Shocking: Trump Signs Order Aims to Overhaul US Elections

Trump’s Executive Order on US Elections

President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed a sweeping executive action to overhaul elections in the U.S., including requiring documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections and demanding that all ballots be received by Election Day.

The order says the U.S. has failed “to enforce basic and necessary election protections” and calls on states to work with federal agencies to share voter lists and prosecute election crimes. It threatens to pull federal funding from states where election officials don’t comply.

Documentary Proof of Citizenship Requirement

The order’s documentary proof of citizenship requirement signals that the president is not waiting for congressional Republicans to pass their long-anticipated Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE Act, which has aimed to do the same thing.

Voting in federal elections by noncitizens is already illegal and can result in felony charges and deportation. Voting rights groups have expressed concerns that the requirement could disenfranchise people.

According to a 2023 report by the Brennan Center for Justice and other groups, an estimated 9% of U.S. citizens of voting age, or 21.3 million people, do not have proof of citizenship readily available. There are also concerns that married women who have changed their names will encounter trouble when trying to register because their birth certificates list their maiden names.

Impact on Voters

The requirement could have significant implications for voters, particularly for those who may not have access to the necessary documentation. For instance, married women who have changed their names may struggle to provide proof of citizenship, potentially leading to difficulties in registering to vote.

Additionally, the requirement may disproportionately affect marginalized communities, who may have limited access to necessary documentation or face additional barriers in obtaining it.

• Marginalized communities may have limited access to necessary documentation, making it more difficult for them to comply with the requirement.
• The requirement may exacerbate existing barriers to voting, particularly for groups already facing disenfranchisement.

Trump’s order directs federal agencies including the Department of Homeland Security, the Social Security Administration and the State Department to share with election officials federal data that could help them identify noncitizens on their rolls.

It also says the attorney general should “prioritize enforcement of federal election integrity laws” in states that don’t share information about suspected election crimes with the federal government.

The order aims to require votes to be “cast and received” by Election Day and says federal funding should be conditional on state compliance.

Analysis of the Legal Implications and Potential Challenges to the Order

The executive order signed by President Donald Trump on Tuesday represents a significant intervention into the electoral process, primarily through the establishment of a documentary proof of citizenship requirement for voter registration. This requirement is heavily contested on several legal fronts. The order mandates that federal agencies work in conjunction with state and local officials to identify and remove noncitizens from voter rolls. The potential for legal challenges against this order is substantial, as it infringes upon state sovereignty and the autonomy states historically possess in regulating elections.

Legal experts predict that the order will face multiple challenges, not only on constitutional grounds but also because it undermines established voting rights and practices. States and constitutional scholars argue that the order oversteps executive authority, as the Constitution grants states the primary responsibility for regulating elections within their jurisdictions.

Furthermore, the order’s requirement that all ballots be received by Election Day, as opposed to postmarked by that day, could challenge existing state election laws. This change is particularly contentious in states like California and Massachusetts, where ballots received up to several days after Election Day are counted if postmarked by the deadline. The legal basis for this modification is questionable and likely to be contested in court.

Federal Agency Involvement and Funding

Explanation of How Federal Agencies Will Be Involved in Identifying Noncitizens on Voter Rolls

President Trump’s executive order directs federal agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Social Security Administration (SSA), and the Department of State (DOS) to collaborate with state and local election officials. These agencies are mandated to share federal data that can help identify noncitizens on voter rolls, which could significantly alter the current practices and potentially lead to disenfranchisement of eligible voters due to administrative errors or lack of accurate documentation.

The DHS, for instance, will be required to cross-reference voter registration data with citizenship records, while the SSA will provide information regarding the citizenship status of registered voters as per its database. The DOS may contribute passport and visa data to further the identification process. However, such sharing of sensitive information could raise privacy concerns and necessitate stringent security measures to prevent unauthorized access and misuse.

