A federal judge has struck down President Donald Trump’s initiative to alter the election process in the United States, siding with a coalition of Democratic state attorneys general who deemed the action unconstitutional.
The March 25 executive order proposed by Trump mandated that officials require documentary proof of citizenship for all individuals registering to vote in federal elections and stipulated that only mailed ballots received by Election Day would be counted. Additionally, Trump’s directive sought to tie federal election grant funding to compliance with these new requirements.
In her ruling, Judge Denise J. Casper of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts recognized that the states had a strong likelihood of success in their legal challenges against the executive order, which she noted infringed upon states’ constitutional powers over election laws.
Casper emphasized that the Constitution does not grant the President specific authority over election matter, stating, “The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections.”
Furthermore, she remarked on the existing requirement for U.S. citizens to attest to their citizenship when registering to vote, underscoring that the federal voter registration forms already include such a provision.
The judge also highlighted the burdens imposed on states arising from the executive order, referencing the significant efforts and costs required to update their voting procedures to accommodate the changes.
In response to the ruling, attorneys general from California and New York issued statements applauding the decision and criticized Trump’s order as unconstitutional. New York Attorney General Letitia James stated, “Free and fair elections are the foundation of this nation, and no president has the power to steal that right from the American people.”
This is not the first legal setback for Trump’s election order; a federal judge in Washington, D.C., had earlier blocked certain aspects, including the proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal voter registration forms.
The executive order stems from Trump’s long-standing claims regarding election integrity. Following his victory in 2016, he asserted, without evidence, that his popular vote count would have been higher if not for millions of illegal votes. Since losing the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden, Trump has perpetuated unfounded allegations of widespread voter fraud and the manipulation of voting machines as explanations for his electoral defeat.
In justifying his executive order, Trump argued it was necessary to safeguard elections against illegal voting by noncitizens, despite numerous studies demonstrating that such instances are rare and typically the result of mistakes. Furthermore, voting as a noncitizen is illegal and carries severe penalties, including fines and deportation.
The ruling also addressed another contentious point within the executive order that sought to mandate states to reject any mail-in or absentee ballots received after Election Day. Currently, 18 states and Puerto Rico accept mailed ballots as long as they are postmarked by Election Day, a practice that effectively allows for valid votes to be counted even if they arrive slightly late due to postal delays.
Oregon and Washington have filed separate lawsuits concerning the ballot deadlines, arguing that the executive order could disenfranchise voters in their jurisdictions. In a statement when the lawsuit was introduced, Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs pointed out that over 300,000 ballots in the state were received after Election Day during the 2024 election cycle.
The executive order did find support among certain election officials in Republican-led states, who argue that it could reduce the risk of voter fraud and facilitate better access to federal data for maintaining voter rolls. However, legal experts assert that the order oversteps Trump’s authority, as the Constitution grants the states power over the “times, places and manner” of elections, leaving Congress with the authority to create regulations for federal elections.
During a hearing earlier this month on the states’ request for a preliminary injunction, the courtroom was filled with arguments from both state lawyers and administration representatives. The implications of Trump’s order were debated, particularly concerning whether the proposed changes could realistically be implemented in time for the upcoming midterm elections, as well as the associated costs for the states.
Bridget O’Hickey, a lawyer for the Justice Department, argued that the order aimed to establish a uniform set of regulations for specific aspects of election management, rather than maintaining a disjointed system of state laws. She contended that potential harm to the states was purely speculative.
Furthermore, O’Hickey raised concerns over ballots that might be received after Election Day being subject to manipulation, suggesting that voters could modify their choices based on early results. However, it is noted that ballots arriving after Election Day must have a postmark verifying they were sent on or before that date, and any ballot postmarked after Election Day would not be counted.
image source from：https://apnews.com/article/trump-elections-executive-order-4f863aaa8e0c59640ebc727827ffc887
