Poli Alert Politics & Civics
Related Articles
In a sweeping legal challenge, Democratic officials in 19 states have filed a lawsuit to block a new executive order from former President Donald Trump that they say would unconstitutionally rewrite how elections are run in the United States.
The lawsuit — filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts — argues that the order’s key provisions, including requiring documentary proof of citizenship to vote and disqualifying mail ballots received after Election Day, violate the Constitution’s explicit grant of power to the states to oversee elections.
“The President has no power to do any of this,” the attorneys general wrote. “The Elections EO is unconstitutional, antidemocratic, and un-American.”
This marks the fourth legal challenge to Trump’s executive order, issued just one week ago. The measure threatens to withhold federal funding from states that do not comply, while placing new voter ID and documentation mandates on millions of Americans.
The Executive Order at a Glance
Trump’s order mandates:
- Documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote (e.g., U.S. passport, certified birth certificate, or REAL ID with citizenship notation).
- Mail-in and absentee ballots must be received by Election Day to be counted.
- State compliance tied to federal funding, including election-related grants.
Critics say these requirements disenfranchise voters — especially marginalized communities, the elderly, students, and married women who may lack easy access to multiple documents.
“This is an authoritarian power grab,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James. “We are a democracy — not a monarchy.”
State Pushback: ‘Unconstitutional and Illegal’
Attorneys general from Michigan, New York, California, Nevada, and 15 other states argue the order undermines long-established election practices that vary by state.
“The White House cannot be permitted to undermine the will and the rights of Michiganders,” said Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel.
“While this order is on its face unconstitutional and illegal, it is also unnecessary,” added Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford, defending Nevada’s automatic registration and mail ballot system.
White House: ‘Common Sense Protections’
Despite fierce opposition, the Trump administration is doubling down, with White House spokesperson Harrison Fields defending the order as a measure to ensure “free, fair, and honest elections.”
“Asking this basic question is essential to our Constitutional Republic,” Fields said, calling Democratic objections “insane.”
Still, numerous studies and audits — including those conducted by Trump’s own Department of Homeland Security in 2020 — have shown no evidence of widespread voter fraud, including by noncitizens.
“This is not election security — it’s election sabotage,” said David Becker, CEO of the Center for Election Innovation & Research.
Proof of Citizenship: A Barrier for Millions
Legal experts warn the order could disqualify millions of eligible voters who lack immediate access to documents such as:
- Birth certificates
- U.S. passports
- Citizenship certificates
About half of voting-age Americans don’t have a passport, and married women may require multiple name change documents, creating administrative barriers to registration.
A recent town election in New Hampshire already demonstrated how proof-of-citizenship laws confused and discouraged voters, especially women.
“This disproportionately impacts already vulnerable communities,” said a spokesperson for the National Education Association, which is also challenging the order.
The Bigger Picture: States’ Rights vs. Federal Power
The U.S. Constitution gives states primary control over the “times, places, and manner” of elections, though Congress has limited authority to regulate federal contests. Nowhere does it assign that power to the executive branch.
That’s the core of the legal argument from the 19 attorneys general, who say Trump’s order represents an unconstitutional federal takeover of state-run election systems.
What’s Next?
With multiple lawsuits underway, the courts will determine whether the executive order can survive constitutional scrutiny. The American Civil Liberties Union, voting rights groups, and several state secretaries of state have also indicated they are preparing to join or support legal challenges.
As the 2026 midterms draw near and the 2028 presidential race begins to take shape, the outcome of this legal fight could redefine the balance of power in American elections — and who gets to vote in them.
