LULAC president Palomares says the case asks "whether the federal government may post armed officers between a citizen and the voting booth"
LULAC national president and chairman of the board, speaking for a lead plaintiff
“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.”
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
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 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
Should ICE and other armed federal agents be allowed at or near polling places in the 2026 election?
Explore the case context, sources and public responses.
More from this case
Read the full case“We are taking strong, joint legal action to block Donald Trump’s threats to deploy federal agents, including ICE and FBI agents, to polling places this November. … Federal law explicitly forbids voter intimidation and stationing armed federal agents at polling places.”Read statement
NAACP
“We reject this administration’s attempt to desecrate our polling sites by converting them into militarized zones through the unlawful deployment of ICE or any other federal agent … The Voting Rights Act prohibits intimidation tactics that stand to deny and deter voters from exercising their voice and their rights.”Read statement
“I have not seen any operational plans or any discussions on any immigration enforcement operation at polling places. This is another fear tactic. This is another attack on ICE and this administration. … I want to put that to bed. There is no plan to sweep polling places looking for illegal aliens.”Read statement