PHOENIX (AZFamily/AP) — Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes and Secretary of State Adrian Fontes held a joint news conference Thursday afternoon and gave details about a lawsuit against the Trump administration over the recent elections executive order. According to The Associated Press, it’s part of an effort by Democratic officials in 19 states.
This Executive Order is an unacceptable and unconstitutional encroachment on the rights of states and the authority of Congress by an unchecked executive branch determined to dismantle 250 years of tradition," stated Mayes. "It's evident that Trump only backs state's rights when it aligns with his interests.
State Democratic representatives assert that the lawsuit aims to contest significant aspects of the directive, particularly those related to changes in ballot-counting rules that would disallow mail-in votes post-Election Day. Although Arizona legislation mandates that ballots must arrive by 7 p.m. on Election Day, these officials argue that the directive might interfere with the process of curing ballots as permitted under Arizona statutes.
The legal action further claims that intimidating states by withholding funds due to alleged non-compliance with Trump’s directive breaches constitutional principles as it seeks to manipulate state authorities. The lawsuit argues that compelling states to alter practices infringes upon the significant autonomy granted to them under the Constitution regarding the establishment of local electoral regulations. Specifically, it asserts that states have the prerogative to determine when, where, and how elections should be conducted.
If President Trump aimed to create laws, he should have sought office in Congress as per the U.S. Constitution, which outlines this responsibility," stated Fontes. "Moreover, the Constitution specifies that election matters fall under state jurisdiction. Should the President wish to alter how we conduct elections, he ought to introduce feasible bipartisan bills within Congress rather than compelling states to comply with unauthorized directives via executive actions.
In recent days, the Democratic National Committee Two nonprofit organizations initiated distinct legal actions, labeling the president's latest executive directive aimed at reshaping national election processes as "unconstitutional." These filings, submitted to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, petition the judiciary to prohibit implementation of Trump’s decree and invalidate it on legal grounds.
Democrats contend that millions of Americans struggle to obtain their birth certificates, approximately half lack a US passport, and married women who have changed their names require several additional documents. a complex issue for certain women In recent municipal elections in New Hampshire, these were the first to be conducted since the implementation of a new state regulation mandating evidence of citizenship for voter registration.
Not every REAL ID-compliant driver's license indicates U.S. citizenship.
What actions does Trump’s executive order take?
The directive indicates that the U.S. has not enforced "essential and fundamental election safeguards" and urges states to collaborate with federal entities for sharing voter rolls and tackling electoral offenses. It also warns of withholding federal funds from states whose election administrators do not adhere to these requirements.
Trump’s order directs federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, the Social Security Administration and the State Department, to share with election officials federal data that could help them identify noncitizens on their rolls.
It also indicates that the attorney general should "focus on enforcing federal election integrity laws" in states that do not provide data regarding alleged electoral offenses to the federal government.
The order’s requirement for documentary evidence of citizenship indicates that the president isn’t awaiting approval from Republican lawmakers in Congress to enact the much-discussed Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, also known as the SAVE Act, which seeks to achieve similar goals.
What’s next?
The future of Trump’s directive could lie with the judiciary, considering that the Constitution assigns control over elections to individual states. While Congress can "make or alter" rules concerning electoral procedures, this authority primarily applies to federal offices. Constitution doesn’t mention Any presidential power concerning election management.
The multistate legal action is spearheaded by California Attorney General Rob Bonta along with Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford.
The Associated Press provided contributions to this report.
Spot a typo or mistake in our article? Kindly click here to file a report. .
Have you captured an image or footage from a breaking news event? Please share them with us. it to us here with a brief description.