US President Donald Trump’s latest executive order on elections faces legal challenge by Democratic attorneys general from 19 states, arguing it is an unconstitutional attempt to override states’ authority. The lawsuit, filed on Thursday in a US district court in Massachusetts, aimed to block key provisions of the order, which imposes stricter voting requirements nationwide.
The executive order, issued just a week ago, demanded individuals to provide documentary proof of citizenship while registering to vote and required all mail-in ballots to be received by the election day. These measures, the lawsuit contended, breach upon states’ constitutional right to regulate their own elections.
The suit said that the Constitution allows states to set their own election rules, letting them decide the “times, places and manner” of how elections are run.
“The President has no power to do any of this,” the attorneys general stated in their court filing. “The Elections EO is unconstitutional, antidemocratic, and un-American,” news agency AP quoted.
Trump’s order claimed that the country has failed to enforce what he called "basic and necessary election protection." However, election officials across the country have repeatedly argued that recent elections have been among the most secure in US history, with no evidence of widespread fraud.
The order is the latest move in Trump’s long-standing campaign against US election processes. In 2020, after losing to Democrat Joe Biden, Trump claimed the election was "rigged" and accused voting machines of manipulation.
Trump argued that his executive order will help prevent illegal voting by noncitizens, despite multiple studies showing that such cases are exceedingly rare. The order has received backing from Republican election officials in several states, who claim it could help combat voter fraud and allow better access to federal data for maintaining voter rolls.
However, critics warned that the order could lead to widespread voter disenfranchisement as many states currently count mail-in ballots postmarked by election day, and others allow voters to correct minor ballot errors.
The order threatened to cut federal funding for states that refuse to comply, which Democratic officials argue is an overreach of presidential power.
“We are a democracy – not a monarchy – and this executive order is an authoritarian power grab,” said New York attorney general Letitia James.
Rhode Island attorney general Peter Neronha also accused Trump of attempting to sidestep Congress and strong-arm states into compliance.
“In one fell swoop, this president is attempting to undermine elections and sidestep the Congress, and we’re not going to stand for it,” he said.
Officials in Nevada, a key swing state, also pushed back, calling their elections “fair, secure, and transparent.” California attorney general Rob Bonta denounced the order as a sweeping attempt to impose voting restrictions and suppress voter turnout.
Other lawsuits filed against the order argued that millions of eligible voters may be unable to meet the new documentation requirements. While citizens are already required to attest to their status under penalty of perjury, Trump’s order limited acceptable proof to a US passport, a Real ID-compliant driver’s license that explicitly states citizenship, or a valid photo ID accompanied by additional proof of citizenship.
Democrats argued that these restrictions would disproportionately impact Americans without easy access to birth certificates, as well as women who have changed their names after marriage. A similar requirement in New Hampshire recently caused issues for some women voting in local elections.
The executive order, issued just a week ago, demanded individuals to provide documentary proof of citizenship while registering to vote and required all mail-in ballots to be received by the election day. These measures, the lawsuit contended, breach upon states’ constitutional right to regulate their own elections.
The suit said that the Constitution allows states to set their own election rules, letting them decide the “times, places and manner” of how elections are run.
“The President has no power to do any of this,” the attorneys general stated in their court filing. “The Elections EO is unconstitutional, antidemocratic, and un-American,” news agency AP quoted.
Trump’s order claimed that the country has failed to enforce what he called "basic and necessary election protection." However, election officials across the country have repeatedly argued that recent elections have been among the most secure in US history, with no evidence of widespread fraud.
The order is the latest move in Trump’s long-standing campaign against US election processes. In 2020, after losing to Democrat Joe Biden, Trump claimed the election was "rigged" and accused voting machines of manipulation.
Trump argued that his executive order will help prevent illegal voting by noncitizens, despite multiple studies showing that such cases are exceedingly rare. The order has received backing from Republican election officials in several states, who claim it could help combat voter fraud and allow better access to federal data for maintaining voter rolls.
However, critics warned that the order could lead to widespread voter disenfranchisement as many states currently count mail-in ballots postmarked by election day, and others allow voters to correct minor ballot errors.
The order threatened to cut federal funding for states that refuse to comply, which Democratic officials argue is an overreach of presidential power.
“We are a democracy – not a monarchy – and this executive order is an authoritarian power grab,” said New York attorney general Letitia James.
Rhode Island attorney general Peter Neronha also accused Trump of attempting to sidestep Congress and strong-arm states into compliance.
“In one fell swoop, this president is attempting to undermine elections and sidestep the Congress, and we’re not going to stand for it,” he said.
Officials in Nevada, a key swing state, also pushed back, calling their elections “fair, secure, and transparent.” California attorney general Rob Bonta denounced the order as a sweeping attempt to impose voting restrictions and suppress voter turnout.
Other lawsuits filed against the order argued that millions of eligible voters may be unable to meet the new documentation requirements. While citizens are already required to attest to their status under penalty of perjury, Trump’s order limited acceptable proof to a US passport, a Real ID-compliant driver’s license that explicitly states citizenship, or a valid photo ID accompanied by additional proof of citizenship.
Democrats argued that these restrictions would disproportionately impact Americans without easy access to birth certificates, as well as women who have changed their names after marriage. A similar requirement in New Hampshire recently caused issues for some women voting in local elections.
You may also like
400 million gallons of sewage heading for US; Why won't Mexico stop it?
IPL 2025: Length is the key focus for me across formats, says DC's Kuldeep Yadav
Are Yuzvendra Chahal and Mahvesh dating? RJ's big reveal [read now]
New Yorkers come together to save cherished shop cats from fines
Iconic UK steam train put at risk of 'derailment' days before tourist season starts
