A federal judge has ruled against key provisions of an executive order issued by former President Donald Trump, marking a significant setback for his administration’s election agenda. This decision, made on Friday, is the third ruling to block elements of Trump’s order, which sought to impose new regulations on federal election procedures. The court concluded that the authority over elections lies primarily with states and Congress, not the president.
In his ruling, U.S. District Judge John Chun sided with the states of Oregon and Washington, specifically challenging aspects of Trump’s order that required documented proof of citizenship for federal voter registration and aimed to alter guidelines for voting machines. Chun also struck down provisions that would prohibit the counting of absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day but received later. He emphasized that the Constitution does not grant the president the power to unilaterally dictate election policies.
The ruling reflects a growing trend of judicial pushback against Trump’s executive actions regarding election integrity. Legal experts suggest that the president’s attempts to reshape federal election laws face an uphill battle. Derek Clinger, a senior staff attorney with the University of Wisconsin Law School’s State Democracy Research Initiative, remarked, “The court is very clear that the Constitution gives no authority to the president to do any of these things.”
The Trump administration has indicated plans to appeal this decision, continuing its pursuit of changes to election law initiated by the executive order from March 2023. This order included provisions that have already faced legal challenges, with earlier rulings blocking requirements for proof of citizenship from individuals registering to vote and mandates for federal agencies to assess citizenship for those receiving public assistance.
Despite these legal setbacks, the administration’s efforts have inspired some legislative movements at the state level. In states such as Ohio, lawmakers have repealed grace periods for mail ballots that are postmarked by Election Day but arrive later, aligning with the administration’s goals. Nonetheless, many states have resisted significant changes to their voting practices.
Judge Chun’s ruling specifically applies to Oregon and Washington, both of which rely heavily on mail-in voting. This decision not only blocks the proposed restrictions but also prevents the U.S. Election Assistance Commission from altering federal voter registration forms to include citizenship proof requirements.
The impact of Trump’s executive order extends beyond immediate legal decisions. It has prompted the Department of Justice to prioritize investigations into alleged violations of election laws, resulting in 23 lawsuits against states that have not complied with requests for unredacted voter data. This strategy, while facing legal challenges, has created a ripple effect within federal agencies.
Legal experts critique the administration’s strategy as lacking a coherent plan. Justin Levitt, an election law professor, likened the situation to a storyline from a television show where characters embark on a scheme without a clear path to success. He noted that the absence of a defined strategy could undermine public confidence in electoral processes, even if the regulations themselves do not change significantly.
As the Trump administration navigates these legal hurdles, it remains to be seen how this ruling will influence future attempts to alter election laws. The landscape of voting rights and election integrity continues to evolve, highlighting the complex interplay between federal authority and state governance in the United States.
