Judge Blocks Parts of Trump’s Executive Order on Voting Regulations

In a significant legal development, a federal judge has issued an injunction against certain aspects of President Trump’s executive order aimed at tightening voting regulations. This order, which included a requirement for proof of citizenship before registering to vote using a federal form, was challenged in court.

Details of the Injunction

Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, appointed by former President Clinton, ruled that the authority to regulate federal elections lies with Congress and the states, not the presidency. She stated that the president could not unilaterally impose such mandates, emphasizing the constitutional roles designated to different branches and levels of government.

However, the judge did rule in favor of President Trump on other fronts, deeming it premature to challenge parts of his executive order that impose penalties on states for counting ballots received after Election Day.

Implications of Trump’s Executive Order

President Trump’s executive order, titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections,” was issued on March 25 and represents a significant overhaul of federal election rules. The order addresses concerns about noncitizens on voter rolls and the handling of mail and absentee ballots, which the President has frequently criticized.

1776 Coalition Sponsored Win a Gun

President Trump has emphasized the importance of counting only legal votes to ensure the integrity of election outcomes. His order also directed federal agencies to collaborate in identifying noncitizens on voting rolls and prosecuting election crimes vigorously.

Opposition and Criticism

The executive order has faced intense opposition from immigrant and voting rights groups, who argue that it represents a severe attack on voting rights. Critics contend that the issues of noncitizen voting and the counting of ballots post-Election Day are minimal and that the measures could disenfranchise many voters.

Norm Eisen, a former White House ethics official and advocate for democracy, hailed the court’s decision as a victory for democratic principles and constitutional governance.

Controversial Aspects and Legal Challenges

The most contentious part of the executive order was the requirement for proof of citizenship on the federal voter registration form. This form, mandated by the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, is widely used across various government agencies.

Several major civil liberties and political organizations, including the League of United Latin American Citizens and the Democratic National Committee, brought the lawsuit challenging the executive order. They argued that the President’s actions exceeded his constitutional powers and infringed on states’ rights to determine voter qualifications.

In response to the ruling, the Democratic National Committee and other groups involved in the lawsuit expressed their determination to continue fighting against what they perceive as unconstitutional overreach.

Conclusion of the Court

Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s decision underscores the constitutional limits of presidential power in the realm of election regulation, affirming that such authority predominantly resides with Congress and individual states. While some aspects of the executive order remain unchallenged, the injunction represents a significant check on efforts to alter federal election practices unilaterally.