In a legal move on Thursday, Democratic officials from 19 states initiated a lawsuit against President Donald Trump for his efforts to overhaul election procedures nationwide. They argue that this represents an unlawful encroachment on the well-established right of individual states to manage their electoral processes independently.
This legal action marks the fourth challenge to the executive order enacted only last week. The suit aims to halt significant portions of this directive, particularly those mandating individuals furnish documented evidence of their citizenship during voter registration, along with insisting that all absentee votes must arrive before election day.
The President lacks the authority to take such actions," stated the group of state attorneys general in their legal filings. "The Executive Order related to elections is deemed unconstitutional, undemocratic, and contrary to American values.
We were unable to display this embedded content.
Trump's order said the U.S. has failed “to enforce basic and necessary election protection." Election officials have said recent elections have been among the most secure in U.S. history. There has been no indication of any widespread fraud, including when Trump lost to Democrat Joe Biden in 2020.
This directive represents the end result of Trump’s ongoing grievances regarding the management of American elections. Following his initial victory in 2016, he inaccurately asserted that his popular vote count would have been significantly greater had it not been for "millions of individuals casting illegal votes." In 2020, Trump attributed his defeat to a "tampered" election process and made false allegations of extensive voter fraud along with tampering of voting equipment.
Trump has argued his order secures the vote against illegal voting by noncitizens, though multiple studies and investigations in the states have shown that it's rare.
Some high-ranking election officials in certain GOP-led states have commended it, stating that it might help reduce occurrences of voter fraud and provide them with access to federal information to improve the accuracy of their voter registration lists.
This directive mandates that states must not accept mail-in or absentee votes submitted after Election Day, with non-compliance risking the loss of federal funds for state elections offices. Several states validate ballots based on the postmark date from Election Day or permit voters to rectify small mistakes on their ballot forms.
The lawsuit argues that compelling states to alter their processes would infringe upon the significant autonomy granted to them under the Constitution for establishing their own election regulations. According to the document, states have the discretion to determine "the times, places, and manner" of conducting elections.
Congress holds the ability to "establish or modify" rules concerning elections, particularly those involving federal offices; however, the Constitution does not outline any specific powers granted to the president regarding the management of these elections.
"We operate as a democracy—not a monarchy—and this executive order represents an authoritarian power play," stated New York Attorney General Letitia James.
Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha stated that the Trump administration is compelling states to adhere to what he deems an unconstitutional directive, offering them a choice between compliance and losing funds approved by Congress. He emphasized that the president does not have the authority to make such demands.
“With one swift move, this president is trying to erode election integrity and bypass Congress, but we won’t tolerate it,” he stated.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta stated that President Trump’s executive order aimed to introduce "wide-ranging voting limitations" nationwide and suppress voter participation.
The attorney general and secretary of state in Nevada—a key swing state—defended their state's electoral process as being fair, secure, and open to scrutiny. They also rejected President Trump’s efforts to meddle with election administration. Attorney General Aaron Ford highlighted Nevada’s automated system for voter registration and distribution of absentee ballots as particular strengths.
"Although this directive appears to be both unconstitutional and unlawful, it is also superfluous," he stated.
A request for comment sent to the White House has not been responded to yet.
The legal action was initiated in the U.S. District Court located in Massachusetts by the Democratic prosecutors general from Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin.
Various legal challenges against the order contend that it might prevent many from casting their votes, as millions of eligible American voters lack the necessary documentation. Currently, individuals must swear under oath of their citizenship status to be allowed to vote.
According to the directive, acceptable documentation for verifying citizenship includes a U.S. passport, a REAL ID-compliant driver’s license marked as indicating "the applicant is a citizen," along with a valid photo identification when accompanied by evidence of citizenship.
Democrats contend that many Americans find it difficult to obtain their birth certificates, approximately fifty percent lack a US passport, and those who got married might require several documents due to changes in their names. This posed challenges for certain women in recent municipal elections in New Hampshire—the initial such contests conducted following a new state regulation mandating evidence of citizenship for voter registration.
Not every REAL ID-compliant driver's license indicates U.S. citizenship.