Dear Delaware,

Today, the Supreme Court let the Trump administration go back to using its overhauled SAVE citizenship database to check voters. That is 39 days before the November 3 election.

Three justices dissented. I stand with them.

This is a stay pending appeal. It is not a final ruling on the merits. The case goes on in the D.C. Circuit.

In an unsigned opinion, the majority said the challengers, the League of Women Voters and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, likely have standing, but that "their claims likely lack merit." It found that the lower-court order "inhibits the Federal Government's efforts to assist state and local agencies in the proper administration of the midterm elections."

The overhaul wired Social Security records into SAVE and allowed bulk searches. In June, U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan ruled that it violated federal privacy law, the Social Security Act, and the law governing federal agencies. She wrote that "the federal government has knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens in a manner that threatens the sacred right to vote."

I will be precise, because precision is how you beat propaganda.

This ruling does not green-light a mass purge before Election Day. The National Voter Registration Act bars systematic voter-roll removals in the final 90 days before a federal election. The majority itself wrote: "To be sure, that moratorium limits the potential impact of staying the District Court's order in this case." What can continue are individualized checks.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, wrote that the Court "focuses only on the harms the Government will purportedly suffer absent a stay, disregarding the harms that the modified SAVE system has caused, and will likely continue to cause, to lawful voters."

Then she drew the line I would draw: "the harm caused by burdening or disenfranchising even a few lawful voters outweighs the nonexistent harm that the Government experiences when it is prevented from taking an action that it likely lacks the authority to take."

In my judgment, she is right.

The Court's own opinion describes a naturalized citizen in Louisiana whose Social Security records did not show her citizenship. She likely would have had to prove, again, that she belongs. Meanwhile, a 2017 Brennan Center study of the 2016 election found noncitizen voting "exceedingly rare."

I spent years as a travel ICU nurse. When the chart is wrong, you fix the chart. You do not punish the patient.

Thursday I wrote about a judge who told the White House the free press is not a favor. Neither is the ballot. Both are rights, and both need defending.

Check your registration at ivote.de.gov. If you are not registered, the deadline for the November 3 general election is Saturday, October 10, at 11:59 p.m. Then ask one neighbor to check, too.

I am a write-in candidate. A write-in vote only counts when an eligible voter can cast it. So check it. Then use it.

This campaign is people-funded. No Super PAC. No outside special-interest money. Ever.

Thirty-nine days. On November 3, write TRAVIS JACK STEVENS.

With gratitude and determination,

Travis Jack Stevens Write-in candidate for U.S. Senate - Delaware travisjackstevens.com

Sources: Supreme Court of the United States, per curiam opinion and Jackson, J., dissenting, Department of Homeland Security v. League of Women Voters, No. 26A308 (Sept. 25, 2026), https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/26a308_pok0.pdf; Amy Howe, SCOTUSblog, "Supreme Court clears way for Trump administration to use modified voter verification database" (Sept. 25, 2026); Brennan Center for Justice, "Noncitizen Voting: The Missing Millions" (May 5, 2017); Delaware Department of Elections, Voter Registration page (elections.delaware.gov/voter/votereg.shtml) and ivote.de.gov.