Potential for Federal Funding to Be Conditional on State Compliance

One of the more contentious aspects of the order is the potential for federal funding to be made conditional on state compliance with the new voter registration requirements. States that fail to implement the order’s mandates risk losing federal support for election-related activities. This conditional funding strategy could lead to a power struggle between federal and state governments, with states potentially resisting federal coercion and defending their right to manage election processes independently.

State and local election officials may find this aspect of the order particularly daunting, as compliance with the new requirements could necessitate significant changes to existing voter registration systems, potentially causing delays and increased costs. The threat of losing federal funding for election operations could force states into a difficult position, as they balance the need for federal funds with the constitutional rights of their citizens to vote without undue restrictions.

Implications for State and Local Election Officials

State and local election officials are likely to face significant challenges in implementing the new requirements stipulated by the executive order. The logistical complexities involved in cross-referencing voter rolls with federal databases could prove overwhelming, potentially disrupting the electoral process and leading to inaccuracies or omissions. These issues could disproportionately affect certain demographics, such as elderly voters, those with name changes due to marriage, or individuals who lack immediate access to proof of citizenship documentation.

Moreover, the procedural burdens imposed by the order, such as the need to verify documentation and enforce stricter deadlines for ballot receipt, could exacerbate existing challenges in voter registration and turnout. The order’s stipulation that ballots be cast and received by Election Day, as opposed to postmarked, could further complicate the election process, particularly for those who rely on mail-in ballots.

Legal Challenges and Reactions

Overview of the Potential Legal Challenges to the Order

The legal challenges to President Trump’s executive order are anticipated to be numerous and potentially impactful. The order’s core components, particularly the requirement for documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration and the conditional funding mechanism, are subject to scrutiny on constitutional grounds. Critics argue that the order infringes upon the states’ rights under the 10th Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people.

The Supreme Court has previously upheld the right of states to regulate elections, and any federal action that purports to dictate state election laws can be seen as an overreach. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 and subsequent amendments have aimed to protect against discriminatory practices, and the new executive order could be challenged as a form of voter suppression. Voting rights groups have already expressed concerns that the order could disproportionately affect certain demographic groups, potentially leading to disenfranchisement.

Reactions from Voting Rights Groups, Politicians, and Experts

Voting rights groups and legal experts have reacted with alarm to the executive order, viewing it as a potential tool for voter suppression. These groups argue that the stringent proof of citizenship requirement could disenfranchise millions of eligible voters who may not have the required documentation readily available. The order’s stringent deadlines for ballot receipt could also hinder the voting process, particularly for those who vote by mail.

Democratic Secretary of State Jena Griswold of Colorado has labeled the order as an “unlawful” weaponization of the federal government, asserting that it aims to complicate the voting process. Rep. Joe Morelle of New York, the ranking member of the House Election Committee, described the order as not just misguided, but immoral and illegal. The political implications are clear: this executive order has the potential to exacerbate partisan divides and raise concerns about the integrity and accessibility of the electoral process.

Analysis of the Potential Impact on the Political Landscape and Election Processes

The executive order’s potential impact on the political landscape and the election processes is profound. By imposing stricter requirements on voter registration and ballot submission, the order could alter voter turnout and access to the polls. The requirement for documentary proof of citizenship could disproportionately affect certain demographic groups, including elderly individuals, ethnic minorities, and those with less access to government-issued identification.

Moreover, the stipulation that ballots must be received by Election Day as opposed to postmarked by Election Day could significantly affect the mail-in voting process, which has become a critical component of the voting process, especially during the current public health crisis. The potential for disenfranchisement is a serious concern, as is the possibility of increased voter fraud allegations and subsequent legal battles.

Experts predict that the order will lead to a surge in litigation as states and voting rights groups seek to block the implementation of these new requirements. The legal challenges will likely focus on the order’s constitutionality, its potential to suppress voter turnout, and its impact on the existing legal framework governing the right to vote. The order’s emphasis on federal oversight and funding conditions could also lead to a shift in the balance of power between the federal government and the states, potentially leading to significant legal and political ramifications.