With the June 23, 2026, primary fast approaching, New York’s 12th Congressional District has become a microcosm of the Democratic Party’s current anxieties and ambitions. At the bustling intersection of West 85th Street and Columbus Avenue on Manhattan’s Upper West Side, candidates and their supporters gathered for a final push, hoping to sway early voters in one of the city’s most reliably Democratic neighborhoods. The scene was lively, with campaign volunteers handing out leaflets, candidates shaking hands, and the air thick with talk of both local and national issues.
Micah Lasher, a state lawmaker and one of the frontrunners, was joined by Manhattan Borough President Brad Hoylman-Sigal. Hoylman-Sigal, clearly enthusiastic, praised the turnout: “This is the prime spot here on the Upper West Side here. It’s great to meet voters and the enthusiasm for Micah Lasher is kind of off the charts.” Lasher himself echoed the optimism, telling reporters, “We’re getting an incredibly positive reaction from a ton of voters coming out to vote, and it’s been all over the district.”
But Lasher wasn’t the only candidate making waves. Jack Schlossberg, a social media influencer with a famous political pedigree, was also working the crowd. Schlossberg’s campaign has focused on energizing the party’s base—both young and old. “Our base of support is from older voters who understand the need for a new generation to take over, who believe in the same old values of the Democratic Party, but want to reinvigorate our party with energy,” Schlossberg said, according to NY1. His message seemed to resonate, especially among voters who feel the party needs fresh leadership without abandoning its core principles.
Alex Bores, representing the Upper East Side, brought a different issue to the table: artificial intelligence. Bores has made AI regulation his signature campaign theme, warning of the dangers of unchecked technological power. He also spoke candidly about the financial headwinds facing his campaign. “I think having three Trump mega-donors targeting you with $10 million in negative advertising is a pretty clarifying thing for voters,” Bores said, highlighting the outside spending that’s become a fixture of modern campaigns.
Meanwhile, attorney George Conway, known for his vocal opposition to former President Donald Trump, entered his first political race with a singular focus: impeaching Trump. Conway’s campaign has been laser-focused on holding the former president accountable, a message that has found an audience among some of the district’s most ardent anti-Trump voters.
Yet, it wasn’t just local personalities or intra-party debates drawing attention. National concerns loomed large, especially President Trump’s recent deal with Iran—a hot-button issue in a district with a significant Jewish population. The candidates were united in their condemnation. Lasher called the deal “a disaster,” while Schlossberg described it as “a giveaway” to Iran, lamenting, “The only enforcement mechanism against a nuclear weapon is more bombing from President Trump. We are unfreezing their assets, removing sanctions. We’ve given them the ultimate leverage in the Strait of Hormuz.” Bores added, “It seems like we’re ending up in a worse deal than the place we were before.” Conway didn’t mince words, declaring, “It’s never gonna stick and we shouldn’t be paying the Iranians $300 billion, full stop.”
These local dynamics are unfolding against a backdrop of national uncertainty about the integrity of the upcoming elections. According to CNN and the Voting Rights Lab, five Democratic-led states—California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, and Washington—have recently enacted new laws to shield their elections from what they view as potential interference by the Trump administration and its allies. These measures range from restricting law enforcement presence near polling places to tightening control over access to sensitive election materials.
In Connecticut, for example, a new law effective July 1, 2026, will largely bar law enforcement from being within 250 feet of polling locations, ballot drop boxes, or vote-counting sites unless they have explicit permission from election officials. State Rep. Matt Blumenthal, a Democrat who chairs the government administration and election committee, explained the motivation: “The reason why we’ve entertained these steps is because of the shocking and unprecedented statements and actions that Donald Trump and his allies, including in government, have undertaken to threaten and attack our elections,” he told CNN.
Other states have taken similar steps. California’s new legislation, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom, prohibits unauthorized access to voter rolls or voting machines and makes it a crime to knowingly take voted ballots from election officials without a valid warrant. Colorado has established a 100-foot buffer zone around polling places and ballot drop boxes, and gives the governor emergency powers to protect elections from disruptions. Maryland’s new statute allows the state to keep counting mail-in ballots received after Election Day, even if federal rules change. Washington state has made it a felony to disclose personal voter information without permission from the secretary of state.
President Trump, now back in the White House, has responded with executive orders aimed at cracking down on mail-in voting, which he continues to claim—without evidence—is rife with fraud. His administration has sought access to election records in states like Georgia and Arizona, and the Department of Justice is fighting in court for access to voter rolls to search for ineligible voters. When asked if he would deploy Immigration and Customs Enforcement or National Guard troops to polling sites, Trump said he would do “anything necessary to make sure we have honest elections.” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson defended the administration’s actions, saying Trump “is committed to ensuring that Americans have full confidence in the administration of elections, and that includes totally accurate and up-to-date voter rolls free of errors and unlawfully registered non-citizen voters.”
Not everyone agrees with the new state laws. California Republican State Senator Tony Strickland criticized the legislation, arguing, “I think that we should have the ability at all levels of government to be able to monitor elections to make sure elections are done properly. What do you have to hide?” Legal experts, however, say that states are on firm ground when regulating their own officials and processes, though some of these new laws could set up constitutional clashes with the federal government.
As the legal battles play out, the Supreme Court is poised to rule on a Republican National Committee challenge to the counting of late-arriving mail ballots, a decision that could have significant implications for Maryland and other states that allow such ballots to be counted. Maryland, for instance, permits counting mail ballots received up to ten days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked by November 3, 2026.
Despite the legal wrangling, some experts, like Justin Levitt of Loyola Law School, remain optimistic that the core process will hold. “States themselves are in charge of the process. And when the president orders stuff to get done, the states just don’t have to listen,” Levitt said, noting that recent high-profile disputes have made judges more vigilant about protecting the integrity of elections.
As New York’s primary unfolds and the nation looks ahead to November, the intersection of local energy, national controversy, and legal maneuvering is shaping a political landscape where every vote—and every rule about voting—seems to matter more than ever.