LULAC president Palomares says the case asks "whether the federal government may post armed officers between a citizen and the voting booth"
League of United Latin American CitizensLULAC national president and chairman of the board, speaking for a lead plaintiff
In LULAC's announcement of its lawsuit, national president Roman Palomares said the case asks "whether the federal government may post armed officers between a citizen and the voting booth", and said "Congress answered that question in 1865, and the answer was no".
Responding to
DHS, through Secretary Mullin's September 1, 2026 statements, has adopted a policy authorizing armed ICE officers to go to polling places to serve warrants and conduct other immigration enforcement, and that policy violates 18 U.S.C. 592.
“The question before the court is not about immigration. It is whether the federal government may post armed officers between a citizen and the voting booth. Congress answered that question in 1865, and the answer was no. Our vote is our voice, and LULAC will not stand by while any administration, of any party, tests whether that voice can be quieted.”
Official statement
Reporting
Where this statement fits
Should ICE and other armed federal agents be allowed at or near polling places in the 2026 election?
Since February 2026, federal officials have given differing answers about whether ICE and other armed federal agents could be at or near polling places during the November 3 election. On September 1, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said ICE would be at a polling place only if there is a threat to it or agents are serving a warrant, and DHS told Politico that ICE is not planning operations targeting polling locations but that arrests could result if an active public safety threat endangered one. On September 10, 18 and 23, 2026, LULAC and other groups, a coalition including the NAACP, and Democratic leaders and party committees sued separately in federal court in Washington. They allege that the administration's statements and actions violate 18 U.S.C. 592, Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act, or both. As of September 25, the court dockets show no motion for a preliminary injunction and no answer or motion to dismiss from the federal defendants, and no court has ruled.
Source and context
Official statement
About this source
LULAC's announcement of the suit. It names the co-plaintiffs and counsel, quotes LULAC national president Roman Palomares and chief executive Juan Proaño, and describes the claims under 18 U.S.C. 592 and the Administrative Procedure Act.
Reporting
About this source
USA Today's report on the LULAC filing. It lists the defendants as DHS, ICE, Secretary Mullin and acting ICE director David Venturella, quotes LULAC's chief executive and Denver's mayor, and quotes a DHS spokesperson.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
LULAC filed suit in federal court in Washington against DHS, ICE, Secretary Mullin and acting ICE director David Venturella.
After the quotation
Common Cause, UnidosUS and the city and county of Denver joined LULAC as co-plaintiffs.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
The fixed reference point is the administration's stated or threatened use of ICE at or near polling places. Palomares argued that Congress barred armed federal officers between a citizen and the voting booth and vowed that LULAC will not stand by, which expressly rejects the practice. He set no condition, so mixed or conditional does not fit.
- Recorded on
- Published here
- People and groups discussed
- U.S. Department of Homeland Security
More from this case
Read the full caseGeraghty says fears of federal agents intimidating voters have so far proved unfounded
“There’s a lot of fear that the 2026 midterm elections will be disrupted by some authority, either federal or local, harassing and intimidating voters, seizing ballots, or closing polling places. That fear, so far, appears unfounded.”Read statement
Letitia James says armed federal agents are not allowed at New York polls
“I want New York voters to know the law is on their side. Armed federal agents are not allowed at polling places, and no one can use a badge, a weapon, or a threat to stop you from voting.”Read statement
Trueblood says uniformed federal observers can intimidate voters
“You standing there in your FBI vest is intimidating to voters, and so we’re not going to allow that,”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- LULAC president Palomares says the case asks "whether the federal government may post armed officers between a citizen and the voting booth"
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/2694-in-lulac-s-announcement-of-its-lawsuit-national
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "LULAC president Palomares says the case asks "whether the federal government may post armed officers between a citizen and the voting booth"". First published: 2026-09-26. Last updated: 2026-09-26. https://disputeindex.com/events/2694-in-lulac-s-announcement-of-its-lawsuit-national