President Donald Trump has issued an executive order with ambitions for transforming the electoral process in the United States, aiming to institute substantial changes in how elections are conducted. This sweeping mandate, however, is expected to encounter legal challenges on multiple fronts.
Central to the executive order is a requirement for voters to prove their U.S. citizenship before registering for federal elections. Trump’s directive mandates that potential voters must provide citizenship documentation, such as a passport or birth certificate, to be eligible for registration. Furthermore, the order calls for enhanced federal oversight by directing states to provide their voter lists to the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Government Efficiency, allowing for a review of citizenship status. To ensure compliance, the order suggests withholding federal grants from states that do not participate in federal law enforcement efforts to curb election crimes. Despite the rarity of noncitizen voting, Trump has previously asserted claims that this could significantly impact election outcomes.
A significant shift proposed by this order is that mail-in and absentee ballots should be received by Election Day. Presently, numerous states, including California, allow ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrive within a set period afterward. However, Trump’s directive connects federal funding to adherence to this new deadline—sparking debate about the potential implications for states like California, which have been known for prolonged vote counts to ensure accuracy. Critics argue such a shift might disenfranchise voters, particularly in populous states.
In terms of voting technology, the order tackles the use of QR codes and barcodes for counting votes, instructing the Election Assistance Commission to revise guidelines to preclude reliance on these technologies. This directive could affect jurisdictions, like Georgia, that utilize voting systems incorporating QR codes to tally votes. The implications for states using these systems are yet uncertain.
Additionally, the order seeks to restrict foreign nationals from making contributions to U.S. elections. Over recent years, political discourse has intensified around the influence of foreign investments in electoral processes, with this directive targeting such activities by imposing stricter rules. The spotlight has been on foreign donors like Hansjörg Wyss, who has financially supported liberal causes, raising questions about external influences in American politics.
The constitutionality of Trump’s executive order raises questions, given that the U.S. Constitution grants states significant autonomy in deciding the conduct of elections. Article I, Section 4 outlines the states’ responsibilities in determining election protocols, albeit with room for congressional intervention but not executive. Comparably, President Biden had earlier issued an order to expand voting access, which faced criticism from Republicans over concerns of overstepping executive boundaries. As such, Trump’s order will likely face serious legal scrutiny, and voting rights advocates predict a contentious court battle to determine the extent of presidential power in altering election processes.
In the face of anticipated legal challenges, the ultimate authority to validate or invalidate Trump’s proposed electoral transformations will rest with the judiciary. With widespread calls from civil rights organizations against the order, the courts will be integral in shaping the future of voting laws in the U.S. as this latest executive action undergoes judicial review.