Judge impedes Trump's efforts to revamp election regulations

A Federal Judge Slaps Down Trump's Election Overhaul Attempt

here's the lowdown on the recent blow to the Trump administration's ambitious executive order aiming to overhaul election laws:

The judge, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, from the US District Court in Washington, provided a solid smackdown to President Donald Trump's executive order, holding it as unconstitutional and contrary to the Legal authority. In her ruling on Thursday, she stated emphatically that our Constitution designates Congress and the states — not the president — as the ones to regulate federal elections.

Kollar-Kotelly's decision served as a clear lesson on the separation of powers, pointing out the Constitution offers no room for the president to interfere or create rules or regulations that apply to elections.

She blocked part of the executive order that requested documentary proof of citizenship for all voters, acknowledging that the president lacks the authority to bypass Congress and state governments to enact such a rule.

When it comes to the other key part of the executive order, which aimed to force a mail-ballot deadline before Election Day, Kollar-Kotelly took a different stance. While she declined to block the provision, she made it known that the legal challenge brought by the Democratic Party, Sen. Chuck Schumer, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, and voting groups lacked the standing to claim harm from the provision. However, she left the door open for individual states to challenge this provision in court.

The executive order was an ambitious attempt to grant the executive branch unprecedented influence over federal elections, as the Constitution only grants the president limited authority to regulate elections. It's another example of Trump's attempts to augment his presidential power.

The Court's decision is rooted in both constitutional separation of powers and statutory authority limitations governing federal elections. In essence, the President and the executive branch cannot unilaterally alter voter registration requirements or impose unnecessary barriers to registration, risking disenfranchisement and violating the National Voter Registration Act’s purpose to simplify registration.

Enrichment Insights:

The federal judge's decision to block parts of Trump's executive order relied on constitutional separation of powers and statutory authority limitations governing federal elections.

The court emphasized that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress and states – not the president – exclusive authority to regulate federal elections.

The judge also pointed out that the executive order's mandate for the Election Assistance Commission to add a documentary proof-of-citizenship requirement to the federal voter registration form lacked statutory backing as the existing National Voter Registration Act strictly governs the federal form’s content, and the Election Assistance Commission is an independent body.

Congress holds ultimate authority over federal voter registration standards, preempting state or executive actions that create additional hurdles, maintaining the constitutional balance of powers.

The decision by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, in the US District Court in Washington, to block parts of Donald Trump's election overhaul attempt has been upheld as a clear reflection of constitutional separation of powers.
The making of election laws and regulations belongs to Congress and the states, as stated emphatically by Judge Kollar-Kotelly, not the president, as per the Constitution.
In her ruling, the judge blocked the part of the executive order that required documentary proof of citizenship for all voters, citing the president's lack of authority to bypass Congress and state governments to enact such a rule.
As for the provision of the executive order aiming to force a mail-ballot deadline before Election Day, while Judge Kollar-Kotelly declined to block it, she left the door open for individual states to challenge this provision in court.
In a general news context, the court's decision underscores policy-and-legislation involving elections, where the Constitution only grants the president limited authority to regulate elections, and any attempts to wield more power require adherence to constitutional separation of powers and statutory authority limitations.