Former President Donald Trump has signed an extensive executive order aimed at altering how elections are conducted across the United States. The order, which primarily focuses on mail-in voting and citizenship verification, has already sparked controversy, with legal experts questioning its constitutionality and potential impact on voter access.
Key Provisions of the Executive Order
The order mandates several significant changes, including:
- Requiring states to reject ballots that are not received by Election Day.
- Directing the Department of Justice (DOJ) to enforce these new ballot deadlines.
- Mandating the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to incorporate proof of citizenship requirements in the national voter registration form.
- Allowing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and DOJ to review state voter rolls and potentially issue subpoenas for non-compliance.
- Threatening to withhold federal funding from states that fail to adhere to the new mandates.
Impact on Mail-In Voting
One of the most significant aspects of the order is its directive that all ballots must be received by Election Day to be counted. This change directly affects mail-in voting, particularly in states that currently allow ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted even if they arrive later. States like California and North Carolina permit ballots to be counted up to several days after the election, provided they are postmarked in time.
Election law experts argue that such a mandate could disenfranchise voters, particularly in rural areas and among military personnel, where mail delays are common. Federal courts have previously ruled that states have the right to determine how they process absentee ballots, making the legal foundation of Trump’s order questionable.
Legal and Expert Reactions
Rick Hasen, a law professor at UCLA specializing in election law, expressed strong skepticism about the order’s legality. “Even putting aside the substance, there’s a huge question about whether Trump can direct the EAC to do anything,” Hasen said. “I think the answer is no. But this may well be tested in court.”
Justin Levitt, a former voting rights adviser under President Joe Biden, echoed these concerns, stating, “The vast majority of what it does is not lawful. The EAC was designed as an independent body, and its members must approve any changes by majority vote.”
Citizenship Verification Requirement
The executive order mandates that the national voter registration form include a proof-of-citizenship requirement. This move aligns with the objectives of the Republican-led SAVE Act, which seeks to ensure only U.S. citizens vote in federal elections. However, legal analysts point out that previous federal law already requires applicants to declare their citizenship under penalty of perjury, and the Supreme Court has previously blocked similar state-level attempts to impose stricter proof-of-citizenship requirements.
Critics argue that such a requirement could disproportionately impact low-income voters, the elderly, and minority communities, who may lack access to the necessary documentation. Voter fraud remains exceedingly rare, with studies showing that instances of non-citizens voting are statistically insignificant.
Federal vs. State Authority in Elections
Elections in the U.S. are primarily administered at the state level, with each state setting its own rules regarding voter registration, ballot counting, and election certification. While federal law provides guidelines, states retain significant control over how elections are conducted. Trump’s order seeks to override some of these state-level decisions, which could lead to legal battles over states’ rights versus federal authority.
Potential Legal Challenges
Several advocacy groups and state attorneys general are expected to challenge the order in court, arguing that it exceeds executive authority and infringes on state election administration. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other voting rights organizations have already signaled their intent to file lawsuits.
“This order is a clear overreach and an attempt to circumvent Congress,” said Dale Ho, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project. “It will undoubtedly face immediate legal challenges.”
Political Reactions
Trump, speaking at the White House during the signing of the order, defended the measures as necessary to prevent election fraud. “Election fraud. You’ve heard the term. We’ll end it, hopefully. At least, this will go a long way toward ending it,” he said. “We got to straighten out our elections.”
Democratic lawmakers and civil rights groups swiftly condemned the order, accusing Trump of attempting to suppress voter turnout. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called the move “a blatant attempt to rig future elections by creating barriers to voting.”
Trump’s executive order is poised to become a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over voting rights in the U.S. With legal challenges looming and opposition mounting, the order’s future remains uncertain. As courts weigh in, the impact on upcoming elections could be profound, determining how millions of Americans cast their ballots in the years ahead.
