Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election
overhaul executive order
[June 06, 2025]
By LEAH WILLINGHAM
BOSTON (AP) — Democratic state attorneys general on Friday will seek to
block President Donald Trump's proposal for a sweeping overhaul of U.S.
elections in a case that tests a constitutional bedrock — the separation
of powers.
The top law enforcement officials from 19 states filed a federal lawsuit
after the Republican president signed the executive order in March,
arguing that its provisions would step on states' power to set their own
election rules and that the executive branch had no such authority.
In a filing supporting that argument, a bipartisan group of former
secretaries of state said Trump's directive would upend the system
established by the Constitution's Elections Clause, which gives states
and Congress control over how elections are run. They said the order
seeks to “unilaterally coronate the President as the country’s chief
election policymaker and administrator.”
If the court does not halt the order, they argued, “the snowball of
executive overreach will grow swiftly and exponentially."
Trump's election directive was part of a flurry of executive orders he
has issued in the opening months of his second term, many of which have
drawn swift legal challenges. It follows years of him falsely claiming
that his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election
was due to widespread fraud and an election year in which he and other
Republicans promoted the notion that large numbers of noncitizens
threatened the integrity of U.S. elections. In fact, voting by
noncitizens is rare and, when caught, can lead to felony charges and
deportation.
Trump's executive order would require voters to show proof of U.S.
citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections, prohibit mail
or absentee ballots from being counted if they are received after
Election Day, set new rules for voting equipment and prohibit non-U.S.
citizens from being able to donate in certain elections. It also would
condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the
strict ballot deadline.
The hearing Friday in U.S. District Court in Boston comes in one of
three lawsuits filed against the executive order. One is from Oregon and
Washington, where elections are conducted almost entirely by mail and
ballots received after Election Day are counted as long as they are
postmarked by then.
[to top of second column]
|
The provision that would create a proof-of-citizenship requirement
for federal elections already has been halted in a lawsuit filed by
voting and civil rights groups and national Democratic
organizations.
In that case, filed in federal court in the District of Columbia,
the judge said the president's attempt to use a federal agency to
enact a proof-of-citizenship requirement for voting usurped the
power of states and Congress, which at the time was considering
legislation that would do just that. That bill, called the SAVE Act,
passed the U.S. House but faces an uncertain future in the Senate.
Trump's executive order said its intent was to ensure “free, fair
and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion.” The
Justice Department, in arguing against the motion by the attorneys
general for a preliminary injunction, said the president is within
his rights to direct agencies to carry out federal voting laws.
The order tasks the U.S. Election Assistance Commission with
updating the federal voter registration form to require people to
submit documentation proving they are U.S. citizens. Similar
provisions enacted previously in a handful of states have raised
concerns about disenfranchising otherwise eligible voters who can't
readily access those documents. That includes married women, who
would need both a birth certificate and a marriage license if they
had changed their last name.
A state proof-of-citizenship law enacted in Kansas more than a
decade ago blocked the registrations of 31,000 people later found to
be eligible to vote.
The two sides will argue over whether the president has the
authority to direct the election commission, which was created by
Congress as an independent agency after the Florida ballot debacle
during the 2000 presidential election.
In its filing, the Justice Department said Trump's executive order
falls within his authority to direct officials “to carry out their
statutory duties,” adding that “the only potential voters it
disenfranchises are noncitizens who are ineligible to vote anyway.”
All contents © copyright 2025 Associated Press. All rights reserved
 |
