Trump's Election Power Grab Shut Down by Judge!

Federal Judge Blocks Trump's Election Overhaul Challenged as Unconstitutional

In a significant legal setback for former President Donald Trump, a federal judge has blocked his attempt to overhaul U.S. elections. The ruling, delivered on Friday, sides with a group of Democratic state attorneys general who argued that the executive order was unconstitutional.

Trump's March 25 executive order aimed to drastically change election procedures nationwide. The order sought to:

• Compel officials to demand documentary proof of citizenship for every individual registering to vote in federal elections.
• Only accept mailed ballots that were physically received by Election Day.
• Condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to this strict ballot deadline.

The challenging attorneys general argued that the directive "usurps the States' constitutional power and seeks to amend election law by fiat." The White House, in its defense, claimed the order was about “standing up for free, fair and honest elections” and portrayed proof of citizenship as a "commonsense" requirement.

However, Judge Denise J. Casper of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts sided with the states. She stated in her order that the states demonstrated a strong likelihood of success in their legal challenges. “The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” Casper wrote.

Casper also emphasized a key point regarding citizenship: “there is no dispute (nor could there be) that U.S. citizenship is required to vote in federal elections and the federal voter registration forms require attestation of citizenship.”

Furthermore, the judge acknowledged the states' concerns that the new requirements would “burden the States with significant efforts and substantial costs” to update their existing procedures.

This ruling marks the second legal defeat for Trump's election order. Previously, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., blocked portions of the directive, including the requirement for proof of citizenship on the federal voter registration form.

This executive order stemmed from Trump’s persistent, and often unsubstantiated, claims about election integrity. Following his 2016 victory, Trump falsely alleged that his popular vote total would have been significantly higher were it not for "millions of people who voted illegally." After his 2020 defeat, he repeatedly made unfounded accusations of widespread voter fraud and manipulation of voting machines.

While Trump asserted that his executive order would safeguard elections against illegal voting by non-citizens, numerous studies and investigations have shown that such instances are rare and typically the result of unintentional errors. Importantly, voting as a non-citizen is already illegal and carries potential penalties, including fines and deportation.

The order’s provision regarding mail-in ballots also drew considerable criticism. Requiring states to exclude any mail-in or absentee ballots received after Election Day, and tying federal funding to compliance, could have had a significant impact. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, **18 states and Puerto Rico currently accept mailed ballots received after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before that date.**

Oregon and Washington, states that rely heavily on mail-in voting, filed a separate lawsuit. Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs pointed out that in 2024, **more than 300,000 ballots in Washington arrived after Election Day.**

While some Republican state election officials praised Trump's order, suggesting it could curb voter fraud and improve voter roll maintenance, many legal experts argued that it exceeded presidential authority. They emphasized that the Constitution grants states the power to determine the "times, places and manner" of elections, with Congress having the authority to set rules for federal office elections. As Judge Casper affirmed, the Constitution does not empower presidents to set election rules.

During a recent hearing on the states' request for a preliminary injunction, lawyers representing both the states and the administration debated the implications of Trump's order, including the feasibility of implementing changes before the upcoming midterm elections and the potential costs for the states.

Justice Department lawyer Bridget O’Hickey argued that the order aimed to establish a uniform set of rules for specific election operations, replacing the existing patchwork of state laws. She dismissed concerns about harm to the states as speculative. O’Hickey also suggested that mail-in ballots received after Election Day could be susceptible to manipulation, implying voters might retrieve and alter their ballots based on early election results. This argument, however, overlooks the fact that all ballots received after Election Day require a postmark proving they were sent on or before that date, and any ballot postmarked after Election Day would be deemed invalid.

This ruling serves as a vital reminder of the checks and balances inherent in the U.S. system of government, reinforcing the principle that no single branch can unilaterally dictate the rules governing our elections. The decision underscores the importance of safeguarding the constitutional authority of states to manage their own elections while ensuring fair and accessible voting processes for all citizens.

Tags: Trump election, election overhaul, voter ID, election law, federal judge, court ruling, Democratic AGs, mailed ballots, proof of citizenship, US elections

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/federal-judge-blocks-trumps-election-overhaul-that-had-been-challenged-as-unconstitutional