#executive order 14248

Jacob Knutson at Democracy Docket:

A federal judge Friday permanently blocked key portions of the sweeping anti-voting executive order that President Donald Trump signed last year. Beyond simply stopping the order, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, minced no words in rebuking Trump’s attempt to expand the executive branch’s power over elections, describing it as both unconstitutional and a threat to democracy.

[...] Several parts of the order have been preliminarily blocked by court orders in several different lawsuits. But Friday Kollar-Kotelly permanently halted two core parts.

First, she said the order’s attempt to require that federal agencies “assess citizenship” before providing an important federal mail voter registration form to enrollees in public assistance programs could not stand. The judge said Trump exceeded his lawful authority in promulgating this provision because “our Constitution vests the authority to regulate federal elections in Congress and the States alone.” Second, Kollar-Kotelly also said the order’s attempt to require documentary proof of citizenship on the federal post card application for military and overseas voters was unconstitutional for the same reason.  “Put simply, our Constitution does not allow the President to impose unilateral changes to federal election procedures,” the judge wrote.

Yunior Rivas at Democracy Docket:

A federal judge Wednesday permanently blocked several key parts of President Donald Trump’s 2025 anti-voting executive order.  The ruling, which found that the order exceeded Trump’s authority, turns earlier temporary blocks into final relief for Democratic-led states fighting the administration’s attack on free elections. “Today’s news is an important reminder to our president that he does not administer our elections. Our Democratic Secretaries of States will use every tool we have to protect the right to run our elections at the local level, and the ability of our voters to lawfully participate,” Cisco Aguilar, Nevada Secretary of State and Chair of Democratic Association of Secretaries of State, said in a statement. “Today’s court ruling is proof of how critical it is that all Americans support the Democratic Secretaries of State who are fighting for voters to exercise their constitutional rights.” U.S. District Judge Denise Casper dealt a major blow to Trump’s first anti-voting executive order, permanently enjoining provisions that would have forced new proof of citizenship requirements onto federal voter registration forms, restricted military and overseas voters and pressured states to reject ballots that are postmarked by Election Day but arrive after. Several parts of the order had already been halted in separate lawsuits, and Casper temporarily halted major pieces of the order last year.  But Wednesday’s decision is significant because it makes that relief permanent in the multi-state case and adds lasting protections against funding threats and mail ballot restrictions for the states covered by the lawsuit.

Joyce Vance at Civil Discourse:

In March, Donald Trump issued an executive order titled “PRESERVING AND PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY OF AMERICAN ELECTIONS.” Predictably, it was designed to do anything but that. Its goal was to make it more difficult to register to vote. In April, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, a senior judge in the District of Columbia, issued a preliminary injunction that temporarily prevented key parts of the executive order from going into effect while the litigation moved forward. The key problem Judge Kollar-Kotelly observed was that Trump was trying to usurp the power the Constitution affords to the states and Congress to run elections. Friday, the Judge granted summary judgment in parts of the case, entering a permanent injunction that prevents the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) from implementing the worst provision of Trump’s executive order: one that purported to require proof of citizenship to register to vote. The measure was designed to suppress voter participation in elections; a solution in search of a problem. It’s akin to the poll taxes used in the South before the Supreme Court put an end to them. Trump’s plan would require people to jump through expensive hoops to acquire proof of birth and costly forms of identification, like passports. At least 21 million Americans don’t have that kind of proof readily available. Only 51% of Americans have passports, which cost adults applying for the first time a $165.00 fee, not to mention assembling the documents you need, getting a photograph of yourself, and making it to an appointment. The problem is especially acute for young people and students who live away from home, and whose documents are with their parents, if they have them at all. The Judge wrote, “The Constitution’s allocation of authority over federal elections between Congress and the States may not be intuitive. But it is no accident,” Judge Kollar-Kotelly wrote. “Instead, this design was the product of carefully considered compromises among our Constitution’s Framers.” Those compromisers were part of the attention to avoid rule by a king-a dictator. Donald Trump has repeatedly tried to claim he has powers the Constitution does not give to the president. And this is especially dangerous when it comes to voting, given his track record. We the people must have the right to choose their leaders, not the other way around.

Great news: Trump Regime’s voter suppression quest handed an L at the courts.

See Also:

Sara Boboltz at HuffPost:

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Tuesday outlining sweeping changes to the way federal elections are carried out nationwide, a responsibility the Constitution explicitly assigns to the states and Congress. During a White House signing ceremony, staff secretary Will Scharf called the order “the farthest reaching executive action taken” in U.S. history. It is very likely to face legal challenges. If implemented, however, it would dramatically increase Trump’s influence over the way Americans exercise their most fundamental civic right. The order reflects many of the falsehoods and conspiracy theories Trump has spread about federal election security. It directs federal agencies and officials to change the federal voter registration form to require proof of citizenship, such as a passport or Real ID. It aims to bar states from counting mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day, regardless of state laws on postmarking, and it directs the Justice Department to track and prosecute what the Trump administration considers election crimes.

