US election officials

The US Postal Service says it will refuse to deliver mail ballots in states that do not turn over voter lists, as demanded under a proposal pushed by President Trump. The standoff raises the prospect of disrupted mail voting, with states and federal officials at odds over voter data access ahead of upcoming elections.

The Jerusalem Post argues that American politicians should not involve themselves in Israel's elections, reigniting debate over foreign interference in the country's political campaigns. The column reflects broader friction between Israel and the United States over political meddling, as Israeli election seasons regularly draw commentary from US officials and lawmakers.

The US Supreme Court has cleared the way for states to use the federal SAVE database to verify the citizenship status of registered voters. The decision permits election officials to cross-check voter rolls against immigration records, a move backers say protects election integrity and critics warn could lead to eligible voters being wrongfully purged. The ruling is drawing sharp reactions from voting rights groups and election officials across the country.

The White House is pushing for a larger federal role in the administration of US elections, a system traditionally run by the states. The Wall Street Journal examines where that effort currently stands. The move is likely to draw fierce debate over federalism, with Democrats and election officials warning against centralized control of voting procedures ahead of upcoming contests.

Donald Trump says he held a phone conversation with Venezuelan official Delcy Rodriguez about elections in Venezuela. Details of what was discussed have not been disclosed, and the Venezuelan government has not confirmed the call. The reported contact comes amid ongoing international scrutiny of Venezuela's electoral process and strained relations between Washington and Caracas.

An AP News report says a television advertisement promoting President Trump's midterm messaging was paid for by the US government, raising questions about the use of public funds for political communication. Critics are likely to frame it as blurring the line between official government communications and partisan campaigning, while supporters may view it as routine public messaging ahead of the elections.