Judge partially impedes Trump's endeavor to revise election regulations

How the Trump Administration's Recent Election Law Overhaul Faces Challenges in Court

President Donald Trump's ambitious plans to reshape election laws have hit a snag, with a federal judge blocking significant aspects of a March executive order. In a stinging rebuke, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District Court in Washington stated that Trump lacks the authority to mandate documentary proof of citizenship for all voters.

Kollar-Kotelly's ruling underscores that our Constitution assigns Congress and states, not the president, the power to regulate federal elections. The president, she declared, cannot "short-circuit Congress' deliberative process by executive order."

However, the judge did not halt another key provision of the order, which pressure-cooks a deadline for mail ballots in federal elections by threatening to withhold federal funding from recalcitrant states. The judge found that the Democratic Party, Sen. Chuck Schumer, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, and voting groups lacked the standing to challenge this provision. Legal concerns surrounding this provision, Kollar-Kotelly wrote, are being considered in separate cases brought by state attorneys general.

Trump's order sought to ram the federal Election Assistance Commission into changing its voter registration procedures, compelling any potential voter to provide documentary evidence of citizenship to register. Acceptable documents ranged from passports and military IDs to other state-issued identification clarifying citizenship. Curiously, the order made no mention of birth certificates as a valid means of proof.

In a memorable statement, the Trump administration pledged to continue the legal fight. "President Trump will keep fighting for election integrity, despite Democrat obstinacy that shuns common-sense safeguards like verifying citizenship," declared Harrison Fields, a White House spokesperson. "Free and fair elections are the bedrock of our Constitutional Republic, and we're confident in securing an ultimate victory in the courtroom."

A chilling study by the Brennan Center for Justice and the University of Maryland revealed that 21.3 million people lack readily available proof of citizenship. Moreover, nearly 4 million individuals don't have the documents at all due to loss, destruction, or theft.

Noting that the Election Assistance Commission is a bipartisan, independent regulatory body, Kollar-Kotelly wrote that the president cannot force such a body to alter procedures without a vote by its members, as required by law.

The order is a daring attempt to bestow the executive branch with unparalleled influence over federal elections, as the Constitution provides no explicit authority to the president to regulate elections. Moreover, it's yet another example of Trump's repeated attempts to expand his presidential powers.

Kollar-Kotelly reiterated the separation of powers concerning elections, leaving no room for the president to interfere or create rules that dictate elections. "The states have initial authority to regulate elections," the judge wrote. "Congress has supervisory authority over those regulations. The president does not feature at all. In fact, executive regulatory authority over federal elections does not appear to have crossed the framers' minds."

Kollar-Kotelly was nominated to a lower court in the District of Columbia by President Ronald Reagan and was appointed to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton.

Trump's order also aimed to establish a federal deadline for mail-in ballots, mandating that they arrive by Election Day. Presently, at least 17 states allow mail ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrive shortly thereafter.

Kollar-Kotelly refrained from hindering this provision because the Democratic Party, Schumer, Jeffries, and voting groups failed to demonstrate that they would suffer harm due to the provision. However, individual states could contest the validity of this provision in court.

Still, Kollar-Kotelly made it clear that her decision on the mail-ballot deadline was not a final verdict on the merits of the argument. "The court's analysis should not be taken to decide any issue more broadly than that," she wrote. Legal arguments from states that risk losing federal funding for their election programs if they accept late-arriving ballots, she said, is a question for another day.

Behind the Scenes:The executive order in question, signed on March 25, 2025, strives to fortify election security by implementing federal election requirements, such as demanding documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration, setting a deadline for mail-in ballots, and enhancing systems to detect ineligible voters. However, the order has faced significant legal opposition, with critics arguing it exceeds presidential authority and violates constitutional provisions that assign states the power to regulate elections.

Legal Battle:

Constitutional Dispute: The order is faulted for encroaching upon state powers to set election rules and standards, a power not granted to the president by the Constitution. Instead, Congress, not the president, possesses the authority to establish national voting standards.
Legal Challenges: Various organizations, such as the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and State Democracy Defenders Fund, have initiated lawsuits against the executive order, contending it is unconstitutional and illegal.
Legal and Constitutional Questions: The order's implementation could potentially conflict with existing laws, as executive orders do not inherently override existing legislation. This ambiguity might create confusion for election officials and voters alike.

In summary, the legal battle over this executive order persists due to the ongoing challenges based on constitutional and legal grounds, and its implementation remains uncertain pending court rulings.

The Trump administration's executive order to reshape election laws faces challenges in court, with the order's requirement for documentary proof of citizenship for all voters being blocked by a federal judge.
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly found that the president lacks the authority to mandate such documentation, stating that Congress and states, not the president, have the power to regulate federal elections.
sports The judge's ruling also did not halt another key provision of the order, which pressure-cooks a deadline for mail ballots in federal elections, potentially affecting millions of people who lack readily available proof of citizenship.
Kollar-Kotelly's decision on the mail-ballot deadline was not a final verdict on the merits of the argument, leaving individual states to contest the validity of this provision in court.
TheTrump Administration's order, which aims to establish a federal deadline for mail-in ballots, could potentially conflict with existing laws in as many as 17 states that currently allow mail ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrive shortly thereafter.