You might remember the nationwide debate back in March when President Trump signed an executive order called “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections.” Although one of his many EOs, this one raised significant concerns about democracy because it said that everyone has to show proof of U.S. citizenship to vote. The issue was put squarely before the federal courts, and last Friday, a judge struck down the order as unconstitutional. Before we dig in to that ruling, let’s recap on how we got here.
Overview of the Executive Order
Trump’s March order listed things like a U.S. passport, Real ID, military ID, or certain government photo IDs as acceptable proof. In the past, Americans have generally not been required to present official proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections. Most states only required you to sign a form swearing you were a citizen when you registered to vote, and this was done under penalty of perjury. Only a few states have tried to require extra documents (like a passport or birth certificate), but these efforts often faced legal challenges and were usually blocked by the courts or overturned.
The EO also applied to mail-in ballots, saying that they must be counted only if received by Election Day. Before, the deadline for having your mail-in ballot counted in U.S. elections depended on your state’s laws. Most states require that your mail-in or absentee ballot be received by election officials by the close of polls on Election Day to be counted. However, in several states, as long as the ballot was postmarked by Election Day, it could still be counted if it arrived a few days later — usually within a set window, like three to ten days after Election Day
Under the EO, if a state doesn’t follow the rules, it could lose federal funding. Many people across the country were concerned that the rules could make it harder for many citizens to vote. For example, women who changed their last name, transgender people, people with disabilities, older folks, and even people serving in the military overseas could have a tough time with the paperwork or deadlines. And while it’s already illegal for non-citizens to vote, voter fraud has been shown to be exceedingly rare.
Voter Rights Groups Band Together
The EO also raised questions about whether the president has the legal power to make these changes. Usually, states control their own election rules, not the federal government. Civil rights and voting rights groups argued the order posed constitutional and practical concerns, claiming it overstepped the president’s authority by disregarding the balance of power between the White House, Congress, and the states. It wasn’t long before the matter was taken to court.
Three different organizations (of Latino communities, military families, and Arizona students, respectively) immediately banded together to sue a bunch of government defendants, including the Executive Office of the President, the United States Election Assistance Commission (EAC), the Department of Justice, the Department of Defense, the Attorney General, and the Federal Voting Assistance Program.
The legal arguments focus on the claim that Trump’s March EO exceeds presidential authority by mandating strict proof-of-citizenship requirements to register to vote and altering rules about mail-in ballots. The plaintiffs argued that these actions violate the U.S. Constitution’s separation of powers and federalism principles by encroaching on areas expressly reserved for Congress and the states.
Their complaint asserted that Congress established clear rules, which the EAC, as an independent agency, holds exclusive authority to develop the federal voter registration form. The president, they argued, cannot unilaterally impose new documentation requirements or deny federal funding as leverage. The plaintiffs also claimed the order’s mail-in ballot changes infringe on state authority and unfairly burden voters, especially minorities, military families, and students.
Lawsuit Launched
The plaintiffs asked the federal court in D.C. to declare the EO’s proof-of-citizenship and mail ballot deadline provisions unconstitutional and unlawful, and also to block the enforcement or implementation of these parts.
After the lawsuit was filed, the case quickly moved through the federal court in D.C., with more voting rights groups and Democratic Party organizations joining as plaintiffs. The lawsuits were consolidated, and the court established an expedited schedule, recognizing the importance of the outcome for the upcoming elections.
Following a preliminary hearing, the court issued an order temporarily halting the part of the executive order that required documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration. Over the next several months, all parties submitted their arguments and evidence, with the court focusing especially on whether the president had the authority to change federal voter registration requirements.
Judge Rules for Plaintiffs
On October 31, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued a final ruling in the case, siding with the plaintiffs. She held that the president does not have the constitutional authority to unilaterally change federal election procedures or override Congress and the states on voting qualifications.
In her legal reasoning, the judge explained that the Constitution assigns election rulemaking power to Congress and the states, not to the president. She concluded that modifying voter registration rules through executive action would breach the separation of powers and violate longstanding precedents. The president cannot control the content of the federal voter registration form, nor dictate what proof of citizenship is required; these decisions must be made by statute and through the independent EAC.
The ruling enforced a permanent injunction against the EAC, stating it could not implement or require the new citizenship documentation as directed in the executive order. Judge Kollar-Kotelly permanently blocked the part of the EO that mandated documentary proof of U.S. citizenship for federal voter registration. The upshot is that the federal voter registration process will remain as it was prior to Trump’s March order; no extra documentation requirements for citizenship, beyond what is already required by law.
Reactions and the Road Ahead
The plaintiffs said in a joint statement in the wake of the ruling: “The court’s ruling confirms what we have long argued: the President may not rewrite election law to impose a burdensome show-your-papers rule that would shut out countless Americans from the ballot box. This executive order was an attempted overreach of power, bypassing the Constitution’s clear allocation of authority to Congress and the states to set election rules. Our democracy is strongest when every eligible voter can register and vote free from expensive and unnecessary requirements.”
However, the Trump administration will appeal. In the meantime, unless a higher court reverses the decision, federal voter registration rules will be unchanged.
Related Resources
- Voting Laws (FindLaw’s Learn About the Law)
- Battles Over Gerrymandering Precede Looming Supreme Court Case (FindLaw’s Federal Courts)
- North Carolina Remains Legal Battleground After Split Decision on Gubernatorial Powers (FindLaw’s Courtside)
