In the first legal confrontation over President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at reforming the national election process, key opposition emerged on Monday. This move by the administration prompted the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and two nonprofit organizations to file lawsuits, arguing that the order breaches constitutional boundaries.
The initial legal action came from the Campaign Legal Center and the State Democracy Defenders Fund, which filed their lawsuit on Monday afternoon. Subsequently, the Democratic Governors Association, along with Senate and House Democratic leaders, joined the DNC in submitting a related legal challenge.
Both cases, now under the scrutiny of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seek to halt the enactment of Trump’s executive order, urging the court to rule it unconstitutional.
“The president’s executive decree represents an unwarranted intrusion into well-established electoral systems, potentially disenfranchising countless Americans,” stated Danielle Lang, a senior director focused on voting rights at the Campaign Legal Center based in D.C. “A president simply lacks the authority to unilaterally define election protocols, especially when it limits voting accessibility.”
The White House opted not to comment on the pending legal proceedings.
Legal commentators had anticipated such challenges, pointing out that Trump’s proposed measures, such as mandating citizenship proof for voter registration and altering ballot submission deadlines, might conflict with constitutional principles. Moreover, the executive order seeks to impose authority over the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, an independent body that manages voluntary voting system guidelines and the national voter registration form.
This confrontation occurs as lawmakers contemplate embedding a citizenship check into legislation for voter registration, alongside Trump’s hints at forthcoming election-related initiatives.
Both lawsuits bring the spotlight onto the Constitution’s “Elections Clause,” which allocates the responsibility of determining the “times, places, and manner” of conducting elections to the states. It delegates Congress with eventual oversight for federal elections but omits any specific presidential authority in this domain.
“The Constitution clearly entrusts states with election governance, with congressional oversight as a potential corrective for federal processes,” Lang emphasized, denouncing the executive order as an “executive overreach.”
Allegations within the lawsuits also suggest the order could disenfranchise various voting groups, citing organizations like the League of United Latin American Citizens and the Arizona Students’ Association as parties adversely affected.
The DNC notably criticized the administration’s focus on data-sharing mandates, arguing that federal and state voter data cross-referencing infringes on privacy rights, leaving Democrats vulnerable to baseless harassment.
In their statement, plaintiffs decried the order as “an unconstitutional seizure of power by Trump, undermining vote-by-mail and centralizing sensitive personal data under government purview, complicating states’ abilities to manage their elections.”
Trump defends the order as a mechanism to safeguard the voting process against illegal non-citizen participation, although numerous studies suggest such fraud is exceedingly rare.
These lawsuits might signal only the beginning, with additional challenges potentially on the horizon. Voting rights advocacy groups, including the ACLU, and several Democratic state attorneys general, are actively exploring possible legal avenues.
Conversely, some Republican state election officials have expressed support for the order, asserting it might diminish voter fraud and facilitate enhanced maintenance of voter lists.
If the courts uphold Trump’s directives, this could significantly disrupt both election officials’ operations and voter experiences. Already facing reduced federal cybersecurity support, state officials would need to allocate significant resources to adapt to the new directives, involving potential upgrades of voting systems and comprehensive voter education initiatives.
The proof-of-citizenship measure, specifically, holds the potential to create widespread confusion, especially as many eligible voters may lack immediate access to necessary documentation. For instance, Kansas previously enforced a similar requirement, during which nearly 30,000 U.S. citizens faced registration denials due to documentation issues.
These legal challenges are part of a broader pattern of resistance against Trump’s executive directives during his second term. Numerous previous orders have faced judicial blockades, including those affecting birthright citizenship, transgender military service, and diversity initiatives within federal programs.