Trump Election Order Citizenship Rule Faces Legal Fight

A sweeping executive order signed by President Trump on March 25th aims to overhaul U.S. elections, consequently sparking immediate legal challenges. Central to the controversy is the Trump Election Order Citizenship proof requirement, a mandate detailed within the directive. Furthermore, the order dictates changes to ballot deadlines and voting systems, citing a need to enforce election protections. However, critics immediately denounced the move, calling it an unconstitutional executive overreach. As a result, lawsuits challenging its validity have already been filed.

According to CBS News, this order represents a major attempt to assert federal control over election administration. Individual states traditionally manage this area. Let’s discuss the details of this executive action.

Key Mandates of the Trump Election Order Citizenship Directive

President Trump’s executive action details several major changes and directives aimed at reshaping election processes:

• Documentary Proof of Citizenship: Firstly, the order seeks to require individuals provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship. This proof would be needed when registering to vote in federal elections. While this aligns with past Republican efforts like the proposed SAVE Act, this attempts implementation via executive action, not Congress.
• Ballot Receipt Deadline: In addition, it demands all ballots be received by Election Day to count. Consequently, this could invalidate ballots mailed by the deadline but arriving later, even though many states currently allow for this.
• Federal Data Sharing: Moreover, the order directs federal agencies to share data with state election officials. Specifically, agencies like Homeland Security, the Social Security Administration, and the State Department are tasked with this. The stated goal is helping states identify and remove noncitizens from voter rolls.
• Voting System Guidelines: The directive also calls on the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to amend its guidelines. For instance, it includes prioritizing systems with paper records and potentially discouraging using barcodes or QR codes for vote counting, which could affect states like Georgia.
• Conditional Funding: Finally, the order threatens to withhold federal funding. This applies to states and election jurisdictions not complying with these new directives, adding significant pressure.

Stated Rationale vs. Reality

The executive order claims the U.S. failed “to enforce basic and necessary election protections,” mentioning non-citizen registration and late ballots. Indeed, President Trump argued that the order would secure the vote against illegal voting by noncitizens.

However, critics and multiple studies disagree strongly. They point out that noncitizen voting in federal elections is already illegal and documented as exceedingly rare. Similarly, concerns about widespread mail voting fraud are largely unsubstantiated, despite being a focus of criticism. Therefore, voting rights groups argue that the new requirements are simply unnecessary barriers.

Impact on Voters and Access

The proof-of-citizenship requirement, specifically, raises serious concerns about voter disenfranchisement. For example, a 2023 report cited by news outlets (from groups including the Brennan Center for Justice) estimates about 9% of voting-age U.S. citizens lack readily available proof documents. This represents around 21.3 million people.

Furthermore, issues may also arise for married women whose proof-of-citizenship documents list maiden names different from their current registered name. Reports indicate similar problems occurred in states like New Hampshire after implementing comparable state-level laws. Consequently, these potential hurdles could affect certain groups disproportionately and create confusion.

Constitutional Questions Raised by the Trump Election Order Citizenship Mandate

The executive order faces immediate, significant legal hurdles. These center primarily on the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, the Constitution’s Elections Clause grants states primary authority. States determine the “times, places and manner” of conducting elections. While Congress has override power, the President generally does not possess this authority directly.

Hence, critics argue the Trump Election Order Citizenship rule and other mandates are unlawful. Legal experts and Democratic officials, such as Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, call it federal overreach. They also label it an unconstitutional assertion of presidential power.

Reflecting these constitutional concerns, a lawsuit was quickly filed. The Campaign Legal Center and the State Democracy Defenders Fund filed suit in D.C. federal court representing several voter advocacy groups. As reported by the Associated Press, the lawsuit seeks to block the order. It argues the order violates the Constitution and infringes on voting rights. Undoubtedly, more legal challenges are expected.

Divided Reactions to the Trump Election Order Citizenship Rule

Predictably, reactions to the executive order show a clear partisan split:

• Opposition: Democrats and voting rights advocates strongly condemned the order. For instance, Rep. Joe Morelle called it “immoral and illegal.” Similarly, Jena Griswold termed it an “unlawful weaponization of the federal government.” They argue it aims to make voting harder.
• Support: On the other hand, some Republicans praised the move. Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, for example, called it a “great first step for election integrity reform nationwide.” Likewise, Rep. Bryan Steil, a key House Republican overseeing elections, welcomed it as an action to “secure our elections.”

How KAASS LAW Can Help

Navigating the complexities of how federal actions might impact individual rights requires careful legal understanding. While challenges to federal executive orders often involve specialized constitutional law, the effects of such orders can sometimes raise questions related to other areas. KAASS LAW assists clients in California across various practice areas where rights may be implicated, including potential issues related to Discrimination. If you have legal concerns within our areas of practice, we invite you to Contact Us for a consultation.

Conclusion: Uncertainty and Legal Battles Ahead

President Trump’s executive order attempts major changes to U.S. elections, mandating proof of citizenship for voting and altering ballot deadlines. While framed as enhancing election integrity, the Trump Election Order Citizenship requirement drew strong criticism. Concerns include potential voter disenfranchisement and infringing on states’ constitutional authority.

Consequently, with lawsuits already filed and more anticipated, the order’s future is highly uncertain. Its implementation faces significant legal battles. Ultimately, the core conflict remains federal directives versus state control over elections. This issue will likely play out in courtrooms soon.