A second federal judge has blocked an executive order from President Donald Trump aimed at overhauling U.S. elections, marking another significant legal challenge to the administration’s efforts to reform electoral procedures. The executive order, signed on March 25, sought to mandate proof of citizenship for all voters registering to participate in federal elections, limit mail-in ballots to those received by Election Day, and condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the new ballot deadlines. Federal Judge Denise J. Casper of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts ruled that the Constitution does not grant the President specific powers over elections, emphasizing that such authority lies with the states. The judge argued that the order would usurp the constitutional power of the states, which she called a fundamental principle of the American system.
The ruling follows a challenge by a group of Democratic state attorneys general, who argued that the directive overstepped presidential authority and violated state constitutional powers. These attorneys general claimed that the order sought to amend election law by fiat, effectively rewriting the rules without legislative approval. The White House, however, defended the order as a necessary step to ensure the integrity of American elections, calling the citizenship verification requirement a ‘commonsense’ measure. In the executive order, Trump stated that modern, developed nations have embraced more rigorous verification processes, such as biometric databases in India and Brazil, while the United States relies on self-attestation for citizenship. He highlighted the disparities in voting methods across the country, noting that while countries like Denmark and Sweden restrict mail-in voting to those unable to vote in person, many U.S. states have embraced mass voting by mail, often with minimal oversight.
Casper also cited the practical burdens imposed on states by the new requirements, noting that implementing the order would involve significant efforts and costs. The judge emphasized that the order’s requirements would not only disrupt existing electoral systems but also create logistical challenges without clear benefits to election integrity. This decision adds to a growing list of legal challenges against the executive order, with a previous federal judge in Washington, D.C., also blocking parts of the directive, including the proof-of-citizenship requirement for the federal voter registration form. The legal battles over Trump’s election overhaul have become a focal point in the broader debate over federal versus state authority in electoral matters, reflecting deeper ideological divides over the role of the executive branch in shaping election policies.