Trump’s Election Order: Federal vs. State Authority Dispute

    0
    0

    In the midst of intensifying political debates surrounding U.S. elections, Democratic state attorneys general and other government lawyers convened in Boston on Friday to discuss President Donald Trump’s proposed election reforms. These discussions revolved around the implications of implementing these changes before the upcoming midterm elections, the financial burden on states, and the overarching question of the president’s authority to enforce such measures. A collective of high-ranking law officials from 19 states initiated a federal lawsuit following Trump’s executive order in March, challenging its provisions, which they argue infringe upon states’ rights to determine their own electoral regulations.

    During a session in the U.S. District Court, attorneys from the states presented their case to Judge Denise J. Casper, highlighting that the implementation of Trump’s proposed changes would be neither swift nor inexpensive. Kevin Quade, who serves as the lead attorney for the states and is the Deputy Attorney General for California, cited that merely updating the voter registration system in California alone could incur a cost exceeding $1 million and necessitate nearly a year to accomplish. The complexity of adapting to these changes, the lawyers argued, would detract valuable time from preparations for the forthcoming elections, thereby risking public confidence in the electoral process.

    According to Quade, the executive order presents potential harm by casting doubt on states’ capacities to conduct fair federal elections at the local level. Such reputational damage, he insisted, is challenging to mend. Trump’s election reform initiative is nestled among a series of executive orders he propelled during the initial months of his second term. This move follows persistent yet unfounded claims by Trump of rampant fraud causing his defeat in the 2020 presidential election to Democratic President Joe Biden and the subsequent narrative that noncitizen voting jeopardizes U.S. elections’ integrity.

    The executive order outlines several major stipulations: verifying U.S. citizenship for voter registration in federal elections, barring the counting of mail or absentee ballots that arrive post-Election Day, establishing new standards for voting machinery, and proscribing non-U.S. citizens from certain electoral contributions. Additionally, it proposes that compliance with strict ballot deadlines be tied to federal election funding.

    Bridget O’Hickey, an attorney with the Justice Department, defended the executive order, suggesting that uniform rules for specific election operations could foster public confidence and avoid the disparity resulting from varied state laws. O’Hickey characterized the states’ objections as largely hypothetical grievances. Meanwhile, multiple lawsuits are challenging the executive order, including one by Oregon and Washington where mail-based elections allow post-Election Day ballot counting provided they are postmarked by the cutoff date.

    An attempt within the executive order to institute a proof-of-citizenship voting requirement has already faced a temporary halt due to a lawsuit led by voting and civil rights groups alongside national Democratic entities. The court contended that using a federal agency to enforce proof of citizenship for voting encroaches on states’ and Congress’s authority.

    During the hearing, significant focus was brought to the order’s stipulation that only ballots arriving by Election Day should be processed. O’Hickey advocated for this requirement, suggesting that late-received ballots could be subject to vote manipulation. She argued for standardized ballot reception deadlines to avert “recasting of ballots,” although the actual feasibility of such manipulation remains unclear given existing state-level voting security protocols.

    In contrast, Anne Bellows, California’s Deputy Attorney General, rebutted O’Hickey’s concerns, stating that post-Election Day ballots would be valid only if postmarked by the election date, negating any advantage to absentee voters over those voting in person. This insistence on a national ballot deadline encountered criticism by Republicans, who previously labeled similar Democratic initiatives as instances of “federal overreach” by enforcing uniform voting criteria.

    The executive order also directs the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to modify the federal voter registration form to necessitate evidence of U.S. citizenship. Such requirements in similar state-level legislation earlier raised issues about disenfranchising eligible voters unable to promptly obtain necessary documentation, such as married women whose last names have changed.

    The Justice Department countered that Trump’s directive operates within his presidential scope to instruct officials in fulfilling their legal duties, arguing that it solely disenfranchises noncitizens, who are, in any case, not entitled to vote.