BOSTON (AP) — On Friday, the Democratic state attorney general attempted to halt President Donald Trump’s drastic overhaul of U.S. elections, a move that raises constitutional questions regarding the separation of powers.
Top law enforcement officials from 19 states filed federal lawsuits following a Presidential Order signed by the Republican President in March. They argued this would strip states of their authority to set their own election rules and claimed that administrative agencies do not possess such powers.
During the inaugural hearing in Boston’s U.S. District Court, state attorneys informed Judge Dennis J. Casper that the changes proposed before the upcoming election could not be implemented, and estimated that California alone would incur costs of $1 billion. They asserted that the time required for these adjustments could undermine public confidence in the voting process.
A bipartisan group of Secretaries of State supported the state’s stance, contending that Trump’s orders would dismantle the election system established by constitutional provisions. They stated the order “unilaterally positions the president as the nation’s primary election policymaker and administrator.”
If the court fails to block the order, they cautioned that “the executive snowball would rapidly grow and proliferate.”
Trump’s Election order emerged amid a series of Presidential Orders he issued during the early months of his second term, many of which faced swift legal challenges. He continues to incorrectly assert that his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election was due to widespread fraud. Throughout election year, he and other Republicans promoted the narrative that non-citizens jeopardized the integrity of U.S. elections. In reality, non-citizen voting is exceedingly rare and can lead to felony charges and deportation.
The executive order mandates that voters must provide proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections, specifies that mail or absentee ballots received after Election Day cannot be counted, imposes new requirements for voting equipment, and restricts non-Americans from contributing to certain elections. Additionally, it conditions federal election grants on states complying with strict voting deadlines.
This lawsuit is one of three filed against the executive order. One suit comes from Oregon and Washington, where elections are primarily conducted by mail, and ballots received post-Election Day are counted as long as they were mailed by that date.
Previous provisions to establish citizenship proof requirements for federal elections have been halted. Litigation was brought forth by voters, civil rights groups, and national Democratic organizations.
A judge in federal court in the District of Columbia ruled that the president’s attempt to utilize federal agencies to enforce proof requirements for voting was, at the time, an overreach of executive power, suggesting that such laws should be the responsibility of state and Congress. A bill referred to as the Save Act, passed in the House but faces an uncertain fate in the Senate.
Trump’s executive order states its aim is to “ensure a safe, free, fair, and honest election, free from fraud, error, or doubt.” In response to the Attorney General’s request for a preliminary injunction, the Justice Department asserted that the president has the authority to implement federal voting laws.
During Friday’s hearing, lawyers from the Trump administration argued that no enforcement actions have been decided, and the potential harm claimed by the state is merely speculative.
The executive order requires the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to submit documents affirming that they are American citizens for updating voter registration forms. Similar measures previously implemented in a few states have raised concerns about disenfranchising eligible voters lacking easy access to such documentation. This includes married women, who must provide both a birth certificate and a marriage license if they change their surname.
The State Civic Powers Act, enacted in Kansas over a decade ago, blocked the registration of 31,000 individuals found eligible to vote.
Both parties will debate whether the president has the authority to direct the election commission, which was established as an independent agency by Congress following the Florida voting crisis during the 2000 presidential election.
The Justice Department’s filing maintains that Trump’s executive order falls within his authority to direct personnel performing “statutory duties,” asserting that non-citizens are not entitled to vote in the first place.
Source: apnews.com