Democratic officials from 19 states, such as Michigan, initiated legal action through a lawsuit. President Trump's effort to alter election processes throughout the U.S. I'm referring to it as an unconstitutional encroachment on the clear authority of states to manage their own electoral processes.
Thursday's lawsuit Is the lawsuit filed against the executive order released merely a week prior? It aims to halt several crucial components of this directive. Specifically, it targets new provisions mandating individuals furnish documentary evidence of their citizenship status. registering to vote And a requirement that all mail-in ballots must be received by Election Day.
The President lacks the authority to take such actions," stated the group of state attorneys general in their legal filings. "This Executive Order regarding elections is deemed unconstitutional, undemocratic, and contrary to American values.
The White House spokesman Harrison Fields addressed the lawsuit on Friday, describing the citizenship verification rules as "sensible," while dismissing criticisms from Democrats as "absurd."
"The Trump administration is advocating for transparent and impartial elections, and posing this fundamental query is crucial to maintaining our Constitutional Republic," he stated.
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, a Republican, lost to Joe Biden, a Democrat, in 2020.
This directive represents the end result of Trump’s persistent criticisms 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, when he lost the election, Trump alleged that it was rigged and spread false claims about extensive voter fraud as well as tampering with 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 this directive, stating that it might help reduce occurrences of voter fraud and grant them access to federal information for improving the accuracy of their voter registration lists.
This directive mandates states to disregard all mail-in or absentee votes that arrive following Election Day. It also jeopardizes state federal funding should elections administrators fail to adhere to these rules. Certain states accept ballots with an Election Day postmark and permit voters to rectify small mistakes on their ballot forms.
The lawsuit argues that compelling states to alter their procedures would infringe upon the extensive autonomy granted to them under the Constitution for establishing their own electoral guidelines. It asserts that these authorities encompass determining the “times, places, and manner” through which elections are conducted.
Congress holds the ability to establish or modify rules governing elections, particularly those pertaining to federal offices; however, the Constitution does not grant any explicit powers to the president concerning the management of these electoral processes.
Dana Nessel, Michigan's Attorney General, states that the directive is unconstitutional and interferes with the electoral process.
“The President doesn’t have the power to dictate or manage our state’s voting regulations, as numerous ones are part of our state Constitution,” she stated. “We must not allow the White House to erode the wishes and liberties of Michigan residents or prevent them from lawfully submitting their votes according to state electoral statutes.”
New York Attorney General Letitia James echoed Nessel's views.
"We operate as a democracy—not a monarchy—and this executive order represents an authoritarian power play," stated New York Attorney General Letitia James.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta stated that President Trump’s executive order aimed to introduce widespread voting limitations nationwide and suppress voter participation.
The attorney general and secretary of state in Nevada—a key swing state—asserted that their state’s elections were conducted fairly, securely, and with transparency. They also took issue with the president's efforts to meddle in the administration of these elections. Attorney General Aaron Ford highlighted Nevada’s automated system for voter registration and distribution of absentee ballots as particular strengths.
"Although this order is clearly unconstitutional and unlawful, it is also superfluous," he stated.
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.
Other lawsuits submitted an appeal arguing that it might prevent many voters from casting their ballots since millions of eligible American voters lack the necessary documentation. Individuals are already obligated to swear, under threat of perjury, that they are citizens as part of the voter registration process.
As per the directive, acceptable documentation for proving citizenship includes a U.S. passport, a REAL ID-compliant driver’s license marked to show the holder is a citizen, and an active photograph identification card when accompanied by evidence of one's citizenship status.
David Becker, who leads the Center for Election Innovation & Research as its CEO, described the directive as a "federal seizure of the constitutional power held by local and state authorities to manage elections."
Becker contributes to CBS News on matters of election law.
Democrats contend that many Americans find it difficult to obtain their birth certificates, approximately half lack a U.S. passport, and those who got married may require several documents due to changes in their names. This posed challenges for certain women in recent municipal elections in New Hampshire—the first since implementing a new state regulation mandating evidence of citizenship for voter registration.
Not every REAL ID-compliant driver’s license indicates U.S. citizenship.