Loading record
Public disputes concerning the 2026 U.S. midterm election cycle, including campaigns, candidates, conventions, advertising, endorsements, and election-related policy promises.
Counts show individual statements. They do not assign an overall position.
6 statements on this page. Dates: June 18, 2026 to October 15, 2026
6 matching statements. Dates: June 18, 2026 to October 15, 2026
6 published statements. Dates: June 18, 2026 to October 15, 2026
6 published statements. Dates: June 18, 2026 to October 15, 2026
6 statements on this page. Dates: June 18, 2026 to October 15, 2026
Role at the time: U.S. senator from California
Statement summary
Padilla criticizes the evidence, timing and legal basis of the federal lawsuit and pledges opposition.
“This lawsuit has no legal basis or evidence behind it and is nothing more than a blatant abuse of power designed to sow distrust in our elections and threaten Americans’ right to vote.”
Padilla criticizes the evidentiary basis and timing of the lawsuit and says he will oppose it.
The issue is dOJ's demand to segregate flagged California mail ballots and withhold tabulation until citizenship verification. He expressly condemns the lawsuit and requested restrictions.
Role at the time: U.S. senator from California
Response to this claim
Trump was saying that foreign enemies of the United States should "take out" Los Angeles and San Diego.
“Now Trump is in Nebraska inviting an attack on U.S. soil, putting millions of Americans and hundreds of thousands of our servicemembers at risk while trying to get Americans to cheer for an attack on our own country.”
Sen. Alex Padilla's post on his Senate X account, quoting a clip of the rally remark.
The reference point is whether Trump's remark meant Iranian attacks on Los Angeles and San Diego would be an acceptable price for the war, as critics read it, rather than that the war prevents a nuclear Iran from being able to attack them, as the White House says. Padilla reads the remark as inviting an attack on the United States and criticizes Trump for it, which asserts and condemns the critics' reading. The closest competing label is Challenged the characterization, but Padilla states his own reading and condemns the conduct. Evidence: Padilla's own post on X.
Role at the time: U.S. Senator, California
Statement summary
Alex Padilla voted yea on H.Con.Res. 89, a vote to direct the removal of U.S. forces from unauthorized hostilities with Iran.
“On the Concurrent Resolution H.Con.Res. 89: A concurrent resolution directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran.”
Official Senate roll call on H.Con.Res. 89, a concurrent resolution directing the President under section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran. Rejected 49-50 on September 24, 2026. Fetterman was the only Democratic nay; Republicans Collins, Murkowski, Paul and Tillis voted yea; Alsobrooks did not vote.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Voted to direct the removal of U.S. forces from unauthorized hostilities with Iran, a vote to end U.S. involvement absent congressional authorization.
Role at the time: U.S. senator and ranking member of the Senate Rules Committee
Statement summary
Padilla says the whistleblower disclosure alleges officers were told to misrepresent their authority on state voter sites and calls for DHS to halt the activity.
“Federal officers are being told by headquarters to lie or to misrepresent themselves in order to access state voter data.”
Padilla publicly recounted the whistleblower's allegations that officers were told to misrepresent themselves on voter sites. He called for the initiative to stop and for DHS to disclose its practices. His remarks are allegations and criticism, not independent proof of completed false attestations.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Padilla criticizes the alleged directive to misrepresent voter authorization and demands that the activity stop. His statement draws on the whistleblower disclosure.
Role at the time: U.S. Senator, California
Statement summary
Alex Padilla voted Yea on H.Con.Res. 86, the Senate resolution directing the President to remove U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran.
“On the Concurrent Resolution H.Con.Res. 86: Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran.”
Official Senate roll call on H.Con.Res. 86, directing the President under section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran. Agreed to 50-48 on June 23, 2026 — the first Iran war powers resolution to pass both chambers. Republicans Cassidy, Collins, Murkowski and Paul voted yea; Fetterman was the only Democratic nay.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)A yea vote supported directing the President to remove U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran, opposing continued U.S. involvement in the war without congressional authorization.
Role at the time: U.S. senator from California and Ranking Member of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee
Statement summary
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), speaking as he and seven other Democratic senators introduced the Protect Our Polls Act, said there is no place at polling sites for federal troops or federal law enforcement, including ICE, and that deploying them to intimidate eligible voters is already against the law. He said that when Secretary Mullin and Secretary Hegseth are asked about sending federal troops to election sites, they leave the door open, and that they are laying the groundwork to try to justify the presence of federal agents at polling places around the country.
“There is no place at our polling sites for federal troops or federal law enforcement, including ICE. Their deployment to intimidate eligible voters is already against the law. They’re laying the groundwork to try to justify the presence of federal agents at polling places around the country.”
Sen. Alex Padilla's press release announcing the Protect Our Polls Act, which eight Democratic senators introduced. It summarizes the bill, quotes the co-sponsors and includes a transcript of Padilla's remarks.
The reference point is the administration's stated or threatened use of ICE and other armed federal agents at or near polling places in the 2026 election. Padilla said federal troops and federal law enforcement, including ICE, have no place at polling sites, that deploying them to intimidate eligible voters is already against the law, and that officials are laying the groundwork to justify federal agents at polling places. That expressly rejects the stated or threatened use, so we labeled it Condemned.
