumbent John Cornyn or state Attorney General Ken Paxton. Trump endorsee Paxton has also faced accusations of securities law violations. If Paxton wins the Republican nomination, analysts suggest his vulnerabilities, combined with broader political headwinds, could create an opening.
While still a long shot, this race is worth watching.
Iowa | Primary: June 2
With Senator Joni Ernst retiring, Iowa becomes a rare open-seat Democraticopportunity. Though the state has trended Republican, economic pressures, especially from unpredictable tariffs impacting many farmers, could shift voter sentiment. Democrats Josh Turek and Zach Wahls are competing for the nomination in what could become a competitive race, likely opposing Rep. Allison Hinson.
Florida | Primary: August 18
Florida has leaned Republican in recent years, but strong Democratic performances in recent special elections suggest potential volatility. With well-known Democratic whistleblower Alex Vindman in the race against incumbent De Santis appointee Ashley Moody, and an anti-Trump sentiment prevalent even in many southern states, some observers see a possible opening for the Democrats.
Democratic Vulnerability
Georgia | Primary: May 19
Senator Jon Ossoff is in a seat is critical to any Democratic path to the Senate majority. While Georgia has leaned Republican historically, polling recently reviewed by the New York Times found Ossoff ahead by four to nine points.
A crowded Republican field could split opposition support, improving his chances, but this remains one of the most closely watched races of the cycle.
The bottom line?
If Democrats secure expected wins in places like Alaska and Maine, they would likely need just 2 more victories, such as in Ohio or New Hampshire, while holding Georgia, to take control of the Senate. It is a narrow path with little room for error. But with shifting political dynamics and a volatile electorate, the next 6 months will tell whether that possibility becomes reality.
Written By Paul Merry, SU4W Board Member
The conservative majority of the Supreme Court just completed a project by Chief Justice Roberts, waged for more than four decades, to eviscerate the Voting Rights Act, seriously harming representative democracy in this country.
First, a brief history lesson.
From 1619 to 1865, most African Americans in the U.S. were enslaved, with “no rights which the white man was bound to accept,” as stated in Dred Scott v. Sandford. After the end of the Civil War and the adoption of the 15th Amendment, Black individuals in the South were given and then deprived of voting rights. For nearly 90 years, African Americans were prevented from voting and subjected to Jim Crow laws in the former Confederate States. That ended, formally, in 1965, with the Voting Rights Act. But, John Roberts began working to eliminate the VRA’s protections as a young lawyer in 1982. He completed those efforts with his decision on April 29, 2026 in Louisiana v. Callais.
The VRA has two enforcement provisions in Sections 2 and 5. The pre-clearance language in Sec. 5 required legislatures in certain states, principally in the South, to clear any changes to voting procedures in advance with the U.S. Department of Justice. The Supreme Court decided in Shelby County v. Holder in 2013 that those pre-clearance provisions were no longer needed because “things had changed dramatically” since 1965 and “Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem [racial discrimination in voting] speaks to current conditions.”
It is true that the former restrictions against Black voters, such as poll taxes, had disappeared in those years, but racial discrimination in voting persisted. Those states, predictably, immediately began enacting voting restrictions against African American voters. Section 2 still offered the possibility of attacking legislative redistricting that adversely affected Black voters. For decades, Southern legislators have “packed” Black citizens into a few districts and “cracked” other African American voters into white majority districts. Roberts hollowed out Section 2, which was used in those voting dilution cases, in Callais.
The heart of the majority opinion in that decision is a new requirement for challenges to a redistricting scheme. The plaintiffs now need to show the new district lines are not done for partisan purposes. Since the vast majority of Black voters in the South are Democrats, districting to support the Republican party is therefore also done for racial reasons. Partisan redistricting is racial districting in the South.
The Louisiana secretary of state declared an “emergency” after Callais was handed down. The clear purpose of that declaration, declared three days before primary voting in that state was scheduled to begin, is to redistrict either or both of the congressional districts now represented by Black individuals in Louisiana. Up to twelve Black- represented districts now are in peril of racial dilution. In 2019, the Supreme Court decided, in Rucho v. Common Cause, that claims of partisan gerrymandering cannot be brought in federal court despite the fact that partisan gerrymandering is a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
The First Amendment prohibits the government from taking an action based on the viewpoint of a speaker, especially when the speech is political and when the action harms the speaker. A person cannot be deprived of a business license because of that person’s speech, but that same person can be deprived of the right to have effective representation because of speech and association with others. The Supreme Court decided in Rucho not that such partisan gerrymandering was legal, but rather that it would not do anything about it. Callais will result in racial gerrymandering that will deprive Black voters in the South of representation by legislators who support their interests. Rucho deprives all voters of the right to be represented by people who support their interests.
The branch of the federal government that is not selected by the voters, populated by judges with life terms, has decided to destroy representative democracy in this country. It is thwarting the will of Congress. It is deciding these cases based on a fictional view of reality. It is exaggerating the partisan divide in the states by incentivizing Democratic legislators to redistrict to favor Democrats and Republican legislators to favor Republicans.
The conservative justices on the Supreme Court are now politicians in black robes. That could destroy the Court, or representative democracy, and maybe both. If the voters do not elect a Democratic majority in the House and the Senate in 2026, and if that majority does not effectively address this issue, Black legislators and representative democracy will be in mortal danger.
Help us move the needle forward in getting democracy back into Congress during the midterm elections with by making a donation of any amount to the Stand Up For Workers PAC.
Written By Barry Roseman, SU4W Board Member
