Judge blocks Trump’s election executive order, siding with Democrats who
called it overreach
[June 14, 2025]
By CHRISTINA A. CASSIDY
ATLANTA (AP) — A federal judge on Friday blocked President Donald
Trump’s attempt to overhaul elections in the U.S., siding with a group
of Democratic state attorneys general who challenged the effort as
unconstitutional.
The Republican president’s March 25 executive order sought to compel
officials to require documentary proof of citizenship for everyone
registering to vote for federal elections, accept only mailed ballots
received by Election Day and condition federal election grant funding on
states adhering to the new ballot deadline.
The attorneys general had argued the directive “usurps the States’
constitutional power and seeks to amend election law by fiat.” The White
House had defended the order as “standing up for free, fair and honest
elections” and called proof of citizenship a “commonsense” requirement.
Judge Denise J. Casper of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts said
in Friday's order that the states had a likelihood of success as to
their legal challenges.
“The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over
elections,” Casper wrote.
Casper also noted that, when it comes to citizenship, “there is no
dispute (nor could there be) that U.S. citizenship is required to vote
in federal elections and the federal voter registration forms require
attestation of citizenship.”
Casper also cited arguments made by the states that the requirements
would “burden the States with significant efforts and substantial costs”
to update procedures.
Messages seeking a response from the White House and the Department of
Justice were not immediately returned. The attorneys general for
California and New York praised the ruling in statements to The
Associated Press, calling Trump's order unconstitutional.
“Free and fair elections are the foundation of this nation, and no
president has the power to steal that right from the American people,"
New York Attorney General Letitia James said.
The ruling is the second legal setback for Trump’s election order. A
federal judge in Washington, D.C., previously blocked parts of the
directive, including the proof-of-citizenship requirement for the
federal voter registration form.
The order is the culmination of Trump’s longstanding complaints about
elections. After his first win in 2016, Trump falsely claimed his
popular vote total would have been much higher if not for “millions of
people who voted illegally.” Since 2020, Trump has made false claims of
widespread voter fraud and manipulation of voting machines to explain
his loss to Democrat Joe Biden.
[to top of second column]
|
President Donald Trump walks across the South Lawn of the White
House in Washington, March 25, 2018. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez
Monsivais, File)
He has said his executive order secures elections against illegal voting
by noncitizens, though multiple studies and investigations in the states
have shown that it's rare and typically a mistake. Casting a ballot as a
noncitizen is already against the law and can result in fines and
deportation if convicted.
Also blocked in Friday's ruling was part of the order that sought to
require states to exclude any mail-in or absentee ballots received after
Election Day. Currently, 18 states and Puerto Rico accept mailed ballots
received after Election Day as long they are postmarked on or before
that date, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Oregon and Washington, which conduct their elections almost entirely by
mail, filed a separate lawsuit over the ballot deadline, saying the
executive order could disenfranchise voters in their states. When the
lawsuit was filed, Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs noted that
more than 300,000 ballots in the state arrived after Election Day in
2024.
Trump’s order has received praise from the top election officials in
some Republican states who say it could inhibit instances of voter fraud
and will give them access to federal data to better maintain their voter
rolls. But many legal experts say the order exceeds Trump’s power
because the Constitution gives states the authority to set the “times,
places and manner” of elections, with Congress allowed to set rules for
elections to federal office. As Friday's ruling states, the Constitution
makes no provision for presidents to set the rules for elections.
During a hearing earlier this month on the states’ request for a
preliminary injunction, lawyers for the states and lawyers for the
administration argued over the implications of Trump’s order, whether
the changes could be made in time for next year’s midterm elections and
how much it would cost the states.
Justice Department lawyer Bridget O’Hickey said during the hearing that
the order seeks to provide a single set of rules for certain aspects of
election operations rather than having a patchwork of state laws and
that any harm to the states is speculation.
O’Hickey also claimed that mailed ballots received after Election Day
might somehow be manipulated, suggesting people could retrieve their
ballots and alter their votes based on what they see in early results.
But all ballots received after Election Day require a postmark showing
they were sent on or before that date, and that any ballot with a
postmark after Election Day would not count.
All contents © copyright 2025 Associated Press. All rights reserved |
