ATLANTA (AP) — A federal judge has intervened to halt President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at reshaping U.S. election procedures, ruling in favor of a coalition of Democratic state attorneys general who argued that the directive was unconstitutional.
On March 25, President Trump issued an executive order aimed at requiring documentary proof of U.S. citizenship for all individuals registering to vote in federal elections.
Additionally, the order mandated that only mail-in ballots received by Election Day would be counted, and it threatened to condition federal election grants on states complying with these new deadlines.
The Democratic attorneys general contended that the executive order “usurps the States’ constitutional power and seeks to amend election law by fiat.”
In her ruling, Judge Denise J. Casper of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts emphasized that the states appeared likely to win their legal challenge based on constitutional grounds.
“The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” Casper stated in her order.
Furthermore, Judge Casper acknowledged that while U.S. citizenship is indeed a requirement for voting in federal elections, the current federal voter registration forms already require individuals to attest to their citizenship.
She pointed out that the attorneys general had successfully argued that the new requirements would burden states significantly, imposing substantial costs to update existing procedures.
This decision represents a second legal setback for President Trump’s election overhaul initiative.
A previous ruling from a federal judge in Washington, D.C., had already blocked certain components of the directive, including the controversial proof-of-citizenship requirement for the federal voter registration form.
The executive order reflects President Trump’s long-held grievances regarding the election process.
After his victory in the 2016 presidential election, Trump claimed without evidence that his popular vote total would have been significantly higher if not for what he termed “millions of people who voted illegally.”
Since losing the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden, he has continued to propagate claims of widespread voter fraud and manipulation of voting machines.
President Trump argued that his executive order was a necessary step to secure elections against the threat of illegal voting by noncitizens.
However, numerous studies and investigations have consistently shown that voter fraud, particularly by noncitizens, is exceedingly rare and often results from unintentional mistakes.
Casting a ballot as a noncitizen is illegal and can lead to severe consequences, including fines and deportation upon conviction.
Furthermore, President Trump’s order aimed to require states to disregard all mail-in or absentee ballots received after Election Day while threatening to jeopardize federal funding for election-related efforts if states did not comply.
Currently, 18 states and Puerto Rico have provisions that allow mail-in ballots to be counted as long as they are postmarked by Election Day, as reported by the National Conference of State Legislatures.
In response to the executive order, the states of Oregon and Washington, which conduct elections predominantly by mail, filed a separate lawsuit suggesting that the new ballot deadlines risk disenfranchising voters.
Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs highlighted that over 300,000 ballots were received in the state after Election Day during the 2024 election cycle.
While some Republican state election officials have praised Trump’s order for potentially minimizing voter fraud, many legal analysts maintain that the order exceeds the President’s authority.
The U.S. Constitution grants states the prerogative to manage the “times, places and manner” of elections, with Congress possessing the power to establish regulations for federal elections.
As Judge Casper noted in her ruling, there is no constitutional provision that empowers presidents to dictate election rules.
During the recent hearing regarding the states’ push for a preliminary injunction, lawyers for both the states and the Trump administration debated the implications of the executive order, the feasibility of implementing the changes before the upcoming midterm elections, and the financial burden these changes would impose on the states.
Justice Department attorney Bridget O’Hickey argued that the executive order sought to create a uniform set of rules rather than allowing for a fragmented patchwork of state laws.
She further argued that any harm to the states from the order remained speculative.
O’Hickey also suggested that mail-in ballots received after Election Day could be subject to manipulation based on early voting results.
However, it is important to note that all ballots that are accepted after Election Day require a postmark verifying they were sent before that date, ensuring they remain valid.
image source from：https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/federal-judge-blocks-trumps-election-overhaul-that-had-been-challenged-as-unconstitutional
