In a controversial move, President Donald Trump has signed an executive order intended to reshape the voting process in the United States. The order, which demands proof of citizenship for voter registration and insists all mailed ballots be returned by Election Day, is sparking significant discussion across the nation. Despite the president’s intentions, legal experts and state officials argue that these measures infringe on state authority as protected by the U.S. Constitution.
Colorado’s Secretary of State, Jena Griswold, has publicly declared the executive action as “unlawful.” Many legal specialists, including David Becker from the Center for Election Innovation and Research, support this viewpoint, asserting that such sweeping changes cannot be enacted merely through an executive order. New Jersey’s Attorney General, Matt Platkin, has indicated that legal challenges are forthcoming, and he expressed concerns about the implications of federal overreach on state-controlled election processes.
Trump’s administration claims the order is necessary to protect elections from what he describes as rampant voter fraud. However, the president’s assertions about widespread fraud have been widely discredited. Yet, Trump seems ready to escalate the matter, hinting at potential additional actions in the weeks ahead, and threatening to cut federal funding to non-compliant states. The legality of these actions will undoubtedly be assessed by the courts.
The U.S. electoral system is distinctively decentralized, a feature specified by Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution, which grants states the ability to determine the logistics of their elections. Many legal experts, including Sean Morales-Doyle from the Brennan Center for Justice, have pointed out that Trump’s proposals exceed the constitutional powers allocated to the presidency. Morales-Doyle highlights the problematic nature of mandating proof of citizenship, which could infringe upon the National Voter Registration Act.
This executive order isn’t without precedent. President Joe Biden had previously issued directives to enhance voter access, which met with criticism from Republicans who challenged its constitutionality. Trump had rescinded those directives earlier this year. In another bold move, Trump’s order attempts to influence the autonomous Election Assistance Commission (EAC) by compelling it to modify voter registration forms and procedures.
Jonathan Diaz from the Campaign Legal Center emphasized that the EAC’s independence is safeguarded by Congress, suggesting that presidential directives cannot simply override the agency’s autonomy. This attempt to exert control over an independent body has raised alarms about executive overreach. Rick Hasen from UCLA categorizes Trump’s actions as an “executive power grab” aimed at concentrating control over federal elections in the presidency’s hands.
Potential legal disputes loom, especially regarding voter disenfranchisement. The requirement for documentary proof of citizenship could unjustly hinder eligible voters who lack immediate access to proper documentation. Furthermore, Trump’s order empowers the Department of Homeland Security and another department to scrutinize state voter data, a move critics warn could lead to wrongful purging of voter rolls.
Advocacy groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union anticipate challenging the order in court, fearing it could discourage voter participation through the manipulation of flawed data. Xavier Persad from the ACLU underscores the risk of eligible voters being improperly flagged for removal or prosecution, leading to widespread voter suppression.
Preparations for legal battles are already underway. Prominent attorneys and organizations, including Marc Elias, have pledged to file lawsuits opposing the order. State responses are varied; while some Republicans back the measures for purportedly enhancing election integrity, Democratic officials are defending against perceived federal intrusions into state election laws.
Washington’s Attorney General, Nick Brown, points out the specific challenges his state faces due to its vote-by-mail system. He emphasizes that established voting procedures have long been a responsibility of state and local governments rather than the federal level. In light of these tensions, legal proceedings are almost certain to follow, potentially setting significant precedents for the future of election law in the United States.