The text of the order points out that the Department of Homeland Security is tasked with protecting critical infrastructure and argues that election infrastructure fits that description. It instructs the secretary of Homeland Security, alongside the attorney general, to “review and report on the security of all electronic systems used in the voter registration and voting process.” Trump has long championed paper ballots, falsely suggesting digital voting machines provide opportunity for fraud. States that do not comply with Trump’s order face the threat of having federal funds cut off. Election fraud is very rare. After the 2020 presidential election, dozens of lawsuits failed to surface evidence of widespread illegal ballots or other meddling. Attorney Marc Elias, founder of the voting rights advocacy group Democracy Docket, said his organization planned to sue the Trump administration over the order.

Anti-American tyrant Donald Trump signed an executive order Tuesday to radically overhaul administration of federal elections that belongs to Congress and the states. The provisions include the barring of counting VBM ballots that arrive post-election day, require proof of citizenship, and directing the DOJ to track down “election crimes.”

See Also:

The Guardian: Trump signs executive order that will upend US voter registration processes

Sarah Jones and Jason Easley at PoliticusUSA:

Attorneys general in blue states have been the backbone of the legal resistance to Trump, and that resistance continued in response to Trump trying to federalize state-run elections. The AGs wrote in their lawsuit: ]The Elections EO violates the Constitution. It interferes with States’ inherent sovereignty and their constitutional power to regulate the time, place, and manner of federal elections. It also usurps Congress’s powers to legislate (under the Elections Clause) and to appropriate (under the Spending Clause) because Congress has not chosen to implement the changes the President seeks to impose by decree. The critical funds at issue have in large measure already been appropriated by Congress. And if these coercive threats were not enough, the Elections EO threatens to target Plaintiff States with Department of Justice investigations and potential prosecution. It bears emphasizing: the President has no power to do any of this. Neither the Constitution nor Congress has authorized the President to impose documentary proof of citizenship requirements or to modify State mail-ballot procedures. Indeed, the text, structure, and history of the NVRA itself confirm that the Federal Form can only require citizenship verification by attestation. The President cannot add a documentary proof of citizenship requirement to the Federal Form, because even the Commission could not impose that requirement. Even if a documentary proof of citizenship requirement were substantively consistent with the NVRA, which it is not, only the Commission can change the Federal Form, and then only “in consultation” with the States, with the majority approval of its bipartisan Commissioners, and through reasoned decision-making subject to Administrative Procedures Act(“APA”) review. The Elections EO is facially unconstitutional, ultra vires, and an affront to the States’ sovereignty and their constitutional authority to regulate the administration of elections. The injuries Plaintiff States face are real, imminent, and irreparable. If the provisions of the Elections EO challenged in this lawsuit are not enjoined, they will immediately impose significant harm on Plaintiff States. Elections administration is complex, and the Elections EO effectively orders Plaintiff States, at breakneck pace, to implement trainings, testing, coordination, implementation, and voter education across multiple State agencies and databases. Forcing Plaintiff States to complete these tasks effectively orders them to invest enormous time and resources, diverting election staff from vital election priorities—like ensuring the operation of State voter registration systems and the sound operation of State and local elections, as well as primary preference elections, which occur regularly. In the compressed and finite timeline of State elections and legislative sessions, this work cannot simply be picked up later. For this reason, implementation of the Elections EO’s unlawful directives necessarily comes at the cost of serving Plaintiff States’ residents and implementing State priorities. Even with this effort, the Elections EO sows confusion and sets the stage for chaos in Plaintiff States systems, together with the threat of disenfranchisement.]

Donald Trump Has No Power Or Legal Authority Over Elections

Every court has ruled that states have the constitutional authority to run and oversee their own elections. This includes the current Supreme Court. The vast majority of these Trump executive orders are power grabs to see what he can get away with.

Rachel Leingang at The Guardian:

A second federal judge has rejected parts of Donald Trump’s executive order on elections, dealing another blow to his directive that would require proof of citizenship to vote in US elections. The order, described in March by the White House as “the farthest-reaching executive action taken” in the nation’s history, quickly led to multiple lawsuits. In April, a federal judge in Washington DC ruled against the order in a lawsuit brought by the Democratic party and voting rights groups, blocking its implementation. Tuesday’s ruling comes in response to a lawsuit filed by Democratic state attorneys general and is one of many legal actions the top prosecutors in blue states have brought against the Trump administration to curb illegality and overreach, the attorneys general have said.

Denise J Casper, a federal judge in Massachusetts, ruled that the attorneys general had a reasonable likelihood of success in challenging some provisions of the order, leading her to grant an injunction that stops the provisions from going into effect. “There is no dispute (nor could there be) that US citizenship is required to vote in federal elections and the federal voter registration forms require attestation of citizenship,” Casper wrote. The issue, rather, is whether the president can require documentary proof of citizenship when other parts of the government, such as Congress, have authority for such election requirements, and statutes do not require it, she wrote. The executive order comes amid an ongoing false narrative pushed by the right that large numbers of people without US citizenship are voting in national elections. A bill that was moving through Congress, the Save Act, would have required documentary proof of citizenship to vote, among other provisions, which voting rights advocates warned could disenfranchise millions of people, including women who changed their names in marriage.

[...] One provision, which the ruling on Friday blocked, called on local elections officials to assess citizenship before giving out voter registration forms at public assistance agencies.

Trump Regime’s executive order demanding proof of citizenship to vote got blocked.

See Also: