In a recent decision, a federal judge halted particular modifications proposed by the Trump administration regarding federal election procedures, including the implementation of a proof-of-citizenship requirement on the federal voter registration form. This ruling serves as a setback for former President Donald Trump, who posited that such a requirement was essential to bolstering public trust in electoral processes. However, other components of Trump’s extensive executive order on U.S. elections are allowed to proceed, notably a command to tighten mail ballot deadlines nationwide.
Trump’s sweeping executive order issued in March, aimed at restructuring the administration of U.S. elections, immediately faced legal challenges from organizations like the League of United Latin American Citizens, the League of Women Voters Education Fund, and the Democratic National Committee, who denounced it as unconstitutional. In Washington, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly sided with these voting rights groups and the Democratic plaintiffs, stating that the authority to regulate federal elections resides with Congress and states as per the Constitution, and not with the President. She also noted that Congress is currently engaging in discussions surrounding its own citizenship proof requirements for voting.
The judge’s 120-page decision recognized the potential irreparable harm and conflict with the public interest that the proof-of-citizenship requirement might cause, noting that the government provided minimal justification for the President’s order. As a result, a preliminary injunction was issued, preventing the citizenship requirement from moving forward during the ongoing litigation.
Judge Kollar-Kotelly also prohibited parts of Trump’s order that mandated citizenship verification for recipients of public assistance prior to accessing the federal voter registration form. Nevertheless, she rejected other opposition from Democratic plaintiffs, notably not blocking Trump’s order requiring all mailed ballots to be received by Election Day. Furthermore, she did not address aspects of Trump’s order that involve opening specific databases to a governmental department led by Elon Musk. The judge suggested that such arguments were either premature or should be raised by state governments instead.
The plaintiffs maintained that Trump’s citizenship requirement infringed upon the Constitution’s Elections Clause, which vests election regulation power in states and Congress, and argued that Trump’s order overreached presidential authority by affecting the U.S. Election Assistance Commission—an independent agency responsible for setting voluntary voting guidelines and maintaining the federal voter registration form.
During proceedings, the plaintiffs’ attorneys argued that the citizenship proof requirement would undermine their voter registration drives in public venues like grocery stores. Aria Branch, representing Democratic plaintiffs including the Democratic National Committee, contended that the executive order’s mandate of stricter mail ballot deadlines would also harmfully redirect their resources, describing it as a non-recoverable expenditure of time, finance, and strategic planning.
Michael Gates, counsel for the Trump administration, countered that a preliminary injunction was unnecessary since the order hadn’t been implemented yet. He projected that the citizenship requirement’s introduction on the voter registration form would take many more months.
Roman Palomares, president of the League of United Latin American Citizens, hailed the court’s ruling as a “victory for voters,” emphasizing the importance of maintaining democratic integrity and confidence in electoral participation. Branch also regarded the ruling as a triumph for democracy and legal principles over unwarranted presidential authority, yet acknowledged that the legal struggles are ongoing.
Leaders from the Democratic National Committee and related organizations asserted that if the court’s decision had gone the other way, many Americans—including married women who have changed their last names and low-income individuals—could face hindrances in voter registration.
In reaction to the ruling, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division expressed disappointment. Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general for civil rights, reiterated the significance of safeguarding electoral systems within a democratic society.
Donald Palmer, chair of the Election Assistance Commission and a defendant in the case, indicated that while the ruling and opinion are under review, compliance with the judge’s ruling would be ensured.
As election officials nationwide deliberate on the possible effects of Trump’s executive order on their operations, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission’s Standards Board—a bipartisan advisory panel—holds a public meeting in North Carolina to address these issues. Concurrently, additional lawsuits challenging Trump’s order remain active. In a move consistent with the opposition, 19 state attorneys general petitioned for the dismissal of Trump’s executive order, and states like Washington and Oregon, which conduct all-mail voting, have also initiated lawsuits against the order.
It’s important to note that unlike many other nations, the U.S. does not conduct national elections governed by the federal government. Instead, election administration is decentralized, with oversight carried out at the state level and carried out by numerous local jurisdictions.