FirstAlerts

Texas Counties and Localities Sue DHS Over Election Grant Requirements

El Paso and Harris counties, alongside communities in Tennessee and Ohio, have filed a civil lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 18, 2026, 7:54 p.m. ET
El Paso County and Harris County in Texas, alongside communities in Tennessee and Ohio, have filed a lawsuit in district court against the , according to sacurrent.com. The lawsuit remains open and developing, and the legal matter is undecided. The lawsuit challenges new Homeland Security Grant Program requirements that would shift how local officials conduct elections, sacurrent.com reported. The requirements include transitioning to paper ballots, conducting manual ballot audits, and processing voter registrations through the agency's SAVE system. The plaintiffs allege that the lacks authority to condition grant funds on local election procedure changes without congressional approval. According to sacurrent.com, the plaintiffs allege that implementing the requirements would cost millions of dollars, make elections less secure, and place roughly $200 million in grant funds at stake nationally. The plaintiffs also allege that a transition to paper ballots could push Harris County election officials into running afoul of a state law requiring regular ballots to be counted within 24 hours of polls closing.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 118 Aug 2026, 23:54current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.